Viewing page 96 of 320

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

there should be a question as to the thought behind it. He emphasized that he had now submitted a revised plan for the site, only. His original enthusiasm for the Fort Washington site recognized that it was Government-owned but unfortunately the National Park Service was not willing to give up the park to us.

Senator Anderson asked by what authority the National Park Service had refused. Mr. Brown explained that the land was under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior by law and that the Secretary of the Interior with whom we had met had refused to transfer it to us. Senator Anderson commented that Interior had no veto power over a proposal which should be decided by the Congress. He said that the Advisory Board was wise in its first selection of a site which involved no land cost but now with a $3 million site and a $30 or $40 million building plan, there would be objection in the Congress. Senator Anderson said that President Eisenhower had proposed a very fine program to glorify the good things that the Armed Forces accomplish.

Mr. Brown remarked that this museum would not glorify militarists. 

Senator Anderson recalled that Mr. Eisenhower had placed the study in the hands of his own friends but that it had died. It was revised in 1961 but we could not find a place to put it. We now have a situation that may cost a lot of money. He concurred with Mr. Bow's and Senator Saltonstall's view that appropriations would be hard to get. He added that he does not understand why the Advisory Board, set up by law, which wants a certain piece of ground should be told by the Park Service that it cannot have it.

Mr. Brown explained that the land was in the possession of the Park Service. Senator Anderson said that they do not have sovereignty. Mr. Brown responded that not only did the Park Service refuse to cede, but the National Capital Planning Commission also is against it.