Judge Lewis's Testimony

Lewis went on to describe each of the buildings and sites in the areas recommended in the Shrines Commission's report. He stressed their associations with the founding fathers. Here Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and their fellows had lived, worked, worshiped, and participated in the city's social and intellectual life. He included the two projects eliminated by the National Park Service, Project B, the south mall, and Project E, land around Christ Church. At this juncture the committee interrupted Lewis to ask why the Shrines Commission had recommended the two areas. One congressman pointed out that National Park Service disapproval was not conclusive for members of Congress. Lewis responded that it was his understanding that the park service opposed the two areas because they involved Christ Church, St. Mary's, and other churches, although they did not actually take land belonging to religious institutions. Furthermore, the park service believed that these projects should be undertaken by the city. Encouraged by the subcommittee's response, he launched a spirited defense of the Shrines Commission's decisions, especially in regard to Project B. He concluded by reminding the congressmen of the importance of protecting these national shrines from fire. Only weeks earlier there had been a fire in a building on the north side of Chestnut Street, directly across from Independence Hall. Every piece of fire apparatus in the city had been called out, and it had been necessary to turn on the sprinkler system that protected the Hall. The safety of the historic sites demanded the removal of what Lewis viewed as a collection of deteriorating structures nearby.

The subcommittee accepted Lewis's testimony with enthusiasm. The members had nothing but praise for the inspirational force of the report and its subject. Several asserted that it should be printed and distributed to every school in the country. After this reception, the remainder of the testimony could only be anticlimactic. Others from Philadelphia spoke briefly in favor of the bill. Drury reviewed the National Park Service's proposed amendments, stressing those that were noncontroversial, such as the change of name and the provisions for cooperative agreements. The subcommittee's only question concerned operating costs, about which Drury could not be specific.