The Place of Haym Salomon in American History: Haym Salomon Committee Replies to Mr. Max Kohler’s Cr

The Haym Salomon Monument Committee issued a statement to-day in answer to the brochure published recently by Mr. Max J. Kohler, attacking the proposal to erect a monument to Salomon.

Kohler’s long harangue about Haym Salomon’s son, the statement says, has nothing to do with the merits of his patriot father. We are not proposing to erect a monument to the son. It is to Haym Salomon, the man who stood behind Robert Morris; the man who befriended Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence; the man who, as Madison said, lent him financial assistance, but refused to take any compensation; the man who helped Edmund Randolph, the Attorney General under George Washington, and a half dozen others. All of this Mr. Kohler admits in his pamphlet. We are proposing a monument to the man, who though only a few years in the country, was imprisoned by the British for his championship of the Revolutionary cause. He was sentenced to death, but he succeeded in escaping from prison. Mr. Kohler admits his imprisonment, but doubts the evidence that he was sentenced to death.

Historians tell us, the statement proceeds, that approximately one-third of the residents of the colonies were loyal to the British side, yet here was an immigrant, of only a few years in the country, already fighting for America and suffering imprisonment. Suppose for the moment, we grant Mr. Kohler’s objection and say that he was not sentenced to death, only imprisoned. By how much is the patriotism of Haym Salomon diminished? Is it absolutely essential that a man must be sentenced to death before a monument be erected to him?

We are proposing a monument to the men whom Robert Morris, the financial genius of the American Revolution, names more frequently than any other in his Diary-more frequently even than George Washington.

Mr. Kohler is further misrepresenting facts, the statement says, when he says that the relatives of Haym Salomon have asked us to desist from our campaign for a monument to their ancestor. The truth is that two of the relatives sent contributions to the campaign fund and are to-day members of the National Committee of the Salomon Monument campaign. It is, however, true that Mr. Kohler had for a long time been seeking to drive them by ceaseless annoyance with his objections into the mood of dissassociating themselves from the work.

Mr. Kohler’s charge that we have attempted to conceal the facts as to Salomon scarce earns an answer, the statement concludes. It is not in our power to burn down the archives of Congress or the historical shelves in the library, and it is therefore not in our power to conceal anything with respect to any historical personage. Our attempt rather has been to open these shelves to the public-to make known as far as possible the facts as to Salomon.