Our forefathers wrote in the canon of human government that a man has the right to be free and happy. They formed a sisterhood of states on that simple creed, and their challenge became the tocsin cry of the world’s oppressed souls. Those words have changed the philosophy of the world’s governments. They are the motive, spirit and purpose back of the Rushmore memorial. We have not created a monument to Washington or Jefferson or Lincoln or Roosevelt, but to the meaning of those eleven words as maintained in our government by those four great leaders. Those words--man has a right to be free and to be happy--hold the Western experiment as the guide that leaped out of medieval Europe, more important to humanity’s immortality than creeds and governments. So the names of the Presidents to be carved on Mount Rushmore were agreed on by Norbeck, Robinson and Borglum as early as the fall of 1925. But that wasn’t the end of it. Of course not. From press reports it was difficult to see that any two people agreed on any man as a possible candidate for the super carving. The women’s clubs got turned into a movement for Dr. Susan B. Anthony, the noted feminist. And they argued bitterly and earnestly. Somebody introduced a bill in Congress for her support. Gutzon, however, wasn’t to be shaken. He said that the men selected might not be the greatest the United States had produced, but they exemplified the four great periods of the country’s progress and so deserved their places in the memorial. He would carve other figures later, he said, in some places where they would not be crowded. He went to work first on the head of Washington and studied long in an attempt to find out what kind of man he was. Of the familiar Washington portraits he said: I have examined all the available portraits of value--the Stuart and Trumbull portraits, and the Houdon portrait which I consider best of all. Not the statue by Houdon in Richmond, the figure of which is poor, but the unretouched mask by Houdon which is now in the Corcoran Art Gallery. It is unquestionably the most valuable evidence of the appearance of Washington extant. I choose to represent him before retirement. In retirement a certain fulness of cheek becomes apparent as in Stuart’s last picture. His face, definitely masculine, takes on a more rugged form and reminds one of Cromwell at forty-five. There is much of the robust Britisher, the country squire or nobleman. There is none of the prettified Virginia gentleman that Stuart always produced. I recall a story to the effect that Martha Washington once told him that Stuart had said he had an awful temper, and that he must warn Stuart not to circulate such stories. Washington is said to have pondered a moment and replied, “My dear, I’m afraid Mr. Stuart is right.”