Until a few years ago Cambridge possessed a dignified and justly prized historical relic in the Washington Elm. As a monument the tree was justly famous. Those who visited Cambridge had it pointed out to them. Those who did not visit Cambridge knew the old tree by reputation and by photographs of it in history boks. As a monument the tree became a landmark, and, having a good deal more personality and atmosphere about it than an artificial statue could have had, it was invested with a peculiar symbolism. Now that it has gone, the suggestion is made that it is worth commemorating by a replica of itself in concrete.

The suggestion is less weird than it at first sounds in that the creation of an artificial tree is said to be practical, and it seems assured that a detailed likeness of the old tree could be set up. But the significance of such a monument is a trifle uncertain, even if it could be erected.

If the Washington elm was famous as being a particularly fine specimen of a tree, a reproduction of it on the spot where it stood might be appropriate, though slightly blsarre. But the more logical feeling would be that the historical event, from association with which the tree had glory thrust upon it, is the thing chiefly to be remembered. The old elm had the dignity of a genuine souvenir, which characteristic is not likely to be present in an effigy in concrete. As a link with the past an artificial tree might be novel but scarcely compelling. If the spot is to be commemorated for the event that happened there, it could be done more directly. The Washington Elm and the Delaware River possess about equally strong traditions in association with the life of Washington, but no one has yet thought of maintaining a permanent supply of ice in the Delaware as a realistic memorial.