|
The National Academy of Sciences’ Committees on the Restoration of the Declaration of Independence, 1880 and 1903
[The following narrative is taken from Frederick W. True’s Semi-centennial history of the National Academy of Sciences, A History of the First Half-Century of the National Academy of Sciences 1863-1913, pp. 279-284.]
On July 19, 1776, Congress passed the following resolution:
“Resolved, That the Declaration [of Independence] passed on the 4th be fairly engrossed on parchment with the title and stile [sic] of ‘The unanimous declaration of the thirteen united states [sic] of America’ & that the same when engrossed by signed by every member of Congress.” [See Hazleton, J. H. The Declaration of Independence—Its History, 1906, p. 208.]
On August 2 the Journal of Congress informs us “The Declaration of independence [sic] being engrossed & compared at the table was signed.” [Loc. cit.]
While the majority of members signed on this date, the signatures of a few were not affixed until some months later.
This parchment copy of the Declaration has passed through many vicissitudes. It appears to have been in Baltimore when Congress was sitting there in 1777, but its history between that date and 1814 is uncertain. Hazleton is of the opinion that it was transferred to Washington in 1800 when that city became the seat of government. In 1814, during the war with the British, it appears to have been carried into Virginia for safety. In 1823, a copperplate facsimile was made by order of John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, from which 200 copies were struck off and distributed in accordance with a resolution of Congress. In a letter to the Senate (which received it on January 2, 1824, Secretary Adams remarked:
“An exact facsimile, engraved in copperplate, has been made by direction of this department, of the original copy of the Declaration of Independence, engrossed on parchment…Two hundred copies have been struck off from this plate, and are now at the office of this department, subject to the disposal of Congress.” [Annals of Congress. See Hazleton, op. cit., p. 289.]
From 1824 to 1840 the Declaration on parchment seem to have been kept at the Department of State, but in 1841 it was transferred to the new building of the Patent Office. Here it remained until 1877 when it was returned to the Department of State and preserved in the War, State and Navy building, then just completed. It has remained there until the present time.
At the end of a century the Government and the people awoke to the fact that the precious parchment had deteriorated as a result of the vicissitudes to which it had been subjected, and was apparently in danger of destruction. In 1880 Congress passed an Act calling on the Secretary of the Interior and the National Academy of Sciences to make an examination of it, with a view to determining what steps should be taken to prevent its further deterioration, or, if possible, to restore it to its original condition. In May of that Year Carl Schurz, Secretary of the Interior, requested that a committee be named by the President of the Academy. President Wm. B. Rogers thereupon appointed Wolcott Gibbs, J. E. Hilgard, C. F. Chandler, R. E. Rogers and J. Lawrence Smith. This committee submitted a brief report on January 18, 1881, as follows:
“Professor Wm. B. Rogers,
“President of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Sir: The Committee of the National Academy of Sciences, to which was referred the question of the restoration of the faded writing of the original manuscript of the Declaration of Independence, respectfully reports:
“That, in the judgment of the Committee, it is not expedient to attempt to restore the manuscript by chemical means, partly because such methods of restoration are at best imperfect and uncertain in their results, and partly because the Committee believes that the injury to the document in question is due, not merely to the fading of the ink employed, but also and in a large measure to the fact that press copies have been taken from the original, so that a part of the ink has been removed from the parchment.
“The Committee is therefore of the opinion that it will be best, either to cover the present receptacle of the manuscript with an opaque lid or to remove the manuscript from its frame and place it in a portfolio, where it may be protected from the action of light; and, furthermore, that no press copies of any part of it should in future be permitted.” [Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., vol. 1, pp. 180, 181.]
As a result of this report the receptacle containing the parchment was provided with wooden doors. It was removed from exhibition in 1893, sealed between glass plates and placed in a steel safe, where it was no longer exposed to light and was secure from careless handling. It continued thus until 1903 when John Hay, Secretary of State, entertaining suspicions that the document was still deteriorating, requested that it be examined again by a committee of the Academy. Under date of April 14, 1903, he addressed the following letter [Rep. Nat. Acad. Sci. for 1903, p. 13] to President Agassiz:
“Department of State,
Washington, April 14, 1903.
“Alexander Agassiz, Esq.,
“President of the National Academy of Sciences, Cambridge, Mass.
“Sir: In accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the act of incorporating the National Academy of Sciences, I desire to invite the attention of the National Academy of Sciences to the condition of the Declaration of Independence, and to suggest that a committee be appointed to examine it in the library of this Department, and that such recommendations as may seem practicable be made to me touching its preservation. It is now kept out of the light, sealed between two sheets of glass, presumably proof against air, and locked in a steel safe. I am unable to say, however, that, in spite of these precautions, observed for the past ten years, the text is not continuing to fade and the parchment to wrinkle and perhaps to break.
“I am, sir, your obedient servant,
“John Hay.”
The President thereupon appointed C. F. Chandler, J. S. Billings and Ira Remsen to consider the question a second time. The report of this committee [This report was reprinted by the Department of State in the form of a circular, and the following remarks were added to it: “The Secretary of State has directed that the recommendations of the committee as set forth in the foregoing report be observed. The Department of State has no copies of the Declaration of Independence in any form for distribution.”] is of such general interest that it seems desirable to quote it in full, together with the letter of acknowledgment written by the Secretary of State upon its receipt.
“New York, April 24, 1903
“Hon. John Hay, Secretary of State.
“Dear Sir: In response to a communication received from you, a committee was appointed by President Agassiz, of the National Academy of Sciences, to confer with you with regard to the present condition of the Declaration of Independence, and to make such recommendations as should seem desirable to insure the preservation of this precious instrument. The committee was also requested to send their report to you directly, in order to avoid the delay which might result from reporting in the usual manner to the officers of the Academy. The members of the committee are John S. Billings, Ira Remsen, and Charles F. Chandler.
“After conferring with you, the committee was given an opportunity to make a careful examination of the instrument, with the assistance of Mr. A. H. Allen, Chief of the Bureau of Rolls and Library, and with the assistance of Dr. Wilbur M. Grey, of the Army Medical Museum.
“The instrument has suffered very seriously from the very harsh treatment to which it was exposed in the earlier years of the Republic. Folding and rolling have creased and broken the parchment. The wet press-copying operation, to which it was exposed about 1820, for the purpose of producing a facsimile copy, removed a large portion of the ink. Subsequent exposure to the action of light for more than thirty years, while the instrument was placed on exhibition, has resulted in the fading of the ink, particularly in the signatures. The present method of caring for the instrument seems to be the best that can be suggested.
“The committee is pleased to find that no evidence of mold or other disintegrating agents can be discovered upon the parchment by careful microscopic examination, nor any evidence that disintegration is now in progress.
“The investigation has been facilitated by the photograph that was taken in 1883, two years after the previous examination by a committee of the Academy, and we would suggest the desirability of taking another photograph of about the same size, at the present time, and from time to time in the future, as an aid to future investigation.
“The committee does not consider it wise to apply any chemicals with a view to restoring the original color of the ink, because such application could be but partially successful, as a considerable percentage of the original ink was removed in making the copy about 1820, and also because such application might result in serious discoloration of the parchment; nor does the committee consider it necessary or advisable to apply any solution, such as collodion, paraffin, etc., with a view to strengthening the parchment or making it moisture proof.
“The committee is of the opinion that the present method of protecting the instrument should be continued; that it should be kept in the dark, and as dry as possible, and never placed on exhibition.
“Very respectfully yours,
“Charles F. Chandler,
Chairman of the Committee.”
[Rep. Nat. Acad. Sci. for 1903, pp. 13-15.]
Secretary Hay replied to this letter as follows:
“Department of State,
Washington, April 27, 1903.
“Prof. C. F. Chandler,
“Chairman Committee of the National Academy of Sciences
to examine the present condition of the Declaration of Independence
“Sir: I have received your letter of April 24 instant, conveying the report of the committee appointed by President Agassiz of the National Academy of Sciences to confer with me respecting the present condition of the Declaration of Independence, and I beg you to accept for yourself and your colleagues of the committee—President Remsen, of the Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Billings, of the New York Public Library—my thanks for the promptness and thoroughness of the examination made by the committee, among the results of which is the gratifying assurance that no evidence of mold or other disintegrating agents were discovered upon the parchment under the microscope. I am gratified also to learn that the present method of caring for the instrument meets the concurrence of the committee.
“The suggestions and recommendations made by yourself and your colleagues will be attentively observed by the Department, and I have already caused your advice to be followed by securing a photograph for comparison with that of 1883, and with others to be taken hereafter, from time to time, as aids to future investigations.
“The conclusions of the committee, that the application of any chemicals with the view of restoring the original color of the ink would be unwise, and that the application of any solution, such as collodion, paraffin, etc., is neither necessary nor advisable for the purpose of strengthening the parchment or making it moisture proof, are welcome as avoiding experimental treatment of a document so precious and historic.
“Again thanking the committee for their attention and care,
“I am sir, your obedient servant,
“John Hay.”
[Rep. Nat. Acad. Sci. for 1903, pp. 14, 15.]
It appears from the foregoing correspondence that the second committee agreed with the first as to the principal causes of the deterioration observable in the document and as to the best means of preventing further damage. The press copying mentioned is no doubt that which took place when the copperplate facsimile was made by direction of John Quincy Adams in 1824. It will be observed that a photograph of the document was made in 1883 and again in 1903, but since that latter date no more appear to have been taken. The safe containing it has been opened but once during the last decade, namely, in May, 1911. 
|
|
Subscribe to e-newsletters |
Feedback | Back to Top