"The background is very interesting," Gallucciosaid. "I think an historical explanation willserve an educational purpose an also deal with theissue being presented."

Complicating matters is the fact that thelibrary is listed on the National Register ofHistoric Buildings. In 1985, the MassachusettsHistorical Commission (MHC) donated money to helprefurbish the building's interior.

Because of the building's historic status,changes that will seriously impair itsarchitecture or historical contents cannot be madeunless the city holds public hearings and obtainsthe permission of the MHC--a process which couldtake several years, York said.

Cambridge historians have indicated that theywill fight Chester's crusade, saying that theinscriptions are protected by their historicalsignificance.

Charles M. Sullivan, executive director of theCambridge Historical Commission, said yesterdaythat the plaques "are the most significantremaining interior feature of the librarybuilding."

"Removing them would be a destructive act allout of proportion to the offense they may cause tosome individuals," he wrote in a letter to Healydated March 24, 1995.

Chester says he received a letter yesterdayfrom Susan Flannery, director of the CambridgePublic Library, stating that the explanatorymessage would be affixed to the wall permanentlybut no further action would be taken because ofrespect for the history of the plaques.

Chester, however, said he was not satisfiedwith the response of the disclaimer.

Constitutional Questions

"The Constitution is to be taken seriously,"Chester said. "You cannot disclaim it.

Constitutional precedence also outweighs anyhistorical considerations, Chester said.

"An historical deed cannot supersede theConstitution. When there's a dispute, the Bill ofRights wins," Chester said. "Essentially, they'resaying the Constitution can be bought and soldwith Rindge's money."

Chester, a self-proclaimed atheist, said he hascontacted attorneys from the Civil Liberties Unionof Massachusetts and is "exploring my legaloptions."

Attorneys from the Massachusetts group refusedto comment yesterday, saying they do not haveenough information about the case.

But Courtenay Morris, media relations agent atthe national headquarters for the American CivilLiberties Union (ACLU), said the case may helpresolve unclear legal questions.