From the 6 March 1903 issue of The New York Times.

WAR CONTROVERSY EXPECTED.


Union Veterans Likely to Oppose the Placing of a Statue of Gen. Lee in Statuary Hall.
Special to The New York Times.

WASHINGTON, March 5.—Decided opposition to the proposal of the Virginia Legislature to place a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee in Statuary Hall will probably be made by the Grand Army of the Republic and other organizations in many of the Northern States. Representative Lacy of Iowa, a native of Virginia, deprecates the action of the Virginia Legislature in passing the bill providing for the statue.

“I am sorry the Legislature acted that way,” said Mr. Lacy. “At a time when everybody is feeling fairly good to his neighbor this question of the propriety of placing the statue in the hall is injected and will result in much ill-feeling.

“The action of the Legislature means that the Confederacy is to be exploited and glorified through Gen. Lee’s statue. It would not surprise me to see Kansas now provide for a statue to John Brown and place it alongside of that of Lee. This would add to the ill-feeling, and there is no telling when the agitation would stop. I am a Virg[i]nian myself. I was born in New Martinsville, which is now in West Virginia.”

The design for the statue will have to be determined upon after Gov. Montague signs the bill, and a sculptor must be chosen for the work. All this, with the work, will probably postpone any possible conflict of a wordy character about the statue for eighteen months or two years.

The law relating to Statuary Hall provides that each State, by direction of the President, has permission to place two statues in the hall. Congress does not exercise any direct authority in the matter except to act upon the acceptance of a statue.