“As Close to ‘Mother Nature’ as Possible”:

Planning for a Memorial

On July 4, 1930, the Charles M. Russell Memorial opened out of the original studio cabin on Fourth Avenue North in Great Falls, Montana; over the course of the weekend, close to three thousand visitors streamed in. Interest was high in the celebrated artist, even after his death. On display were a number of showcases containing Russell’s personal effects and models; his cowboy jewelry; Native artifacts; artist furniture and tools; his hats and boots; mounted heads, skulls, and hides; and his collection of rifles. The simplicity and integrity of the memorial pleased his wife and manager, Nancy Russell: “I am most happy that [the studio] is to be finished and kept as Charlie wanted it, [a] simple, plain, little old log-cabin, standing there to remind people of Charlie and of the West, that he loved so much.” ^[I]Letter from Mrs. S. G. Schaudies to Nancy Russell, Summer 1930, Charles M. Russell Research Collection (Britzman), Gilcrease Museum, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma [hereafter CMRRC], … Continue reading

Original Studio Interior of the Russell Memorial, 1930, black and white photograph. CMRM; Frederic G. and Ginger Renner Special Collection

Eight thousand people would visit during the run of the season, from July 4 through September 14, representing thirty-nine states, six Canadian provinces, and England, France, China, and Mexico. By the numbers, it was a success—with the Daily Leader declaring, “In finally bringing the Charles M. Russell memorial to a stage of completion where it is now available to the public, Great Falls has paid in some measure the debt it owes to the great artist.” ^[II]“Many Out of State Visitors See the Russell Memorial,” Great Falls Tribune, October 7, 1930; “The Russell Memorial,” Daily Leader (Great Falls), July 7, 1930. But behind the scenes, the path to establish the memorial was rocky, beset by financial difficulties and misunderstandings between its major advocates.

The idea to establish a memorial commemorating Russell’s life and art had been in Nancy’s and Charlie’s minds well before the artist’s death. In 1919 and 1920, the couple purchased two additional lots west of the log cabin studio, with the intention of buying the entire block and clearing the space for a memorial park “as a place of interest and education for the younger and future generations.” ^[III]Nancy purchased lot 12 in 1919 and lot 13 in 1920. Deeds for Lots 10–13 Block 199 City of Great Falls, House and Studio Archives, C. M. Russell Museum (CMRM) [hereafter HSA]; Frank Bondy wrote that … Continue reading In 1926 Russell’s flagging health and the burgeoning art market in California prompted Nancy to purchase land in Pasadena and build a home, which she would call Trail’s End. With the future in California, attention returned to the log cabin studio, where Russell took out a permit to expand the cabin onto lot 12 a month before his death.^[IV][The permit (no. 5435) was taken out September 11, 1926, HSA.

Studio Addition Halted After Russell’s Death (Detail), October 27, 1926, black and white photograph. CMRM; gift of Richard Flood II, 975-12-151.11

While the City of Great Falls mourned, the loss reaffirmed their need to create a memorial. Local businessman J. W. Sherwood formed a small committee of prominent residents to move the idea forward with Nancy’s blessing. It would be called the Russell Memorial Committee and work under the umbrella of the chamber of commerce. It was decided that the studio addition needed to be completed and the log cabin and its artifacts secured for the city. While Sherwood wished to keep the memorial simple, other members of the community put forward grander plans. ^[V]Ibid. The committee started out with a handful of members but grew to a permanent roster in July 1927: chairman Fred Fligman, J. W. Sherwood, W. R. Strain, S. D. Largent, J. D. Watson, Sam … Continue reading

The first on record came from Dan Conway, who would later become a key fundraiser for the memorial. In November 1926 the Tribune reported that Conway publicly called for Great Falls to memorialize the artist and advocated for the city to build a large museum to house the log cabin studio and display Russell’s art. ^[VI]Conway was a local journalist hired by Nancy Russell to write a biography of Charles Russell shortly after his death after she read the articles Conway had wrote memorializing the artist. Conway’s … Continue reading A more formative plan came from civic leader and Russell Memorial Committee Chair Fred Fligman. Conceptualized over the summer of 1927, Fligman’s plan called for the purchase of all four lots Nancy Russell owned on Fourth Avenue North to build a memorial complex that consisted of the studio and two additional buildings—one to house permanent art exhibits and the other an art school—alongside a fountain and an equestrian bronze of Russell on Monte. The complex’s design would be “carried out in the log, boulder and tree idea in order to typify the very things which were most dear to Charley.”^[VII]Fligman was president of the Paris Dry Goods Company and a director of the chamber of commerce. He was appointed chairman of the new Russell Memorial Committee in April 1927. “Directors Also … Continue reading But importantly, Fligman wanted a memorial that “all of Montana would be interested in,” as well as Russell’s out-of-state friends. For him, this was a question of fundraising, as the Russell Memorial Committee would be tasked with raising money from donors largely outside of Great Falls. ^[VIII]“Russell’s Cabin Studio to Become City Property,” July 31, 1927, Newspaper Scrapbook Archives, CMRM. Their main source of funding came from individual donors solicited in person and through … Continue reading

J. Van Teylingen after Jessie Lincoln. Sketch of Russell Memorial, July 1927. “Russell’s Cabin Studio To Become City Property,” Newspaper clipping 31 July 1927 CMRM Scrapbook archives

When these tentative plans were released, Nancy Russell had not been consulted. She was opposed to the addition of modern buildings on the property, writing that making the studio the focal point would “help the town people to see that the outside world is more interested in the original studio as Charley used it and not in the new school or museum buildings on the other end of the park.” While Nancy was not keen on the design, the real turning point came when one of Russell’s major patrons, who the committee was soliciting for support, turned them down. ^[IX]Letter from Nancy Russell to Philip Cole, c/o Grace Sanson, February 8, 1928, CMRRC, TU2009.39.2747.1-2. Conway’s letter also indicates Nancy’s opposition. Letter from Dan Conway to Nancy … Continue reading

The blow from Philip Cole pushed the committee to solicit new designs from Joe De Yong that fall. This new direction retained the focus on the original studio and created a memorial park instead, following Nancy’s suggestion “that everything be carried out in the true spirit of simplicity, keeping the whole plan as close to ‘Mother Nature’ as possible.”^[X]De Yong’s plans were published in the Tribune and were used by the committee to help with fundraising. “C.M. Russell Memorial Is Now Practically Assured,” Great Falls Tribune, December 4, 1927, … Continue reading

In De Yong’s plans, the memorial park would be landscaped with cacti, prickly pear, elk horns, sage brush, pine, fir, and birch trees, with clumps of ferns around the cabins and boulders placed throughout to “typify the west as Russell loved it.” borders winding around the property would be graceful but without balance, “much the same as game trails or buffalo and cow trails would wind.” Other features included rough-hewn benches, a pool boarded by boulders, a hitching rack, bird foundation, and an equestrian monument of Russell on Monte. The committee set their fundraising goal at forty thousand dollars—half to buy the titles to the property and the remainder for landscaping, refinishing the interior of the studio, erecting an outdoor bronze, and acquiring additional works by Russell.^[XI]Nancy had accepted the city’s appraisal of the lots at twenty thousand dollars in September 1927. She intended to gift the studio and its contents in Russell’s name to the city, which was … Continue reading

Joe De Yong. Drawings of the Russell Memorial Cabin Studio and Park, 1928. “Russell Memorial Committee Gives Deed To City; Will Provide Tax For Upkeep,” Great Falls Tribune, Aug. 7, 1928

Nancy Russell and Joe De Yong made their first trip to Great Falls to work on the Russell Memorial in July 1927. With Nancy’s assistance, De Yong packed and catalogued Russell’s studio collection into moth- and mouse-proof boxes and left them locked in the studio until cases could be made for the collection’s permanent exhibition. ^[XII]Letter from Dan Conway to Nancy Russell, September 2, 1927, CMRRC, TU2009.39.1950.1-12. It would be three years before they returned again, in late June of 1930, to arrange the objects for display in advance of the memorial’s July opening. Both were keen on making sure that the objects would be placed in an order consistent with how the studio looked when Russell was alive. For Nancy, the opportunity presented was bittersweet, as she wrote in a letter to De Yong:

In preparation for the opening, the committee hired builder M. C. Schwerdt to create new interior fixtures. He built showcases of rustic timber, guard railing and panels, and new shelves supported by cattle and bison horns and created an archway over the entrances until the interior of the new addition could be completed. These designs were intended to enhance the rustic atmosphere of the space: “Crooked and knotted timber was obtained from an old flume in the Eagle creek country. . . .This was fitted together in an artistic manner, and the surface coated with a preserving composition, which also brought out the luster of the wood.” ^[XIV]Schwerdt had previously designed and build the interior of Yellowstone Park’s Old Faithful Inn. “Russell Studio Contracts Let; Rustic Effect,” Daily Leader (Great Falls), October 10, 1929; … Continue reading A photograph printed in the Tribune under the headline “Log Studio of Cowboy Artist Retains Atmosphere of Days He Painted There” captures the result. ^[XV]The article goes on to say, “Each case is trimmed with twisted and knotted timber, which has been dovetailed into the uprights in such a manner that is adds to the attractiveness of the crude … Continue reading But when Nancy and Joe arrived, they found the “ginger bread work” sorely lacking. In a letter to his mother, De Yong wrote, “the grounds look fine . . . but they sure raised the devil inside—Some carpenter with ‘Tools & a brain storm’ was turned loose in there, and what he hasn’t managed to do with roots, varnish & scrol work isn’t worth telling. Even tore the chief’s work bench out etc. It looks like hell, that’s all!” ^[XVI]Letter from Joe De Yong to Mary De Yong, June 18, 1930, JDYP 484.

Great Falls Photo View, Co., Interior of Log Cabin Studio, June 1930, published in the Great Falls Tribune June 16, 1930. Black and white photograph, 9.75 x 9.75 in. CMRM; museum purchase 991.71.29

The newspaper’s glowing headline praising the cabin’s authentic atmosphere stands in stark contrast with the reactions of both De Yong and Nancy upon seeing the interior. In a much later letter, reminiscing to an old cowhand and friend, Teddy “Blue” Abbott, De Yong declared more boldly,

Ultimately, the decision was made to remove the cases to the studio addition. Nancy and De Yong hung and arranged the studio collection with the understanding that new, plain cases would be built around them and sealed. The papers agreed, “Simplicity has been [Nancy’s] keynote in this arrangement in keeping with the character of the quiet, unassuming Charley Russell who disliked pretense and inordinate display.” ^[XVIII]“Russell Studio Exhibits to Be Finished Soon,” Great Falls Tribune, June 25, 1930; “Memorial to Artist Russell Ready for Inspection July 3,” Daily Leader (Great Falls), June 28, 1930. The remodeling of the interior was ultimately a cost Nancy bore herself in order to retain her vision.

While the original cabin opened as a memorial, the studio addition was still a work in progress. A new floor had been installed, along with lighting and a small restroom for visitors, but the space lacked furnishings and objects; it was a far cry from the envisioned gallery for Russell’s artwork that would stand as a “perpetual history of the old west.” However, by the close of the first season, the memorial’s curator managed to display more than one hundred framed prints showing Russell’s art and Montana history. ^[XIX]“Russell Log Cabin Studio Will Open This Afternoon.” Great Falls Tribune, July 4, 1930; “C.M. Russell Memorial Is Now Practically Assured,” Great Falls Tribune, December 4, 1927; “Many Out … Continue reading But design was just one of the disagreements that created tension between Nancy Russell and the memorial committee. Over the course of three years, a number of financial contentions and misunderstandings held up the memorial’s progress and permanently strained the city’s relationship with Nancy Russell and the curator.

Great Falls Photo View Co. Studio Addition, c. 1931, black and white photograph, CMRM, Museum Purchase, X990.8.228

Funding the Memorial
One of the memorial’s first fundraising efforts was an impromptu art show staged by the chamber of commerce. The chamber’s decision to produce the Russell Memorial Art Exhibit was prompted by an upcoming visit from Will Rogers. City officials wished to give Rogers a strong public welcome and believed that an art exhibit featuring Russell’s works was the most appropriate way to honor the comedian’s close friendship with the artist while promoting Great Falls as a regional center for art. ^[XX]The art show committee that worked under the chamber included J. H. Reid, Sid Willis, G. W. McKowan, J. J. Flaherty, J. C. Dow, Mrs. L. M. Ford, Mrs. E. M. Larson, Miss Josephine Trigg, and Miss … Continue reading

Will Rogers Arrives in Great Falls, March 1927 (L to R: Sid Willis, Charles Beil, Will Rogers, Frank Brown), black and white photograph. CMRM, gift of Jim Greenfield, 973-6-05

The quickly arranged four-day event was held in the Palm Room at the Hotel Rainbow and ran from March 31 to April 3, 1927. As advertised, the show was “designed as a memorial to the late Charles M. Russell . . . and as a means of encouraging lesser known artists to develop their talents.” ^[XXI]“Russell Memorial Art Exhibit Opens,” Great Falls Tribune, March 31, 1927. The Tribune reported that nearly fifty Montana artists showed their work alongside Russell’s. Proceeds from the show’s attendance seeded the memorial fund and the show’s strong public relations spread awareness of the campaign to raise money throughout the state.

The art exhibit was a roaring success, with $1,835 secured in total for the memorial from admission sales from 5,530 visitors and contributions from Russell’s friends, most notably William S. Hart and Will Rogers. Rogers himself cut the first check to the chamber, with a five-hundred-dollar gift. During his performance, Rogers applauded the city’s efforts “to make Great Falls the art center of the northwest and to put up a memorial building to Charlie Russell,” which Rogers described as “the makings of a great thing.” ^[XXII]Attendance to the exhibit was buoyed by the attraction of Will Rogers, who ceremoniously opened the show and was later given a private tour, buying close to five thousand dollars’ worth of art. … Continue reading

Buoyed by the results, the chamber decided to continue the event as an annual art exhibit in succeeding years. They hoped to build on Russell’s legacy and to foster the talent of young, local artists while growing the city’s reputation as a destination for visual art. But before the 1928 show, two major changes were made: the first was to drop Russell’s name from the exhibition title in favor of the more universal “Second Annual Art Exhibit of the Great Falls Chamber of Commerce,” and the second was to divert the proceeds from the show to the chamber’s newly developed permanent art fund. This was done despite the memorial committee’s still actively fundraising for the park. ^[XXIII]The fund was developed to create a permanent display of fine arts for the city. “Art Show Outgrowing Space,” Great Falls Tribune, March 20, 1929. The Russell Memorial Committee had raised almost … Continue reading

Naturally, these decisions were met with dismay by both Nancy Russell and Joe De Yong, who sent a letter criticizing the changes to Dan Conway: “I think it was one big mistake to drop [Russell’s] name from the Art Exhibition—Sentimentally, the town owes it to his memory. Practically, it was the best possible advertising, because anything his name is connected with will receive national notice in the Art World—Time proves all things—and it is sometimes uncomfortable for those when the hour glass reaches the point of explanation.” ^[XXIV]Letter from Joe De Yong to Dan Conway, March 8, 1928, JDYP 876.

In his reply, Conway defends the chamber’s actions, stating that they thought it “would encourage local artists, of Montana and the West” to exhibit. ^[XXV]Another change was city officials’ decision to significantly scale back the number of works by Russell in the show. Instead they promoted the works of local living artists, especially that of O. C. … Continue reading But other locals echoed De Yong’s dismay, including the editor of the Tribune, who reportedly “gave a talk at the Cascade Commercial club and condemned the action of the Chamber of Commerce art committee in ousting the Russell name from this year’s work . . . [thinking] that the club had erred in securing cooperation from neighboring towns and portions of the state.” Discontent extended to friends of Russell’s as well, like Edward Borein, who was asked to exhibit in the show but declined because of the change. ^[XXVI]Letter from Vesta Robbins to Joe De Yong, March 30, 1928, JDYP 705; letter from Joe De Yong to Dan R. Conway, May 28, 1928, JDYP 844.

While the 1928 show was well attended, proceeds dropped due to higher costs. Officials downplayed this development in the Winifred Times, stating “that the exhibit indicated a profit is welcome to the committee, but it was stated that the exhibit is not primarily a financial venture, but rather an effort to create and foster greater interest and appreciation of the work of Montana artists.” ^[XXVII]Clipping from the Winifred Times, Branson Stevenson Archives, CMRM.

But behind closed doors the loss was felt. Art committee member Vesta Robbins, who likewise criticized the chamber’s decision, wrote to De Yong: “It seems to me Russell’s home town should be the place to do him honor & yet time & history both proves that a man’s home town usually turns him down. This was done in such a rotten way too that I simply revolt when I think of it but then maybe time will call for changes & they may mean better things.” Despite the decrease in revenue, the chamber went forward with the “Third Annual Art Exhibit.” ^[XXVIII]Letter from Vesta Robbins to Joe De Yong, May 19, 1928, JDYP 705. The show ran from March 21 to 24, 1929. While private Russell works lent for display were still an attraction, Seltzer was the most … Continue reading In contrast to the preceding years, the 1929 show lagged in attendance and resulted in a financial loss. As Joe De Yong predicted, the annual art show had failed to hold up; 1929 would be its last year.

Dismay with the art show was compounded by the rumors spreading from Great Falls to California that the memorial was being upended. There was talk among Nancy’s friends that the Russell studio collection would be removed from the cabin and that money for the project was being diverted. ^[XXIX]Nancy Russell and Joe De Yong heard from various sources on the rumors including from Vesta Robbins, Branson Stevenson, George Calvert, and J. R. Hobbins. With concern mounting, De Yong reached out again to Conway in March of 1928:

Taken aback by the letter, Conway strongly refuted the rumors, calling the unnamed sources spreading them “Goddam liars” and stating, “if there be those who may try to discredit the Memorial movement and maliciously criticize, it’s because they have some personal axe to grind, not because they have the best interests of the movement at heart.” He assured De Yong that the committee was duty-bound to “transform this property into a National shrine for lovers of the Old West—a place to which people may come and see and learn the true history of the western plains and mountain region.” Both De Yong and Nancy remained wary, though nothing came of the rumors. Nancy wrote to De Yong thanking him for addressing the issue with Conway and “stop[ping] any drifting where it shouldn’t have been,” stating later, “I don’t want to stir up trouble, but I do want those people to play fair.” ^[XXXI]Letter from Dan R. Conway to Joe De Yong, March 17, 1928, JDYP 844; Letter from Nancy Russell to Joe De Yong, March 26, 1928, JDYP 857; Letter from Nancy Russell to Joe De Yong, March 30, 1928, JDYP … Continue reading

These rumors also adversely affected the committee’s fundraising efforts in California. By spring of 1928, a quarter of the twenty-five thousand dollars pledged came from New York and Minneapolis, while California donors gave less than a thousand dollars. ^[XXXII]Although the letter indicates $25,000 pledged, a report from the committee to the chamber of commerce in April of 1928 has the funds received to date $20,752 with an additional $705 pledged to … Continue reading Both Conway and Fligman wrote to Nancy, believing they were being stymied, and solicited her support in the matter.While Nancy declared her disappointment, she declined to take an active role; she believed that she had already done enough by sending them a list of potential donors. ^[XXXIII]Letter from Dan R. Conway to Nancy Russell, April 7, 1928, CMRRC, TU2009.39.1448.1-6. Fred Fligman also wrote to Nancy indicating his disappointment with Californian donors. Letter from Fligman to … Continue reading The list was a previous point of contention between the committee and Nancy. Nancy, for her part, did not want her friends to feel pressed into duty, especially ahead of concrete support solicited from Montanans themselves. While these major contentions worked themselves out, smaller financial disputes that arose in the course of the three-year campaign continued to harm the relationship between the parties. ^[XXXIV]At the time Conway assured her that her list would be used “in only an ethical and diplomatic manner, and in accordance with your suggestion, and your direction.” Letter from Dan R. Conway to … Continue reading

Nevertheless, in January 1928 the committee had reached its first goal—enough money had been raised to purchase the lots on Fourth Avenue North, and the city council went on record to accept the memorial as proposed. The transfer of property, however, took longer. Over the summer, there was a back and forth on the structure of the deeds and gift. Nancy had written three lots as a deed of sale, and the studio lot, along with the building and contents therein, as a deed of gift. The committee, and in turn the city, had wanted a deed of sale to purchase all the property outright, claiming that it might not be legal to pay out money to receive a gift from any one person and, erroneously, that the option Nancy had signed in September of 1927 required a full deed of sale. ^[XXXV]The final ten-thousand-dollar payment of the twenty-thousand-dollar purchase price was deposited with Nancy in April 1928. Memorandum from the Russell Memorial Committee to the Board of Directors of … Continue reading

Detail of Block 199, Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Great Falls, Cascade County, Montana. Sanborn Map Company, 1929. Map. Image Courtesy of the Library of Congress

Nancy’s retort to city officials is one bound in frustration on their handling of the memorial. Her decision to deed the studio lot as a gift was in line with Russell’s wishes and insured that elected officials would maintain and care for the memorial as she intended: “I have elected to use the Deed of Gift form with reversion rights in the event that future generations should fail to carry out what we have agreed upon.” Ultimately, the city received deeds of purchase for all four lots and buildings and was gifted the contents of the studio. But importantly, the agreement stipulated that the city must pass suitable resolutions and ordinances to forever keep and maintain the properties as the Charles M. Russell Memorial Park, else it would become null and void. In letters to a friend, Nancy wrote that the matter was not settled as she had hoped, stating, “I remember so clearly how you counseled me not to make a fight about the studio in Great Falls but to let those folks have their own way which I did.” ^[XXXVI]Letter from Nancy Russell to Fred Fligman, June 14, 1928, CMRRC, TU2009.39.1236.1-4; copy of deed and agreement between Nancy C. Russell and the City of Great Falls, August 3, 1928, HSA; letters from … Continue reading

On August 13, 1928, the city passed Resolution No. 2372, stipulating for the long-term care and maintenance of the Russell Memorial Park. The resolution included an ordinance that would “levy a sufficient tax each and every year” for the “proper maintenance, support and operation” of the park and established a permanent committee to oversee the memorial and advise the city council. ^[XXXVII]Journal of the Proceedings of the Council, City of Great Falls, Montana, January 3, 1928, and August 6, 1928, Public Records, Office of the City Clerk, Great Falls, Montana [hereafter PR-CC]. While this resolution safeguarded the funding and maintenance of the memorial, Nancy was right to question its long-term support among city officials. As she would find out, in practice the city’s financial support was precarious and intermittent through the years.

Great Falls Photo View Co. Interior of Studio Addition with Bronzes Nancy Russell Sent Schaudies, 1931, black and white photograph, CMRM; Frederic G. and Ginger Renner Special Collection

The Memorial’s First Years
In March of 1930, Sidney G. Schaudies was selected as the memorial’s first curator. In exchange for overseeing the studio, he and his wife were granted the use of the 1219 Fourth Avenue North house for reduced rent. This arrangement was part of the city’s strategy to limit the funding necessary to run and maintain the memorial. Schaudies’s employment contract also specified that the city could not levy a tax to maintain the memorial, inviting uncertainty as to the long-term financial health of his position and the memorial. ^[XXXVIII]The position was said to be equal to $600 a year in rental savings; the market rate for the house was rated at $75 per month, with the curator receiving a comped value of $50 per month, requiring him … Continue reading

With his prompting, in March 1931 the Russell memorial committee drafted recommendations that the city council “give the Russell memorial, its operation and maintenance, the serious consideration that it deserves” by appropriating at least five hundred dollars a year from the general budget, allowing the curator to live rent free, and connecting the electricity in the studio so that tours wouldn’t have to be conducted by candlelight. Editorials in the Tribune slammed the actions of the mayor, who sought to block the appropriation of annual funds: “Mr. Fousek tried . . . to belittle an enterprise which probably excites the interest of more people, both from within and without the state, than any other one thing Montana has to offer.” Another argued, “There is a duty resting with the city administration. Must there be heated argument in counting the cost? If there be those who would begrudge this little expenditure and who would hinder a proper care of the Russell memorial, if we mistake not, they are treading upon sacred ground.” ^[XXXIX]“Chamber Asks Joint Action in Funding Studio,” Great Falls Tribune, March 19, 1931; “Fousek and the Russell Memory,” Great Falls Tribune, 1931; “The Russell Memorial,” Great Falls … Continue reading While the mayor and city council members wished for the memorial to stay a small, quiet affair, Schaudies had grander ambitions for the site.

One of his goals as curator was to plan a major Russell exhibit, showing off prominent works from collectors across the country. He believed that a novel summer show would draw in crowds and provide them with the opportunity to see original art, which the memorial lacked. He also hoped that relationships with Russell collectors would prove beneficial, turning loaned works into gifts down the line. And by charging a small admission, he would be able to “make possible the completion of the building and equipment so badly needed” in the space. Of his struggles with the city, Schaudies wrote to Nancy, “We have had some political disappointments, the greatest in our mayor, but their work is going on even under their leadership. The idea of a summer art exhibit has been temporarily abandoned, that is, on a large scale.” ^[XL]Letter from Mrs. S. G. Schaudies to Nancy Russell, October 29, 1930, CMRRC, TU2009.39.1658.1-4; letter from S. G. Schaudies to Nancy Russell, April 19, 1931, CMRRC, TU2009.39.1659.1-4. While Schaudies was unable to carry out his plans, the 1931 season saw more than twelve thousand visitors, which included school tours to educate children on history and art. While the original studio remained unchanged, the new gallery had five times as many objects to view, a souvenir catalogue, and prints for sale to offset operating costs. ^[XLI]The idea was to sell prints to tourists and generate income for the studio once the initial investment was recouped. Copy of S. G. Schaudies’s Report to the Russell Memorial Committee, September … Continue reading Schaudies lasted one more season as curator before being ousted by the city council due to said mismanagement of the memorial and was replaced by Mary Gibson. He wrote to Nancy of the news, “I think Miss Gibson will do all in her power to carry on the work, but what chance has she. Age and the lack of immediate finance are terrible hardships to overcome even under good times.” ^[XLII]Journal of the Proceedings of the Council, City of Great Falls, Montana, March 27, 1933, PR-CC; letter from S.G. Schaudies to Nancy Russell, April 14, 1933, CMRRC, TU2009.39.1661.1-4.

Great Falls Photo View, Co., Interior of Log Cabin Studio, June 1930, published in the Great Falls Tribune June 6, 1930

Saving the House
The decision to accept the memorial and maintain it in perpetuity while simultaneously not publicly funding its upkeep or the costs to run it created a longstanding divide between the memorial committee, city officials, and Nancy Russell. Disagreements between the parties also played out when it came to the Russell home. Consideration for the demolition of the house was on the table as early as 1927, when plans for the memorial park were being considered. Nancy Russell herself recommended the removal of the house in 1929 to Dan Conway:

By this time the home needed significant maintenance and updates to make it a comfortable place to live. With the short-term renters gone, the city planned to use the home to pay for the cost of a memorial caretaker. But rumors of the house being partially boarded up and significant work being done to it didn’t sit well with Nancy; she offered up other possibilities for its use in connection with the memorial, including as a meeting space or clubhouse for the Women’s Club and other groups in Great Falls. [[Letter from Nancy Russell to George Calvert, October 28, 1929, CMRRC, TU2009.39.1441.1-4.]] By the time of the memorial’s opening, some repairs and maintenance must have been made to the house to make it suitable for the curator to live, and the house continued to function as the curator’s home for a long time thereafter.
In 1946, six years after Nancy’s death, the issue of selling and disposing of the Russell home was brought up again at a meeting of the Board of Park Commissioners, which was in charge of supervising the property. The matter was discussed further in 1948, and the board decided to sell the house and use the money to make improvements on the cabin and property. While the board went as far as requesting bids for the sale and removal of the home, nothing more was done. By the 1960s the home was no longer used as a residence for the curator and was locked up. In 1965 the C.M. Russell Museum, which occupied lot 14 on Fourth Avenue North, submitted plans to the city for an expansion. Those plans included building onto the memorial park and tearing down the Russell house in order to re-landscape and remove what they considered a fire hazard. The house was once more in danger.

Fortunately, the plan to tear down the home failed on two accounts, the first being that the studio and house were declared National Historic Landmarks in 1965, a designation the government threatened to revoke if the house was demolished, and the second being a community campaign headed by the Montana Federation of Garden Clubs to save the home. ^[XLIV]O. S. Warden was president of the board of the chamber of commerce and later a supporter of the C.M. Russell Museum. Journal of the Proceedings of the Board of Park Commissioners, City of Great … Continue reading In 1970 the city decided to spare the home and moved the building fifty feet northeast of the studio.

The Final Word on the Memorial
Miscommunication, rumors, and competing visions for the Russell Memorial strained the relations between Nancy Russell and Great Falls. Through it all Nancy maintained her appreciation for the committee’s efforts to achieve their shared goal of a permanent memorial to Russell in his adopted hometown. However, the stumbles through the project, along with the fight for the Russell bronze in Statuary Hall in Washington, D.C., were enough to cement Nancy’s sourness on the city and on the idea that they would properly honor and maintain Russell’s legacy.

Upon the death of her only son, Jack Cooper Russell, in 1996, Nancy’s will provided that her estate be placed in a perpetual trust in Russell’s memory that would further the education and artistic appreciation of all Americans. Museums and universities throughout the west competed for the opportunity to secure the trust. Most interesting is that within this provision of her will, she specifically stipulated that “no sums of money are to be expended in Great Falls, Montana, unless . . . that said Town . . . reconvey to my trustee certain parcels of real property heretofore conveyed by me.” ^[XLV]The CMRM lost out on the opportunity to the University of Oklahoma, which has the Charles M. Russell Research Center and a faculty chair dedicated to western art. Portions of the will are quoted in … Continue reading

This is perhaps one of the clearest indications of Nancy’s feelings toward the city’s handling of the memorial. Her suspicions that the city would not care for or provide the necessary financial support for the site remained in place at her death, ten years after its opening. This clause became her way of ensuring that if the city did seek funds from her beyond the grave, it would have to relinquish control over to her estate, with the hope that her trustees would carry out her wishes better than any city official ever had. Perhaps Nancy would be happy to know that the City of Great Falls did transfer the Russell Memorial, its buildings, studio collection, and furnishings to the care of the C.M. Russell Museum in April 1991. ^[XLVI]The official transfer of property and artifacts from the city to the museum (Trigg–C.M. Russell Foundation) occurred in 1991, but in 1981 the museum took over the management and operation of the … Continue reading

The Russell House and Studio remain the crown jewels in the collection of the museum, which continues to care for, conserve, and interpret the art and life of Charles M. Russell, with great thanks and appreciation to the unflagging work of Nancy Russell in ensuring that her husband’s art and memory continue to inspire future generations of Americans.