History should be accurate. Artistic expression should be free from political constraint.

But the décor that adorns the walls of public buildings should also be chosen with respect for the dignity of those who will view it.

Idaho state officials, therefore, have a dilemma. The building that will house the Idaho Legislature in 2008 and 2009 contains two 66-year-old murals that can rightly be called offensive, at least in part, because they depict scenes of lynchings involving American Indians.

The paintings were done under the federal Works Progress Administration in 1940 and were intended to be a reflection of Idaho’s settlement and history. Similar representations of other states’ histories were done under the WPA Artists Project – one of the New Deal’s job-creating efforts to steer the country through the Great Depression. As such, the murals have historic significance and should be preserved.

But should they be displayed – in the face of everyone who visits the halls where Idahoans’ elected lawmakers do the public’s business?

Clearly, in the history of Idaho and every other state, there were shameful examples of injustice, including lynchings. The WPA artists – laboring in Southern California, by the way – felt it important to include that theme in their work.

Apparently, that was OK by the Idaho officials who allowed the artwork to be installed in what was then the Ada County Courthouse. In 1940, the predominant white culture of the Northwest hadn’t yet figured out that putting such a depiction on prominent public display might offend citizens whose ancestors’ plight was being portrayed.

Half a century later, District Judge Gerald Shroeder came to a different conclusion. In the 1990s, Schroeder, now chief justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, found the lynching scenes so offensive he screened them with an American flag.

The old courthouse is unused now, replaced five years ago by a new building. But the state Capitol is about to be remodeled, forcing the Legislature to find temporary quarters in the unused Ada County building.

Some voices, those of certain American Indians among them, are calling for the murals to be painted over. Historic preservationists object. The state Historical Society’s director emeritus opposes even removing them from the building – a strategy that the Idaho administrator of public works says would be expensive and time-consuming anyway.

While the objectionable scenes don’t depict actual events, the origin of the murals makes them historically significant and justifies their preservation, insensitive though they may be.

But Idahoans who find them objectionable, if not painful, should not be forced to see the seat of their state government become a showcase for historic shame.

A compromise is in order: Remove the murals for relocation to a more appropriate display in a better place at a better time. The expense is a legitimate investment in public dignity.

Above all, don’t let a 66-year-old insult echo off the walls of 21st-century Idaho’s temporary Capitol.