May 19, 1931. Mrs. Nancy C. Russell, 725 Oregon Boulevard, Pasadena, California. My dear Mrs. Russell: I have just received yours of May 16, with the inclosed [sic] clippings from the Times relative to the statue of Charley Russell. This is the first time I have ever seen a photo of the statue, and I confess on seeing it that I have great sympathy for your indignation. From the photo it looks more like a photo of Old Geronimo in his senile days than it does like Charley Russell. Surely the Montana Commission will not insist on accepting that design over your protest. At this minute I do not know def- initely the red tape involved in its acceptance. My fear is that whatever action a sovereign State may take in the matter of des- igniting one of its two most famous citizens, under the law will act as a finality. However, I will get busy at once and see whether or not there is any supervisory control to whom an appeal can be made. The fine Arts Commission created by Congress some years ago has general supervisory control over the buildings and parks of the District of Columbia, and it is barely possible their jurisdic- tion may extend to Statuary Hall. As soon as I can ascertain any- thing definite, I will immediately write you. [2] I well remember the very pleasant evening we spent at Lake McDonald, and my children who were with us at the time ofter [sic] re- fer to it. By the way, can you have reproduced for me by some photog- rapher the snapshot you mention of Charley Russell and myself on the porch at Lake McDonald. I would very much like a repro- duction of the photograph, and will gladly send the amount nec- essary. Yours, very truly, [signed] J.M. Dixon P.S. –Most States have a statutory provision, and I feel quite certain that Montana has one, that gives to the relatives of a deceased person the right to prevent, by injunction, cir- culation of statements or representations derogatory to the char- acter of their deceased relative. At the last extremity, you might even consider proceeding under that provision of the law in this present case, but I can not conceive of the committee’s going ahead over the protest of Charley Russell’s wife. – J.M.D. [Transcribed by Lauren B. Gerfen, 2012-12-03]