Chapter VII: The Third Seal

January 10, 1883, the Secretary of State, Theodore F. Frelinghuysen, addressed the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, Samuel J. Randall, asking for an appropriation of $1,000 to pay for having a new seal of the United States made. “Since the year 1782,” his letter said, “when the device was adopted, there have been, it is believed, but two dies of the obverse of the seal, the only side which has been employed up to this time for sealing documents. The reverse of the seal has never been engraved by the Government. The original die of the obverse, after being in use for about sixty years, was replaced by the present die, which has become very much worn and no longer gives clear impressions. It is also to be observed with respect to the latter that it does not strictly conform to the device established by law. It seems to me, therefore, to be eminently important that a new and correct die be made without delay.” He also advised that the reverse be cut as a compliance with the law and “a proper respect to pay to the founders of this Government, at this time, to carry out the purpose so clearly expressed by them in Congress, June 20, 1782.”

Falling in with this recommendation Congress appropriated, July 7, 1884 (23 Stat., 394), $1,000 “to enable the Secretary of State to obtain dies of the obverse and reverse of the seal of the United States, and appliances necessary for making impressions of the same.”

Mr. Theodore F. Dwight, Chief of the Bureau of Rolls and Library of the Department of State, supervised the work of designing the new seal. He called into consultation the eminent historical scholar, Justin Winsor, and Prof. Charles Eliot Norton, of Harvard; William H. Whitmore, the genealogist, author of Elements of Heraldry (New York, 1866), at that time the only work on heraldry by an American; John Denison Chaplin, jr., an authority on engraving, associate editor of the American Cyclopædia and later of Scribner’s art cyclopædias; and James Horton Whitehouse, chief designer of Messrs. Tiffany & Co., New York. The subject was thus considered from the three points of view of history, heraldry, and art. Professor Norton wrote:

A. It is greatly to be regretted that the device adopted by congress
in 1782 is of so elaborate and allegorical a character. The most
skilful treatment of it could hardly make it satisfactory as the
design for the seal of a great nation. * * *

B. But as this is now the established device, the best way, I believe,
to deal with it, would be to treat it as conventionally as
possible,—giving it a strictly heraldic character. * * *

As to the reverse, the device adopted by Congress is practically
incapable of effective treatment; it can hardly (however artistically
treated by the designer) look otherwise than as a dull emblem of a
masonic fraternity. * * *

Mr. Winsor commented upon Professor Norton’s notes. He agreed that the seal was not a good coat of arms. He thought, however, that it had not been the purpose of Congress “to show an heraldic bird”—that “the American eagle displayed proper” could not be an heraldic eagle. “Whether present authorities,” he continued, “can venture to correct their [the Congress’] bad taste, may be a question.” Of the reverse, he declared it was “both unintelligent and commonplace. If it can be kept in the dark as it seems to have been kept, why not keep it so?” On January 2, 1884, he wrote to Mr. Dwight:

When you say “It might be best to reproduce the original die,”—you
suggest what is really my opinion. There is a certain naïvely Archaic
look about it which is honest and covers a multitude of artistic sins,
in a way that will not be easy to do by a modernization of it. I like
to preserve such original devices.

Mr. Whitmore did not agree with Mr. Winsor. He wrote December 30, 1884:

I feel assured that the treatment should be heraldic. An eagle
_displayed_ must be an heraldic one. The term American eagle, I infer,
means a bald-headed eagle, not the European type which shows in
heraldry a tuft or crest on his head. This is allowable, just as a
double-headed eagle is.

The best examples give the wings raised to the shoulder and then
dropping, which is more graceful and natural.

As to the reverse he said: “It is a thankless task to arrange it, as Prof. Norton says; use it as little as possible.” Mr. Whitmore submitted designs which were intended to be an improvement heraldically on those under consideration, which he criticised, especially with reference to the arrows, the form of which had been changed under Mr. Dwight’s direction so as to represent a distinctively American Indian arrow. Mr. Dwight conformed to Mr. Whitmore’s suggestion, and “the technical form of barb” arrow was restored. Of the die of 1782 Mr. Dwight wrote to Mr. Whitmore January 6, 1885: “Is not that die to be regarded as in some sense sanctioned by long use, in view of its origin, as entitled to the same authority as a law?” In regard to the crest Mr. Dwight said: “On referring to the order of 1782 on this point, it seems that we have no liberty to depart from that form, as it reads: ‘A glory, or, breaking through a cloud proper, and surrounding thirteen stars.’ It has been advised that an appearance of more splendor would be gained by allowing the rays of the glory to extend beyond the clouds, as though piercing them; but to that advice I do not feel warranted in agreeing, as the old die gave no authority therefor.” Of the reverse he said: “For the present purposes we shall not order the reverse; as Mr. Winsor remarks, it has been so long kept in the dark, a few months more of shade will do it no harm. I would like to have your opinion if adverse to the cutting of that side. The law distinctly specifies it and it was not cut presumably at the same time as the obverse, because the latter was urgently needed, even as to day. The subject was probably lost sight of at that time, when all the thoughts of the fathers were engaged in the foundation of the Republic. I do not expect that the reverse can be conveniently used for the purpose of sealing documents, but it is not in my opinion improper that the device should be determined and cut.”

December 13, 1884, Messrs. Tiffany & Co. submitted the designs.

After having studied carefully the description of the devices as
adopted by Congress in 1782, and considered also the suggestions and
remarks that we have of late seen and received regarding the same, we
have carried them out strictly according to the rules of
heraldry. * * *

The eagle is the American bald eagle and has been drawn after careful
studies and made as natural as the rules of heraldry will permit. We
have decided that the third feather shall be the one extending to the
end of the wing. The escutcheon on the eagle’s breast is drawn as
described, the direction of the lines indicating the colors. As no
stars are mentioned in the chief, they have not been introduced here.
The suggestion to suspend the shield from the neck of the eagle by a
ribbon or cord, we have not carried out, as it would not be proper and
would rob the whole arms of its dignity.

The rays are purposely not extended beyond the clouds. All that is
desirable in that direction has been done, but to allow them to
project in the manner spoken of and as we often see them cut, would be
to convey a wrong and very weak idea of the original intention. We
have used the classical olive and have decided not to introduce the
flowers; the fruit (13) and the 13 leaves speak for themselves in a
very clear and positive manner, but the flowers, while they suggest a
growing and fruitful future, would as no special number could be used,
give an uncertainty not desirable, as it would always be supposed that
the particular number of flowers used must have a meaning while that
meaning is not there.

Indications of color should not be given in the olive branch, fruit,
arrows, scroll, etc.; they should be represented as termed in heraldry
‘proper’.

Regarding the reverse the pyramid is drawn to the scale of the great
pyramid; the side seen in perspective to the right means East, this
view being desired. The eye and the date on the foot of the pyramid
should not be incised; on ancient monumental work and work of that
character the die is sunk, or the impression it of course would be in
relief.

The letters used in the Latin are the simple and particular Roman
letters used, and in fact is the best letter used for the purpose.

Regarding the scroll containing the “E pluribus unum” we consider the
present form altogether the best to use as the sheet scroll mentioned
would interfere with the eagle, while the old form of scroll falls in
well with the general design. The dies will be cut in steel.

This letter may be said to be the argument for the Whitehouse designs. They were submitted to Mr. Champlin, who wrote, January 7, 1885:

It seems to me useless to regret that Congress did not adopt in 1782 a
different device for the great seal of the United States. The present
device was legally adopted and all we can do is to follow the
provisions of the act, having an eye, of course, to general heraldic
propriety; but even if the laws of heraldry are transgressed in some
minor particulars, I think we still are bound to follow the letter of
the law, despite the rules of heraldry. If we must have a strictly
heraldic seal, let us go to work ab initio and change the law.

If this be, as I believe it to be, the true way of dealing with the
question, let us see whether the designs furnished by Tiffany & Co.
fulfill the provisions of the law.

1. The law reads “Paleways of thirteen pieces, argent and gules, a
chief, azure”. The drawing marked A is correct in this particular.
This differs from the order of the stripes on the national
ensign. * * * The pales should all be of the same width.

2. “The escutcheon on the breast of the American eagle displayed
proper.” In Mr. Barton’s device of June 13, 1782, of which that
adopted by the committee is a modification, the American Eagle is
expressly called “the bald-headed eagle”, so there can be no question
on that point. The eagle must be an American eagle and not the
ordinary heraldic eagle. It must be displayed, not with _wings
displayed_ (in which case it would be represented perched), but
displayed—that is, with both wings and talons extended. In my opinion
the drawing is correct, though I would suggest that the treatment,
especially the wings, might be a little less realistic, and still
comply with the law.

3. “Holding in his dexter talon an olive branch, and in his sinister a
bundle of thirteen arrows, all proper, and in his beak” etc. The olive
branch and arrows should, of course, be of the conventional form as no
other is specified.

4. Crest—“A glory, or, breaking through a cloud, proper, and
surrounding thirteen stars forming a constellation, argent, on an
azure field.” This is bad, very bad, heraldically, but I see no way
out but to reproduce the original, which I think is done in the
drawing.

Reverse. “A pyramid unfinished.” The law does not call for a pyramid
of thirteen courses of stone. * * *

Mr. Champlin did not give an opinion on the propriety of cutting the reverse, but so general was the criticism of it, and so palpable were its shortcomings, that it was determined not to cut it, and Mr. Whitehouse’s design of it was not accepted. Its fate has been singular. It was prescribed as part of the seal by the act of 1782, but went unnoticed. The act of September 15, 1789, continued the seal as prescribed in 1782, but no effort was then made to design or cut the reverse. When the seal of 1841 was made it was still ignored, and in 1883 it was definitely determined, after designs had been drawn, to abandon it.

The act of July 7, 1884, made appropriation “to obtain dies of the obverse and reverse” of the seal, the act following the State Department’s request, and it had undoubtedly been the intention of the Department, when the appropriation was asked for, to cut the reverse; but its purpose was changed after fuller consideration, and it felt at liberty to leave this part of the new law unexecuted, as the law of 1782 had remained in part unexecuted for a hundred years. It may be added that when the exhibit of the State Department was prepared for the Chicago Exposition in 1892, large emblazonments of the obverse and reverse of the seal were painted, but the appearance presented by the reverse was so spiritless, prosaic, heavy, and inappropriate that it was never hung.

The design of the obverse of the seal of 1884 was determined upon, as we have seen, with great care. It was an enlargement with some modifications of the seal of 1782, the modifications being in the direction of a closer adherence to the law creating the seal. For example, the eagle’s head bears no crest, as in the European type and as advised against by Mr. Whitmore for the American eagle specified by the law.

THE SEAL (1902)

Face p. 63
]