Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Julia Neeufeld and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net





Transcriber's note:

Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

Small capital text has been replaced with all capitals.

The carat character in Nov. 1^{st} indicates that the following letters
inside the curly brackets are superscripted.


       *       *       *       *       *


[Illustration: Oscar S. Straus with signature]

  Under Four Administrations

  FROM CLEVELAND TO TAFT

  RECOLLECTIONS OF OSCAR S. STRAUS, LITT.D., LL.D.

  _Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague
  Three Times Minister and Ambassador to Turkey

  Former Secretary of Commerce and Labor_

  WITH ILLUSTRATIONS

  [Illustration: Publisher's Mark]

  Boston and New York
  HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY
  The Riverside Press Cambridge

  COPYRIGHT, 1922, BY OSCAR S. STRAUS

  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

  SECOND IMPRESSION

  The Riverside Press
  CAMBRIDGE·MASSACHUSETTS
  PRINTED IN THE U·S·A




  DEDICATED TO
  MY GRANDCHILDREN
  AND THEIR CONTEMPORARIES
  OF EVERY RACE AND CREED




PREFACE


I am drawing these memories to a close in my log cabin in the primitive
Maine woods, where my wife and I have been coming for rest and for
fishing for the past twenty years. Here we renew our youth, and far from
tumult and crowds, near to nature, we realize anew how little is
required in order to be contented and happy. Here I am taken back to the
memories of my childhood in the little town in Georgia where too our
home was a log house, but for appearances had the luxurious outer and
inner dressing of clap-boarding painted white. The logs of the upper
story where we children played and slept had no covering, which pleased
us all the more.

In a highly organized society, we are often attracted by pomp and
circumstance, rather than by qualities of heart and mind, which after
all are the true measure of enlightenment. Here in these woods, fair
dealings and human relations are not regulated by statutes, but by the
golden rule of conduct. We need not hide our possessions behind locked
doors, honesty is the accepted rule of life; there are no treasures to
hide and no bars to break.

It has been permitted me to do useful work and to have interesting
experiences. Privileged opportunities have been afforded me for public
service. Of these I write.

Perhaps in chronicling the experiences of a life which at many points
touched vital affairs and the most interesting personalities, I may be
able to add something to the record of men, movements, and events during
those decades still absorbing to us because they are so near.

The story is one of service at home and abroad, of personal relations
with six of our Presidents, with diplomats, labor leaders, foreign
rulers, leaders of industry, and some plain unticketed citizens who were
the salt of the earth and certainly not the least of those whom it was a
pleasure to know.

To write of one's self requires a certain amount of egotism. The
autobiographer usually tries to justify this vanity by explaining it as
a desire to gratify his children and kinsmen, or as a yielding to the
urgent request of his friends. Benjamin Franklin, whose autobiography,
incomplete though it be, is one of the most human in our language,
frankly conceded that he was prompted by the weakness of praise. He
says: "I may as well confess it, since my denial of it will be believed
by nobody, perhaps I shall a good deal gratify my own vanity."

I do not wish to conceal from those who may from interest or curiosity
read what I write, that I am not entirely free from that vanity, even
though it be my chief aim and purpose to cast some additional light upon
our country's development and upon events in which, in public and
private life, I have been permitted to take part. Having held official
positions at home and abroad under four administrations, and having come
in close relationship with many of the statesmen and others of
distinction in this and foreign countries, perhaps my narrative will
serve to give more intimate knowledge and truer appreciation of their
personal traits and their exceptional qualities.

I have also been influenced by a desire to bring a message of
encouragement to the youth of our country, especially to those who may
be conscious of handicaps in the race, not to lose heart, but to be
patient, considerate, and tactful, and not to withhold the saving extra
ounce of effort which often spells the difference between failure and
success.

So long as our democracy remains true to its basic principles and
jealously guards the highways of opportunity, the golden age will not be
in the past, but ever in the future. In externals the age in which we
live has changed, but the qualities of effort, of industry, and the will
to succeed which were required when I was a boy, have not changed; they
lead to the same goals now as then, with this difference: that the boy
of to-day has greater advantages, better educational facilities, and
more avenues of advancement than the boy of two generations ago. There
never was a time in our history when more men of humble origin have
attained commanding positions in industry, in commerce, and in public
affairs than now. While our American system is not without fault, the
fact that an enlightened public is ever watchful to maintain our
democratic principles and to correct abuses is convincing proof of our
country's wholesome development in conformity with the changing
conditions of modern life.

I desire to make acknowledgment to my long-time and esteemed friend, Mr.
Lawrence Abbott, the President of "The Outlook," who encouraged and
advised me to write these memoirs and even outlined the chapter plan
which I have largely followed.




CONTENTS


  I. ANCESTRY AND EARLY YEARS                 1

  II. LAW, BUSINESS, AND LETTERS             30

  III. ENTERING DIPLOMACY                    50

  IV. FIRST TURKISH MISSION                  70

  V. HARRISON, CLEVELAND, AND MCKINLEY      105

  VI. MY SECOND MISSION TO TURKEY           130

  VII. THEODORE ROOSEVELT                   163

  VIII. INDUSTRIAL DIPLOMACY                194

  IX. IN THE CABINET                        207

  X. THE TAFT CAMPAIGN OF 1908              248

  XI. MY THIRD MISSION TO TURKEY            271

  XII.  THE PROGRESSIVES                    307

  XIII. THREATENING CLOUDS OF WAR           327

  XIV. PERSONAL VIGNETTES                   343

  XV. THE WORLD WAR                         370

  XVI. PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE               396

  INDEX                                     431




ILLUSTRATIONS


  OSCAR S. STRAUS                          _Frontispiece_
  Photograph by the Campbell Studios, New York

  MOTHER AND FATHER OF OSCAR S. STRAUS                  2

  BIRTHPLACE OF OSCAR S. STRAUS, OTTERBERG, RHENISH
  BAVARIA                                               8

  CHAPEL AND SCHOOLHOUSE, COLLINSWORTH INSTITUTE,
  TALBOTTON, GEORGIA                                    8

  OSCAR S. STRAUS AT SIX                               12

  OSCAR S. STRAUS AT THE TIME OF HIS GRADUATION        28

  LETTER OF HENRY WARD BEECHER TO PRESIDENT
  CLEVELAND                                            46

  MRS. STRAUS IN TURKEY                                62

  TESTIMONIAL GIVEN TO MR. STRAUS IN JERUSALEM IN
  APPRECIATION OF THE RELEASE OF SEVERAL HUNDRED
  PRISONERS                                            84

  OSCAR S. STRAUS, CONSTANTINOPLE, 1888                96

  PRESIDENT MCKINLEY SENDING THE AUTHOR TO TURKEY
  ON HIS SECOND MISSION, 1898                         124

  MEMBERS OF THE RAILWAY BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION      200

  THE ROOSEVELT CABINET                               216

  MRS. OSCAR S. STRAUS                                246

  NATHAN, OSCAR, AND ISIDOR STRAUS                    312
  Photograph by Pirie MacDonald, New York, 1912

  ROGER W. STRAUS                                     392




Under Four Administrations




CHAPTER I

ANCESTRY AND EARLY YEARS

     Napoleonic Era: the Sanhedrin--A forefather in Napoleon's
     councils--My father and the German Revolution of 1848--My father
     emigrates to America--My father starts business in Talbotton,
     Georgia--My mother and her children arrive, 1854--We attend the
     Baptist Church--My early schooling--Deacons duel with
     knives--Household slaves--Life in a small Southern town--Frugal and
     ingenious housekeeping--Outbreak of the Civil War--Our family moves
     to Columbus, Georgia--First lessons in oratory--General Wilson's
     capture of the city--The town is looted--Our family moves North
     --My father surprises Northern creditor by insisting upon paying
     his debts in full--I attend Columbia Grammar School in New York
     City--My accidental schoolroom glory before Morse, the inventor--I
     enter Columbia College in 1867 with Brander Matthews, Stuyvesant
     Fish, and other distinguished classmates--My classroom début in
     diplomacy--Poetic ambitions--Military aspirations and an interview
     with President Grant--Choosing law as a career.


My ancestors, on both my father's and my mother's side, were natives of
the Palatinate of Bavaria, of the town of Otterberg and immediate
vicinity. Up to the time of Napoleon's taking possession of that part of
the country the Jews of the Palatinate had not adopted family names.
This they did later, beginning in 1808, when, under Napoleon, the
Palatinate became the Department of Mont Tennérre and part of France. My
great-grandfather, for instance, before adopting the family name of
Straus, was known as Jacob Lazar, from Jacob ben Lazarus, or Jacob son
of Lazarus, as in biblical times.

Jacob Lazar, afterwards Jacob Straus, had three sons: Jacob, Lazarus,
and Salomon. My father, Lazarus Straus, born April 25, 1809, was the son
of the eldest, Jacob; and my mother, Sara Straus, born January 14,
1823, was the daughter of the youngest, Salomon. My paternal grandfather
died when my father was a young man, but my grandfather Salomon Straus
and his brother Lazarus were known to us as children, particularly to my
eldest brother, Isidor, who knew them quite well. They were men of
culture and education, landowners who sent their crops--mainly wheat,
oats, clover and clover seed--and those of their neighbors to the
markets of Kaiserslautern and Mannheim, the chief commercial towns of
the section. They spoke German and French fluently, and had also, of
course, been thoroughly educated in the Hebrew language and literature.

The name of Straus was well known among the Jews of Bavaria, and both my
great-grandfather and my father contributed to its prominence. During
1806 a spirit of reaction, political and religious, swept over France,
making itself especially troublesome in Alsace and in the German
departments of the upper and lower Rhine. Exceptionable and restrictive
laws were advocated to deprive the Jews there of rights they were
enjoying throughout France. As had happened often before, and not
unknown since, the reactionaries fanned the hatred against Jews, making
them the scapegoats in their campaign against the advancing spirit of
liberalism. Thus the cause of the Jews was linked with the cause of
liberty itself.

[Illustration: MOTHER AND FATHER OF OSCAR S. STRAUS]

Napoleon himself was at first prejudiced against the Jews, regarding
them as usurers and extortioners. He soon realized, however, that the
characteristics which confronted him could not be imputed to Judaism,
but were due rather to the restricted civil and industrial rights of the
Jews and to their general unhappy condition. It was made manifest to him
that in Bordeaux, Marseilles, and the Italian cities of France, as
well as in Holland, some of the most useful and patriotic citizens were
Jews. Napoleon always had an eye on his historical reputation, and
desiring to do nothing that would obscure his fame, he decided to
convene a council of representative Jews from the various provinces.
Accordingly, on May 30, 1806, he issued his decree, famous in the annals
of the Jews in modern times, summoning the Assembly of Notables of the
Jewish nation to meet in Paris the following July. The prefects in the
various provinces were required to aid in the selection of the most
distinguished men from among the rabbis and the laity.

The deputies came to Paris from all parts of the French Empire. They
numbered one hundred and eleven in all, and spoke French, German, and
Italian. Many of them were themselves well known, others achieved a
posthumous glamour in the deeds of descendants who have since won
distinction in European history and in the annals of Jewry. There were
Joseph Sinzheim, first rabbi of Strasbourg, foremost Talmudist and
considered the most scholarly member of the Assembly, who was made
president of the Assembly and later chairman of the Great Sanhedrin;
Michel Berr, afterwards the first French Jew to practice at the bar;
Abraham Furtado, son of a marano or crypto-Jewish Portuguese family from
which was also descended the wife of the first Benjamin D'Israeli and
Sir John Simon; Isaac Samuel d'Avigdor of Nice, grandfather of Jules
d'Avigdor who was a member of the Piedmont Parliament; Israel
Ottolenghi, an ancestor of Italy's late Minister of War; Abraham de
Cologna, rabbi of Mantua, a great political leader and reformer; and
many others of equal rank and caliber. Their task was a monumental one,
for it was nothing less than to justify Judaism and Jewry to the world;
and they assembled with a full consciousness of their responsibility.

At this Assembly my great-grandfather represented the Department of Mont
Tennérre. He evidently played an important part in the diplomacy which
this unprecedented council involved, for he was a member of the
sub-committee of fifteen delegated to meet the commissioners appointed
by Napoleon, also a member of the committee to which the Assembly gave
the delicate work of preparing the groundwork for discussion with the
commissioners. Subsequently he was appointed to the committee of nine of
the Great Sanhedrin which the following year presented to Napoleon's
committee the conclusions formulated and agreed upon by the Assembly,
and which helped to bring about their adoption.

       *       *       *       *       *

My father, in turn, was active in the revolutionary movement in 1848.
This was an heroic effort on the part of the liberal forces of Europe to
achieve constitutional government, and when it failed many of those who
had borne a conspicuous part fled to other countries. Thus it was that
Generals Sigel, Schurz, Stahl, and others, who later were prominent in
our Civil War, came to America. These men and their immediate followers
constitute one of the most valuable groups of immigrants that have come
to these shores since our government was organized. In the land of their
birth they had already made sacrifices for constitutionalism and
democracy, and basically they had made them for American principles.
They were Americans in spirit, therefore, even before they arrived.

Having been active only locally in the revolutionary movement, my father
was not prosecuted. He was made aware, however, of the suspicions of the
authorities and was subjected to all those petty annoyances and
discriminations which a reactionary government never fails to lay upon
people who have revolted, and revolted in vain. My father decided, in
consequence, to emigrate. This purpose he did not carry into effect
until the spring of 1852. He had many ties, which it was difficult to
break at once. He had been in comfortable circumstances, like his father
and grandfather a landowner and dealer on a large scale in farm
products, principally grains. The revolution left him reduced in
circumstances and even to some extent in debt. He had four children, of
whom I was the youngest, being then less than a year and a half old.
Therefore, like the prudent man he was, he waited, and then came to
America alone with the purpose of establishing himself in some small way
before allowing his family to exchange the comparative security of their
familiar surroundings for the insecurity of an unknown land.

He landed at Philadelphia, where he met a number of former acquaintances
who had preceded him to America, some of whom were already established
in business. They advised him to go South. Acting on this suggestion he
went on to Oglethorpe, Georgia, where he met some more acquaintances
from the old country. Through them he made a connection with two
brothers Kaufman, who plied the peddler's trade. They owned a peddler's
wagon with which they dispensed through the several counties of the
State an assortment of dry goods and what was known as "Yankee notions."

For my father this was indeed a pioneer business in a pioneer country,
yet it was not like the peddling of to-day. In the fifties the
population of the whole State of Georgia was only about nine hundred
thousand. Because of the existence of slavery there were on the large
plantations often more colored people than there were whites living in
the near-by villages. The itinerant merchant, therefore, filled a real
want, and his vocation was looked upon as quite dignified. Indeed, he
was treated by the owners of the plantations with a spirit of equality
that it is hard to appreciate to-day. Then, too, the existence of
slavery drew a distinct line of demarcation between the white and black
races. This gave to the white visitor a status of equality that probably
otherwise he would not have enjoyed to such a degree.

Provided only, therefore, that the peddler proved himself an honorable,
upright man, who conscientiously treated his customers with fairness and
made no misrepresentations regarding his wares, he was treated as an
honored guest by the plantation owners--certainly a spirit of true
democracy. The visits were made periodically and were quite looked
forward to by the plantation owners. The peddler usually stayed one
night at the house of his customer and took his meals with the family.
Another ideally democratic feature about these sojourns was that spirit
of Southern hospitality which, even in the relationship between the
wealthiest, most aristocratic family and the humble peddler, permitted
no pay for board and lodging, and only a small charge for feed for the
horses. The peddler in turn usually made a gift to either the lady or
her daughter. Often he provided himself with articles for this purpose,
but usually on one visit he would find out what might be welcome and on
the next visit bring it. The bonds of friendship thus made are, I
venture to say, hardly understandable in our day.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the course of these wanderings my father came to Talbotton, a town of
some eight or nine hundred inhabitants, the county seat of Talbot
County, and about forty miles east of the Alabama boundary. Talbotton
immediately impressed him so favorably that he selected it as the next
home for his family. It had an air of refinement that pleased him; there
were gardens with nicely cultivated flowers and shrubbery, and houses
that were neat, well kept, and properly painted. Upon inquiry he found
further that there were splendid schools for both boys and girls.

There was another factor which doubtless caused father to be favorably
impressed with Talbotton; it was court week when he arrived, at which
time a town has a more or less festive appearance and is at its best so
far as activity is concerned. Then there was a third factor that
influenced him to settle there. Before doing business in any county,
peddlers were required to go to the county seat to buy a license. At
Talbotton this license was very high, and my father doubted that his
business in Talbot County would warrant the expense. The idea occurred
to him to utilize the presence of the many strangers in town to test the
possibilities of the place by unpacking and displaying his goods in a
store. An interview with Captain Curley, the only tailor in the town,
developed the fact that the store he occupied was too large for his
needs and he would be willing to share it with my father. So this
arrangement was promptly made, and at a cost less than the expense of
the county license for itinerant merchandising.

The experiment proved most satisfactory. In a few weeks the stock was so
depleted that my father proposed to his partner that they rent a store
and settle in Talbotton. This they did. My father then prepared to go to
Philadelphia to get a stock of goods. His partner counseled against
this. There was a merchant in Oglethorpe who, up to this point, had
supplied them with all their merchandise; they would need to refer to
him for credit, and they were still indebted to him for the stock in
hand; also, he would probably not approve of their settling down in a
store instead of peddling. The new store offered large display space in
comparison with the wagon, and the partner doubted my father's ability
to get enough credit in Philadelphia to make a proper display. Still
another obstacle. The line of merchandise that was to constitute most of
their stock was what was then known as dry goods and domestics. This
business was entirely in the hands of the Yankees and the most difficult
one in which to gain a foothold, especially for a German immigrant
without capital.

However, in the end my father did go to Philadelphia. He had found
several acquaintances in that city, as I have already said, who had been
resident in his neighborhood in the old country. These people were
established in several of the wholesale houses in the different lines of
merchandise he required, except the dry goods. And solely on the
strength of his character and the reputation he had had in Europe he was
able to establish with them the necessary credit, which neither his
capital nor his business experience in a new field and a strange country
warranted. In fact, their faith in him was so strong that one of them
gladly introduced him to the wholesale dry goods merchants, and he was
able to accomplish the full purpose of his mission, to the great
amazement of his partner.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Illustration: BIRTHPLACE OF OSCAR S. STRAUS OTTERBERG, RHENISH BAVARIA]

[Illustration: CHAPEL AND SCHOOLHOUSE COLLINSWORTH INSTITUTE, TALBOTTON,
GEORGIA]

That was in 1853, and marked the beginning of my family's history in
this country. This bit of success encouraged my father to write home
that he might be able to have us join him the following year.
Accordingly, on August 24, 1854, our little party left Otterberg. It
was a journey that required no little courage and resourcefulness. My
mother had three years before suffered a paralytic stroke, and of her
four children the eldest, my brother Isidor, was only nine years old. My
sister Hermina was a year and a half younger, Nathan was six, and I was
only three and a half. My mother's father accompanied us from Otterberg
to Kaiserslautern, he on horseback and the rest of us with our nursemaid
in a carriage; we then took the train to Forbach, a French frontier
town, where we remained overnight. The next morning we left for Paris.
There we stayed until August 29th, when we started for Havre to board
the steamer St. Louis on her maiden voyage. As our boat was being docked
in New York on September 12th, my mother recognized my father
energetically pacing the wharf. Minutes seemed like hours.

We did not go directly to Talbotton. Yellow fever was raging in
Savannah, and as we had to go through that port _en route_ to Talbotton,
we waited in Philadelphia for a few weeks, until the danger was
considered over. Even then we avoided entering the city until it was
time to board the train for Geneva, where we were to take the
stage-coach for the remaining seven miles to Talbotton. The boat docked
at Savannah in the morning, and we spent the day until evening in the
small shanty that was called the station. When finally we reached
Talbotton we found a very comfortable home ready for us. My precocious
brother Isidor immediately inspected the whole and thought it odd to be
in a house built on stilts, as he called it. The house, typical of that
locality, had no cellar, but was supported by an open foundation of
wooden pillars about twenty-five feet apart.

Our family was received with kindness and hospitality, so that in a
very few years our parents were made to feel much at home. My mother,
who had considerable experience in the cultivation of flowers and
vegetables, soon had a garden which was very helpful and instructive to
her circle of neighbors and friends. My father, always a student and
well versed in biblical literature and the Bible, which he read in the
original, was much sought by the ministers of the various denominations,
several of whom habitually dined at our house when in Talbotton on their
circuit. At such times the discussion usually ran along theological
lines. One of my earliest recollections is hearing my father take
passages from the Old Testament and translate them literally for the
information of these ministers.

We were the only Jewish family in the town. This at first aroused some
curiosity among those who had never met persons of our race or religion
before. I remember hearing some one doubt that we were Jews and
remarking to my father, who had very blond hair and blue eyes, that he
thought all Jews had black hair and dark complexion.

       *       *       *       *       *

My brother Isidor and my sister were immediately sent to school, and my
second brother and I were sent as soon as we arrived at school age. I
was seven years old when I began learning my letters.

My main religious instruction came from conversations with my father and
from the discussions the ministers of various denominations had with
him, which I always followed with great interest. When my brother Nathan
and I were respectively about eleven and eight and a half years old, we
were sent to the Baptist Sunday school upon the persuasion of the
Baptist minister, who had become an intimate friend of my father's.
There we heard the Bible read and were taught principally from the Old
Testament. Our teacher was a gunsmith who had more piety than knowledge,
and what he lacked in erudition he made up by good intentions which,
after all, had a cultural value. We continued our attendance some two
years.

At eleven I entered Collinsworth Institute, a higher school for boys,
about a mile outside of Talbotton. Isidor had been there, and Nathan was
there then. It was not a large school, though it was the best of its
kind in our vicinity. The recitation hall or chapel was a little frame
building standing in a square, and around that were eight or ten
one-story frame houses where boys coming from a distance lived. The
pupils ranged in age from about ten to eighteen, and there were three
teachers. We were taught the three R's, and the advanced pupils studied
the classics.

In our small town, being the county seat, we had gala days each month
when the court convened and people came from the surrounding districts
as for a holiday. There was much drinking of gin and whiskey by the
young country squires, which frequently ended up in some fighting where
pistols and knives were freely used. This all left a deep impression on
my young mind and made me a prohibitionist long before I knew the
meaning of the word. In the North when boys got to fighting they used
their fists; in the South they used, besides their fists, sticks and
stones, and consequently it was a more serious and dangerous affair. If
in the North one boy cursed another or called him a liar, it would not
necessarily lead to a fist fight; in fact, it usually stopped at
recrimination. In the South that kind of quarreling meant a serious
fight. I think because of these facts the Southern boys were much more
guarded and polite to each other in speech than was customary among
Northern boys. Perhaps much of the so-called Southern politeness had
its roots in the use, in boyhood, of milder terms in case of
disagreement. I recall one fight between two of the leading men of
Talbotton, both deacons in the same church. One took out his pocket
knife and cut the other's throat, and he died. After considerable delay
the murderer was tried, but because of his high standing in the
community he was acquitted, doubtless on the plea of self-defense, and
he got off scot-free.

As a boy brought up in the South I never questioned the rights or wrongs
of slavery. Its existence I regarded as matter of course, as most other
customs or institutions. The grown people of the South, whatever they
thought about it, would not, except in rare instances, speak against it;
and even then in the most private and guarded manner. To do otherwise
would subject one to social ostracism. We heard it defended in the
pulpit and justified on biblical grounds by leading ministers. With my
father it was different. I frequently heard him discuss the subject with
the ministers who came to our house, and he would point out to them that
the Bible must be read with discrimination and in relation to the period
to which the chapters refer; and it must not be forgotten that it is the
history of a people covering more than a thousand years; and that even
then there had been no such thing as perpetual bondage, as all slaves
were declared free in the year of jubilee.

[Illustration: OSCAR S. STRAUS AT SIX]

Looking backward and making comparisons between my observations as a boy
in the South and later in the North, I find there was much more freedom
of expression in the North than in the South. Few people in the South
would venture to express themselves against the current of dominant
opinion upon matters of sectional importance. The institution of slavery
with all that it implied seemed to have had the effect of enslaving,
or, to use a milder term, checking, freedom of expression on the part of
the master class only in lesser degree than among the slaves themselves.

       *       *       *       *       *

In our town, as in all Southern communities, the better families were
kind, especially to their household slaves, whom they regarded as
members of the family requiring guardianship and protection, in a degree
as if they were children. And the slaves addressed their masters by
their first names and their mistresses as "miss." My mother, for
instance, was "Miss Sara." I recall one of our servants pleading with my
mother: "Miss Sara, won't you buy me, I want to stay here. I love you
and the white folks here, and I am afraid my master will hire me out or
sell me to some one else." At that time we hired our servants from their
masters, whom we paid an agreed price. But as the result of such
constant pleadings my father purchased household slaves one by one from
their masters, although neither he nor my mother believed in slavery. If
we children spoke to the slaves harshly or disregarded their feelings,
we were promptly checked and reprimanded by our parents. My father also
saw to it that our two men servants learned a trade; the one learned
tailoring and the other how to make shoes, though it was regarded
disloyal, at any rate looked upon with suspicion, if a master permitted
a slave boy or girl to be taught even reading and writing. When later we
came North we took with us the two youngest servants, one a boy about my
age, and the other a girl a little older. They were too young to look
out for themselves, and so far as they knew they had no relatives. We
kept them with us until they grew up and could look out for themselves.

The people throughout the South, with the exception of the richer
plantation owners, lived simply. In our household, for instance, we
always lived well, but economically. My mother was very systematic and
frugal. She had an allowance of twenty dollars a month, and my brother
Isidor has well said that she would have managed to save something even
if it had been smaller. It was her pleasure to be her own financier, and
small as her allowance sounds now, she was able in the course of two or
three years to save enough to buy a piano for my sister. This she felt
to be an expense with which my father's exchequer should not be taxed.

We raised our own vegetables and chickens. Fresh meat, except pork,
might have been termed a luxury. Many of the families had their own
smokehouses, as we did, which were filled once a year, at the
hog-killing season. There was no such thing as a butcher in our little
town. When a farmer in the country round wanted to slaughter an ox or a
sheep, he would do so and bring it to town, exhibit it in the public
square in a shanty called the market (used for that particular occasion
and at other times empty), toll the bell that was there, and in that way
announce that some fresh meat was on sale. This procedure never occurred
oftener than once in two or three weeks during the cold weather.

Ice was another luxury in that community. It had to be shipped many
miles and was therefore brought in only occasionally, mainly for a
confectioner who at times offered ice cream to the people.

There was no gas lighting. Oil lamps were used, but to a larger extent
candles, which were manufactured in each household, of fat and bees'
wax. In that process we children all helped.

Indeed, with a small business in a small town in those days it was
possible for a man to accumulate a surplus only through the practice of
the strictest economy by his family as well as by himself, an economy
almost bordering parsimony. There were no public or free schools in that
part of the South; every textbook had to be bought and tuition paid for;
and there were four of us.

       *       *       *       *       *

When the war broke out new economies were called for. A simple life has
its advantages; it is conducive to self-help, also to the ability to do
without things and meet emergencies without unhappiness. My father's
partner joined the Fourth Georgia Regiment, and my brother Isidor, then
sixteen, was withdrawn from Collinsworth Institute to take up work with
my father. He had gained some experience in carrying on the business by
helping father evenings, for our store was open until nine-thirty. It
was closed during the supper hour, but reopened thereafter.

In that part of the country coffee became unobtainable except when now
and then a few bags arrived on a ship that had run the blockade. Our
mothers learned to give us an acceptable substitute by cutting sweet
potatoes into little cubes, drying them in the sun, then roasting and
grinding them, together with grains of wheat, like the ordinary bean.
This made a hot and palatable drink having the color of coffee without
the harmful stimulus of its caffeine.

Salt also became scarce. It was difficult and at times impossible to
obtain enough to cure our pork. Some one discovered that the earthen
floors of the smokehouses were impregnated with considerable salt from
previous curings, so a method was invented for recovering it from that
source.

In the later years of the war, when railway transportation was very poor
and in many localities interrupted, we did not suffer for food, because,
as I have said, most households in the small towns and in the country
raised the major part of their food supplies; they had their own
chickens, eggs, milk, butter, garden provisions. Children of my age
lived largely on corn bread and molasses, of which there was an
ever-plentiful amount.

During the second year of the war my father's partner was discharged
from his regiment for physical disability. My father, always insistent
upon the best possible education for us all, therefore urged my brother
Isidor to continue his studies. Most of the high schools and colleges,
however, had been suspended because the teachers, as well as many of the
senior scholars, had joined the army. On the other hand, the war had
fired the whole South with the military spirit, and as was natural for a
young man barely seventeen, my brother chose to attend the Georgia
Military Academy at Marietta, which was running full blast. Earlier in
the war, when the Fourth Georgia Regiment, taking practically all the
able-bodied men of the town, had left for the front, the boys of
Talbotton organized a company of which Isidor was elected first
lieutenant. They had offered their services to the governor of the
State, but he replied that there were not enough arms to equip all the
men, so that equipping boys was out of the question. All these incidents
had influenced my brother in his choice, and he left quite
enthusiastically for the Georgia Military Academy to take his entrance
examinations. When he returned, however, his mood was much different.
Upon his arrival at Marietta he had about an hour's waiting before he
could see the proper person. Some acquaintances whom he met on the
campus invited him to visit their living quarters meanwhile. As he
entered one of the rooms the door stood ajar. Without noticing this he
gave the door a push, resulting in his being drenched to the skin by a
bucket of water that had been balanced over the door and held there by
the position of the door when ajar. He had to return to the hotel to
change his entire apparel. He had not heard of hazing before, and the
incident disgusted him so that he never returned to the academy. He
embarked upon his career as a merchant the very next morning.

       *       *       *       *       *

In 1863 our family moved to Columbus, Georgia. It was a much larger
place than Talbotton, having a population of about twelve thousand,
offered more opportunities, and, too, my brother Isidor had already
found employment there. With its broad main street and brick residences
it looked like a great city to me.

As in Talbotton, there were no public schools in Columbus, so I was sent
to a private school kept by an Irish master named Flynn, who did not act
on the pedagogical principle, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." By
him I was taught the three R's and began Latin. I also experienced my
first stage-fright at Master Flynn's, when my turn came to speak a piece
before the entire school. In all Southern schools much emphasis was
placed upon elocution. I well remember practicing before a mirror and
reciting under the trees in stentorian voice with dramatic gesture the
great oration put into John Adams's mouth by Daniel Webster, beginning:
"Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my hand and my
heart to this vote."

After another year this school was discontinued and I was sent to one
kept by a Dr. Dews. He was a teacher trained in the classics and far
less severe than Flynn, more sympathetic and cultured. Under him I
began Virgil and afterwards Horace. It was not customary to teach
English grammar; we derived that from our laborious drilling in Latin
grammar.

There were no public libraries, and few families, other than those of
professional men, had many books. The standard assortment consisted of
the Bible, Josephus, Burns; some had Shakespeare's works. I do not
recall at this period reading any book outside of those we had for study
at school. Boys of my age led an outdoor life, indulging in seasonable
sports which rotated from top-spinning to marbles, to ball-playing,
principally a game called town-ball. We all had shot-guns, so that in
season and out we went bird-hunting and rabbit-hunting.

We went barefooted nine months of the year, both for comfort and
economy. As in Talbotton we lived most economically. We were not poor in
the sense of being needy; we never felt in any way dependent. Our home
was comfortable, wholesome, full of sunshine and good cheer, and always
hospitable to friends. Our wants were few and simple, so we had plenty,
and I felt as independent as any child of the rich.

We were now in the midst of the Civil War, and money, measured in gold,
was worth about five cents per dollar. My brother Nathan seemed to be
affected by this into constant scheming for making pocket money. He was
fifteen years old, and out of school hours helped father in the store;
but he seemed to be in need of more pin-money. He finally hit on a plan
that proved quite lucrative. He collected or bought up pieces of hemp
rope and sold them to a manufacturer. Hemp was very scarce and much
needed. With the proceeds he bought a beautiful bay pony, which he and I
prized more than any possession we have ever had, before or since.

       *       *       *       *       *

On the 16th of April, 1865, after a feeble skirmish on the part of the
citizen soldiers, mainly superannuated men and schoolboys, Columbus was
captured by General James H. Wilson at the head of a cavalry corps of
fifteen thousand men. The war had practically ended seven days before,
as Lee surrendered on the 9th at Appomattox Court House in Virginia; but
as telegraph and railroad communication had been disrupted, this fact
was not yet known in our part of Georgia. As soon as Wilson's army took
possession of our debilitated city general confusion reigned. Looting
began by the town rabble, led by several drunken Federal soldiers;
cotton warehouses were burned, the contents of which represented the
savings of many, including most of my father's; all horses were seized,
and among them our little pony, which I never saw again, though I still
retain a vivid picture of him in my mind's eye. Frequently since, when I
have met that fine and accomplished old veteran, General Wilson, who is
still among the living, hale and hearty, I have jestingly reproached him
for taking from me the most treasured possession I ever had.

This incident and others served to give me a most vivid impression of
the closing years of the Civil War. Another very vivid impression that
occurred shortly before the beginning of the war clings to my memory.
Robert Toombs, one of Georgia's most conspicuous United States Senators,
was making a speech at the Masonic Temple in Columbus, Georgia. It was a
hot summer day. Toombs was a short, thick, heavy-set man of the
Websterian type, and one of the South's most picturesque orators. After
the election of Lincoln, however, Toombs advocated secession and
resigned from the Senate, was talked of for the Confederate presidency,
did become Confederate Secretary of State, and was later commissioned a
brigadier-general, and commanded with distinction in numerous battles of
the Civil War. During the speech I heard him make, he drew a large white
handkerchief from his pocket with a flourish, and pausing before mopping
his perspiring forehead, he exclaimed:

"The Yankees will not and can not fight! I will guarantee to wipe up
with this handkerchief every drop of blood that is spilt."

Neither he nor the audience foresaw what was coming. The Civil War was a
family affair, yet the hostility it engendered and the misconception it
brought in its train regarding the valor, and even the standards of
civilization, of the enemy, were as extreme and virulent as in a war
between nations of different continents and races. Such are the
brutalizing passions war arouses in banishing from the individual mind
the most elementary ideas of brotherhood.

When the war ended my father had to begin life anew, and because of the
discouraging prospects and conditions of the South he decided to move
North. In the North, too, he could more readily dispose of the remainder
of his cotton, his chief asset, to pay off debts which he owed in New
York and Philadelphia for goods purchased before the war. With the few
thousand dollars remaining after paying these debts, and with good
credit, he thought he could begin some new business in a small way.

Simultaneously with our arrival in Philadelphia my brother Isidor
arrived in New York from Europe, where he had gone two years before as
secretary of a commission to buy supplies for the State of Georgia. The
blockade of the Southern ports became so effective that ships could not
get through, so that he did not succeed in getting over the supplies;
but he made several thousand dollars in the sale of Confederate bonds.
Upon learning in New York that we were in Philadelphia, he immediately
came there to find out my father's plans. He persuaded father that New
York, as the chief market, was preferable to Philadelphia as a secondary
one. Consequently we moved to New York, and father and Isidor, together
with Nathan, planned to establish themselves in the wholesale crockery
business. Isidor, twenty years old, first used part of his fortune to
buy for my mother a high-stoop, three-story brick house at 220 West
Forty-Ninth Street, now long since torn down, but which we occupied for
over eighteen years.

It was fully six months before the new business venture was launched. My
father depended for his part of the capital upon the sale of the
remainder of his cotton, which had been shipped to Liverpool, and this
was not effected until early in 1866. In the intervening months he
visited his creditors in New York to arrange for paying his debts. In
this connection I remember one significant incident: His principal New
York creditor was the dry goods house of George Bliss & Co., to whom he
owed an amount between four and five thousand dollars. (Bliss afterward
became a member of the banking firm of Morton, Bliss & Co.) When he
called regarding the payment of this, Mr. Bliss asked how old he was,
what family he had, and what he intended doing. My father answered that
he was fifty-seven, that he had a wife and four children, and that he
hoped to make a new start in the wholesale crockery business. "I don't
think you are fair to your family and yourself," said Mr. Bliss, "to
deprive yourself of the slender means you tell me you possess by paying
out your available resources. I will compromise with you for less than
the full amount in view of the hardships of the war and your family
obligations."

My father had a very high sense of honor and was always more concerned
in maintaining it beyond possible reproach than in making money. Some
parents forget that they cannot successfully live by one standard
outside and another inside the home, and many never realize that
children are influenced not so much by the preaching as by the true and
real spirit of their parents. My father believed that "a good name is
better than riches," and within the home or without he lived up to that
standard. I clearly remember the impression I received of his integrity
at the time of this Bliss incident, and of a certain feeling of
compunction on the part of his creditor, as though he had expected
something different. Most Southern merchants regarded themselves morally
freed from paying Northern creditors because the Confederate government
had confiscated such debts and compelled the debtors to pay the amounts
to the government. But my father held true to his standard, and I well
remember his parting words to Bliss that day: "I propose to pay my debts
in full and leave to my children a good name even if I should leave them
nothing else."

       *       *       *       *       *

My brother Isidor, always my guide, philosopher, and friend, now
arranged for my schooling. In my geography textbook was a picture of
Columbia College, and I had the fixed idea that when we came to New York
I wanted to go there. On inquiry we learned that I was too young, for I
was only fourteen and a half, and that I had not the requirements for
admission. So in the autumn of 1865 Isidor had me enter Columbia Grammar
School, then one of the best schools in the city. It was my first
experience in a really first-rate school, and the teaching was so much
more thorough and exact than my previous training had been that it
seemed to me I had to learn everything anew. The tuition fee and the
cost of books was considerable, in view of the modest income of the
family; but my father, economical in all other respects, was liberal
beyond his means where the education of his children was concerned. My
brother, moreover, was desirous that I should have the advantages of the
college training which circumstances, notably the war, had withheld from
him.

I appreciated to the full the privileges I was permitted to enjoy and
studied with all my might. The school regulations required that parents
fill out a blank each week stating, among other things, the number of
hours we studied at home. The average number of hours daily reported
were three or four, and as my record was fully double that, I felt
rather ashamed to give the true number, so I always gave less. The
school was on Fourth Avenue and Twenty-Seventh Street, and our home on
Forty-Ninth Street was near Eighth Avenue. I invariably walked both
ways, saving car fares and at the same time conserving my health, for
aside from a half-hour of gymnastics twice a week in school I had
neither time nor opportunity otherwise to get the exercise my body
required.

Owing to the careless preparation I had received at the schools in the
South, I made a poor showing in spite of my hard work now, though on one
occasion I shone with accidental glory. It was the custom for the
instructor to put the same question to pupil after pupil, and to elevate
the one who gave the correct answer to the head of the class. In this
instance, it so happened that I gave the fortunate answer and thus
qualified for the seat of scholastic eminence. As I sat there enjoying a
near view of the teacher's countenance, I wondered how long I should
remain thus distinguished, and was unable to resist the impulse to cast
an occasional backward glance at the rows of seats in the rear.

At about this time, an elderly gentleman of distinguished appearance
entered the classroom. He was S. F. B. Morse, inventor of the telegraph.
Morse, whose grandson was in my class, knowing the custom and observing
me in the seat of honor, complimented me. He observed that I, like
himself, had a large head in comparison with the body, and remarked that
I must be a bright boy. But I felt embarrassed rather than gratified at
the praise, for I knew, and so did the rest, that I did not deserve it.
I still recall that scene, and see the venerable old man, then
seventy-five years old, with the long white beard that made him look
even older.

When the time came, in the spring of 1867, for our class to go up for
college examination, the Rev. Dr. Bacon, successor as principal of the
school to Charles Anthon, the distinguished classical scholar and editor
of classical works, called the boys of our class before him and gave us
each a blessing with some encouraging words. When my turn came he was
very kind, telling me he knew I had tried hard, but because of my early
training, or lack of it, he feared I might not pass. I saw my chances of
a college education go glimmering. There were, however, still two weeks
before the examinations, and I determined to use those for all they were
worth. I worked night and day, cramming with a vengeance. I felt I could
not expect my father to keep me in school another year when after two
years of preparation I had shown myself so deficient. That thought was
my spur, though in point of fact I am sure both my brother Isidor and my
father, realizing I had done the best I could, would have insisted upon
my taking another year for preparation.

The result of my entrance examinations was more favorable than I could
have hoped. It turned out that I was the only one from our grammar
school class to pass in all subjects without a single condition. It was
luck rather than brilliancy. The professor who examined my classmates in
ancient geography, being the author of the book upon which the
examination was held, was so meticulous that unless the student gave the
answer exactly as in the book he was marked deficient. By the time it
came my turn to be examined another and more generous-minded professor
had taken his place and passed me with the highest mark. The others, who
had all flunked, regarded me, in their own language, as "the lucky dog."

       *       *       *       *       *

My college course began on October 7, 1867. Here I did not find the
studies hard. I had ample leisure for reading and took full advantage of
the college library, from which we were free to select and take home
whatever books we desired. Then, as now, I cared little for fiction. To
me the literature of facts was more interesting and therefore lighter
reading, and I read much biography and history.

Our class matriculated fifty-two, but dwindled down to thirty-one by
graduation. In the class were Brander Matthews, now professor of
literature at Columbia as well as literary and dramatic critic; Robert
Fulton Cutting, financier and ideal citizen, descendant of an old and
famous New York family, as his name indicates; Stuyvesant Fish, banker,
also of a well-known New York family, whose father, Hamilton Fish, was
Secretary of State in the Grant Cabinet, and whose grandfather and
father both were among Columbia alumni; and Henry Van Rensselaer, who
became a Jesuit father and is now no longer among the living.

At the commemoration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the
founding of the college three of us--Robert Fulton Cutting, Brander
Matthews, and myself--received the honorary degree of LL.D. At this
writing, fifty years after graduation, there are but ten of us
remaining.

The most coveted honors in those days were to be had for literary
achievement and class rank. Among the few prizes was one known as the
Alumni Prize, awarded to the most deserving student in the graduating
class. The college board nominated for that honor William Henry Sage,
now our class historian, Joseph Fenelon Vermilye, and myself; and the
class elected Vermilye for the prize.

Athletics had not attained the vogue it has in American universities
to-day, and was particularly absent in our college, confined then to a
city block. Doubtless due to this lack the boys of our class, on the
whole a spirited and boisterous lot, found self-expression in a
disregard for proper decorum in the lecture rooms. There was one period
where this was conspicuously the case. The subject was Evidences of
Christianity. It was compulsory and along denominational lines. It did
not interest many of the boys, and some of those who were not
Episcopalians even resented it; to boot, the professor, Rev. Dr.
McVickar, was a mild-mannered man, entirely unable to maintain
discipline. The result was frequent and various disturbances during the
sessions of his class, which often put the good-natured and
unsophisticated man at his wits' end. He complained to the college
board, and President Barnard took the matter up with some seriousness,
but no real appeasement.

I felt great sympathy for Dr. McVickar, for he was earnest and gentle,
and took much to heart the conduct of the men in his class. Of course,
in common with most of my classmates I strongly favored that the
subject be elective instead of compulsory; yet I realized that, as
colleges were then constituted, the original Columbia being largely an
Episcopalian foundation, there was a legal right, as distinguished from
reason, for the requirement that the course in Evidences of Christianity
be compulsory.

One day when the disturbances became most flagrant, and the poor
professor was really quite helpless, I ventured to point out to him how
he might bring about order. He received my suggestion most favorably, so
I asked him to let me take his chair for a few moments. I made a brief
appeal to the class, reminding them that we were now seniors, and that
there were some, especially those intending to study for the ministry,
who were interested in the subject and prevented from following it by
the boisterous behavior of the rest. I was jeeringly dubbed Professor
Straus, but I went right on. I said I knew there were a number who were
opposed to the study of Evidences of Christianity, and I proposed that
they rise. To those who got up I gave permission to leave the room, and
as I recall it, there were some eight or ten left. Then I turned to Dr.
McVickar and said, "Here is a class you can teach." And the session went
on smoothly enough. Subsequently a petition was drawn up and signed by a
large majority of the class, asking that we be excused from examinations
in this particular subject; but President Barnard replied that the
request could not be entertained.

       *       *       *       *       *

On the whole my four years at college were full of serious effort and
not altogether free from anxiety. I had a restless ambition to have a
useful career and it seemed difficult to discover for what I was best
fitted. For a while, in those dreamy days, I even believed I might
achieve some measure of success as a poet. I recall with a smile that
the choice for class poet at commencement lay between Brander Matthews,
whom we then knew as James Brander Matthews, and myself. And for some
reason, which posterity will doubtless find even more difficult to
fathom than I have, I was chosen. Matthews had already given evidence of
his literary talents; he contributed much to the college papers, and
wrote humorous poems. However, at our graduation exercises held in the
Academy of Music, Fourteenth Street and Irving Place, the city's largest
auditorium then, my class poem was well received by a capacity audience
of proud parents and sympathetic friends. I had gravely entitled it
"Truth and Error."

A more fervent aspiration held by me in those years was to devote my
life to the nation, and I could conceive no better way of doing so than
to enter the army. One day I saw an item in the press that President
Grant had several appointments to make to the United States Military
Academy. I consulted with Dr. F. A. P. Barnard, president of Columbia,
and he gave me a letter of introduction to Grant, highly commending me
for an appointment. When President Grant came to New York I called on
him. He received me very kindly, but informed me that he had only
something like eight appointments allowed him by law, and he had decided
to give them where possible to the sons of officers who had been killed
in the war; if, however, there were not enough such candidates he would
be glad to give me a chance. I told him I thoroughly agreed that his
decision was so appropriate that I would not even ask to be appointed
under the circumstances.

[Illustration: OSCAR S. STRAUS

At the time of his graduation]

During the second half of my senior year I finally chose the law as
my vocation. I preferred it to a business career because I disliked the
idea of devoting my life to mere money-making, as business appeared to
me then. My outlook was idealistic rather than practical, and to
harmonize it with the workaday world caused me much mental anguish and
struggle, as it does many a young man, even where affluent fortune has
smiled. However, my father and brother had begun to prosper and had no
need for my coöperation unless on my own account I chose to join them.
Besides, I was the youngest and had the benefit of the brotherly
interest and economic protection of Isidor and Nathan, should I need it.
This gave me a feeling of security, and encouraged me to put forth my
best efforts not only to succeed for myself, but to show my appreciation
to them. Where, under moderate circumstances, a family puts forth
coöperative effort in making its way forward, closer family ties result,
with the advantages of stimulating unselfishness and common devotion,
which in turn promote a happiness that members of richer families often
miss because of their more independent relations.

So I prepared to enter Columbia Law School in the fall of 1871.
Meanwhile that summer I took my first vacation since coming to New York.
I went to Wyoming Valley, near Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, where I had a
good time despite the farmer with whom I boarded. Perhaps I had no right
to expect much for the five dollars a week I paid him; but whatever I
expected I know I got less. However, there were fish in the brooks and I
do not recall that I starved. I had spent other summers assisting in
some branch of my father's business, not because I relished work unduly,
but because I regarded it less as labor than as diversion. It was
interesting and useful activity which gave me an understanding of
business that was valuable later in following my chosen profession.




CHAPTER II

LAW, BUSINESS, AND LETTERS

     Columbia Law School--Impressions of the faculty--I begin law
     practice--Early partnerships--A $10,000 fee--Founding of the Young
     Men's Hebrew Association in 1874--The "dissipations" of a law
     partner--The Hepburn Committee on railway rates; my partner Simon
     Sterne represents the Chamber of Commerce--On the bridle-path with
     Joseph H. Choate--I become a member of L. Straus & Sons,
     manufacturers and importers--My marriage to Miss Sarah
     Lavanburg--My début in politics--The Cleveland-Blaine campaign--The
     "rum, Romanism, and rebellion" episode--"Origin of the Republican
     Form of Government," my first book--Recommended as minister to
     Turkey; Henry Ward Beecher writes the President--Cleveland
     nominates me minister to Turkey.


Columbia Law School in 1871 was at Lafayette Place. The course covered
two years, at the end of which a successful examination entitled a
student to admission to the bar without a further State examination, and
for those who gave serious attention to the course it was an easy matter
to pass this finishing examination.

Particularly worthy of mention with regard to the school are Professors
Theodore W. Dwight and Francis Lieber. Professor Dwight, the able
director of the school at that time, well deserved his great reputation
as the most distinguished teacher of law in the country. He was not only
a master of his subject, but had a marvelous gift for imparting his
great knowledge.

Professor Lieber, whose lectures we attended once a week, taught us
political science. He was a Prussian veteran who fought in the Battle of
Waterloo. At the close of the Napoleonic Wars he had returned to his
studies in Berlin, and thereafter was arrested several times for his
outspoken liberal views. After frequent persecution and even
imprisonment, he fled to England, and in 1827 came to America.

He was author of many books on legal and political matters, among them
"Civil Liberty and Self-Government," which was adopted as a textbook in
several of our universities. In 1863 he prepared "Instructions for the
Government of Armies of the United States, in the Field," which Lincoln
promulgated as Order No. 100 of the War Department. It was a masterly
piece of work, embodying advanced humanitarian principles, and it later
formed the basis of several European codes.

As a rule, egotism and real merit negate one another rather than
coördinate; Lieber was the exception. He had both, and combined them to
a marked degree, sometimes in a manner that afforded amusement to his
students. For instance, he referred continuously to "my Civil Liberty"
as a book of extraordinary erudition, new in its field and the last word
on the matter. He was so full of his subject that he was apt to lose
himself and stray off, with his distinctly German accent, into the vast
field of his profound philosophical and historical knowledge. A
veritable encyclopædia of information, he was really more of an
expounder than a teacher. As his course was optional, those who came to
listen came to learn, and we received a larger view of the function of
law in civil society than we derived from all our studies of municipal
law.

       *       *       *       *       *

I was graduated from law school in June, 1873, and immediately entered
the offices of Ward, Jones & Whitehead, one of New York's prominent
firms. John E. Ward, the senior member, who presided over the Democratic
National Convention that nominated Buchanan, and later served for two or
three years as Minister to China, was a friend of my brother's, and he
took me into his office largely out of friendship for Isidor.

I remained with this firm only a few months. Later in 1873 I formed a
partnership with James A. Hudson, a man about ten years older than I,
who had also been associated with the Ward firm. As Hudson & Straus we
opened offices on the fourth floor of 59 Wall Street.

On the same floor in this building was the office of Charles O'Conor,
then the acknowledged head of the American Bar. He had practically
retired, but retained a small office of one or two rooms, with one
clerk. He came in only two or three times a week. Often when he felt
fatigued he would rest on a lounge in a room set apart as library in our
office. For a young lawyer like myself it was an unusual privilege to
have such pleasant personal relations with so able and wise a leader in
the profession. Incidentally I think O'Conor was instrumental in sending
us our first important case, the collection of an old debt of
considerable size. We were so successful for our client that, of his own
accord, he sent us a check for ten thousand dollars, saying he would
make it larger if we regarded it insufficient. The fact was, the amount
was larger than we had thought of charging, and we frankly told him so.
With five thousand dollars in reserve I felt rich and independent. My
wants were naturally simple and our general practice was encouraging.

       *       *       *       *       *

At about this time I first became active in public-spirited
undertakings. The Young Men's Christian Association a few years before
had opened its Twenty-Third Street Branch at the corner of Fourth Avenue
and Twenty-Third Street, and the movement on the whole was getting much
publicity and proving very successful in its work among young men. But
it was an institution for Christians, and it occurred to several of
us--as I remember it, there were two of my fellow members of the bar,
Meyer S. Isaacs and Isaac S. Isaacs; Dr. Simeon N. Leo, Solomon B.
Solomon, and myself--that it would be a useful undertaking if we
organized a Young Men's Hebrew Association for the cultural and
intellectual advancement of Jewish young men. After a few preliminary
meetings we launched our project early in 1874. We rented a house in the
vicinity of Nineteenth or Twentieth Street and began in a very modest
way. Our first entertainment was of a purely literary nature, and I
recollect on that occasion addressing the members of the infant
enterprise on the subject of literary clubs, ancient and modern, from
the time of Socrates and Plato to the days of the coffee houses of
Addison, Steele, and Goldsmith. The Y.M.H.A. subsequently had its years
of struggle for existence, but to-day its place in our cities as an
influence for the development of culture and patriotism is assured, as
well as that of its sister organization of later birth, the Young
Women's Hebrew Association.

I had chosen the law as my profession, but I still wrote verse, and in
the decade following my graduation published several pieces. At one
memorable event I was invited to deliver an original poem. It was in
1875, at a large fair in Gilmore's Garden, the predecessor of the
present Madison Square Garden. The fair was held to raise funds toward
the erection of a new building for the Mount Sinai Hospital, and the
immense auditorium was crowded. Samuel J. Tilden, then Governor of New
York and also prospective Democratic nominee for President, made the
opening address. My poetic possibilities, however, rested more upon
aspiration than inspiration, and my craving for versification was but a
passing phase of my literary activities.

About 1876 we removed our office to the New York Life Building, then, as
now, at 346 Broadway, corner of Leonard Street. Our clientèle was
mostly commercial and this neighborhood seemed more convenient. Our
neighbors at the new location were Chamberlain, Carter & Eaton, a
prominent commercial law firm of which Charles E. Hughes subsequently
became a member.

A few years later we took into our firm Simon Sterne, then one of the
brilliant younger members of the bar, and our firm became Sterne, Hudson
& Straus. But Hudson wanted to devote himself to patent law, in which he
had specialized somewhat, so the firm soon changed again to Sterne,
Straus & Thompson. Daniel G. Thompson had been our managing clerk. He
had an attractive personality and a philosophical temperament, but was
more a psychologist than a lawyer. He was author of several works on the
science and history of psychology which were favorably received and
commended by such men as Herbert Spencer and other high authorities in
both Europe and America. These qualities made him a target for the
sarcasm of Sterne, who, on the other hand, was thoroughly the lawyer. On
one occasion I remember Sterne asking me whether I knew Thompson was
dissipating. I expressed surprise, and Sterne went on: "Certainly he is,
for when he goes home he works till all hours of the night writing
psychology, and naturally next day he comes with an exhausted brain to
his legal work. He might better go on a spree, for one gets over that.
But when one buries one's self in such an exacting science he is lost
for the law, which is a jealous mistress and will not bear a rival."

       *       *       *       *       *

Under the name of Sterne, Straus & Thompson we had a practice that
ranged all the way from the collection of debts to questions affecting
street railways and public utilities. Our old firm had a business like
that of most young lawyers, but Sterne's practice was much more
important, his field being mainly banking and railroads. Sterne, in
fact, was rapidly achieving a reputation as an authority in the State on
railways and railway legislation. At that time there was no Interstate
Commerce Commission. Many New York merchants were complaining, through
the New York Chamber of Commerce and the New York Board of Trade and
Transportation, that the railroads were discriminating and giving to
certain shippers much lower rates than to others, also giving preference
to some in the moving of freight. In 1879 the Legislature finally
appointed a committee of eight men to investigate these charges. A.
Barton Hepburn, member of the Assembly from St. Lawrence County, was
made chairman, causing the committee always thereafter to be referred to
as the Hepburn Committee. Sterne represented the Chamber of Commerce and
the Board of Trade in this investigation.

The committee sat intermittently for about nine months. The railroads
had a brilliant array of legal talent, but Sterne elicited testimony
from them which proved the charges of the merchants. Sterne then drafted
the report of the committee, which included several recommendations for
legislation. It was the first impressive and well-directed attempt to
deal with the regulation of transportation companies, and resulted in
the passage, in 1880, of the bill creating the first Board of Railroad
Commissioners. Later, in 1887, the influence of this work was still
alive in connection with legislation for the creation of the Federal
Interstate Commerce Commission. The business of our firm did not exactly
benefit by this public service of Sterne. As a result of his public
activities and settlement of litigation, such railway clients as we had
were lost to us at about this time.

At this point in my career I have the fond recollection of a dear and
intimate friendship, which continued for several years, with Joseph H.
Choate, of the firm of Evarts, Southmayd & Choate. We used to ride
horseback together in the park before breakfast. This intimacy naturally
was very valuable to me. We discussed all manner of topics, not only
affecting our profession, but touching many public matters and the
philosophy of life and living in general. In these morning hours, with
the exhilaration of our ride, Mr. Choate was always full of fun and good
humor. He was the most sought after person for addressing all important
public functions, and frequently he would outline the substance of his
addresses. Speaking one day of the many demands upon him as a speaker,
he remarked that he appeared to be in the fashion just then, but, like
wall-paper, fashions change, and it was not likely to last long. In his
case, however, the fashion lasted, even increased, until his death in
1917.

My major law work was in the most exacting and nerve-racking branch, the
trying of cases. My general physical condition, though never robust, was
none the less good, but I had not learned what one is more apt to
acquire later in life: to conserve my energies. The result was that the
wear and tear of court work reduced my weight to one hundred and five
pounds. My physician strongly advised me to do less exacting work, and
especially to stop trying cases. As this branch of the law appealed to
me most, it was a grave disappointment to have to abandon it. Rather
than continue in the profession with such an inhibition, therefore, I
yielded to the advice of my father and brother to join their firm.

       *       *       *       *       *

I took a vacation of several months, and upon my return early in 1881 I
became a member of L. Straus & Sons, who had become large manufacturers
and importers of china and glassware. On account of the growing business
they really needed my services, and my transition from professional to
business man was made as acceptable and agreeable as possible. As was to
be expected, I continued for some time to long for "the fleshpots of
Egypt," for I was much attached to my profession. As a compensation, and
to satisfy my intellectual longings, I devoted my evenings and spare
time to historical reading and study.

Having embarked on a business career, I reversed a decision that I made
while practicing law. As a lawyer I had taken very seriously and
literally the saying that "the law is a jealous mistress." I was her
devoted slave, quite willingly so, and I determined never to marry. I
was economically independent as a single man and could devote my time to
the law for its own sake. This I preferred to do, as the idealist that I
was, rather than pursue the law for economic reasons first and for its
own sake as much as possible secondarily, which I felt would have to be
the case if I married. But as a business man things were different, and
I decided now to marry.

       *       *       *       *       *

On January 22, 1882, I became engaged to Sarah, only daughter of Louis
and Hannah Seller Lavanburg, and we were married on the 19th of April
following, at the home of her parents on West Forty-Sixth Street, near
Fifth Avenue. At the wedding dinner, to which had come hosts of our
friends and acquaintances, Joaquin Miller, poet of the Sierras, as he
was called, read a poem which he composed for the event. The manuscript
I think is still in my possession.

In the year of my marriage I also made my début in politics. I was
secretary of the Executive Committee of an independent group organized
for the reëlection of William R. Grace as mayor of New York. The
distinguished lawyer, Frederick R. Coudert, was chairman of that
committee. Grace had been a Tammany mayor and given the city a good
business administration--so good and so independent that Tammany refused
to nominate him for a second term. On the independent ticket Grace had a
large Republican as well as the independent Democratic support, and was
duly elected.

       *       *       *       *       *

I next took part in the Cleveland-Blaine campaign. In 1884 we formed in
New York City the Cleveland and Hendricks Merchants' and Business Men's
Association, of which I was secretary of the executive committee, and we
coöperated with the Democratic National Committee, Senator Arthur P.
Gorman, chairman, whose headquarters were at the old Fifth Avenue Hotel,
corner of Fifth Avenue and Twenty-Third Street. We organized a parade
and marched forty thousand strong from lower Broadway to Thirty-Fourth
Street. It was the first time business men had ever been organized along
political lines.

All who remember this campaign know what an exciting and close battle it
was. The dramatic event which doubtless put the balance in Cleveland's
favor was the speech of the Rev. Dr. Samuel D. Burchard, a Presbyterian
minister of New York, at Republican headquarters. A few days before the
election the Republican managers had called what they termed a
ministers' meeting, to which came some six hundred clergymen of all
denominations to meet Mr. Blaine. Dr. Burchard, noted as an orator, was
to speak, followed by Mr. Blaine. In concluding his address, Dr.
Burchard evidently lost control of his dignity, for he stigmatized the
Democratic Party as the party of "rum, Romanism, and rebellion." In the
face of the great efforts the Republican Party had made, with some
measure of success, to secure the Roman Catholic vote, this denunciation
gave a big opportunity to the Democrats. Furthermore, Blaine, keen a
politician as he was, failed immediately to repudiate the remark.

I was present at Democratic headquarters when the reporter who had been
sent to this meeting returned. Senator Gorman asked him to read from his
shorthand notes, and when he came to the expression, "rum, Romanism, and
rebellion," Gorman at once said, "Write that out." The Democratic
managers saw their chance. Quickly the whole country was placarded with
posters headed "R.R.R.," with all sorts of variations and additions of
the original phrase. In the end it was the New York vote that determined
the victory for the Democrats, and doubtless because of the influence
the words of Dr. Burchard had had upon Roman Catholic voters.

When the election returns were in, Cleveland had won by only 1047 votes.
Because of the closeness of the vote in New York the Republicans did not
at first concede the victory. Among the Democrats, on the other hand,
there was a great feeling of bitterness and nervous apprehension lest an
effort be made to make it a Republican victory, as was the case in 1876
when the uncertain returns were decided by an electoral commission,
which, to the disappointment of many, made its decision on party lines.
Jay Gould, who controlled the telegraph lines, was accused by the
Democrats of holding back returns.

The Merchants' and Business Men's Association promptly organized a large
meeting in the Academy of Music, to proclaim and celebrate Cleveland's
election. August Belmont, Sr., as chairman, presided, and I, as
secretary, presented the resolutions. We had invited the most prominent
speakers we could get, and there were Henry Ward Beecher, Daniel
Dougherty of Philadelphia, Algernon S. Sullivan, among others. I
distinctly recall a humorous and cryptic remark of Beecher's address
that day: "If the chair is too small, make it larger"--referring to
Cleveland's avoirdupois and the claim that he did not fit in the
presidential chair. The note of victory, and the determination to stand
by that victory at all costs, had a reassuring effect throughout the
country.

When the campaign was over I was told by a member of the National
Committee that if there was any political office to which I aspired, the
Committee would be glad to further any ambition I might have; but I
replied my only wish was that Cleveland live up to the political
principles which had brought him the support of so many independent or
"mugwump" voters and so made possible his election.

       *       *       *       *       *

During the winter of 1883-84 the Young Men's Hebrew Association invited
me to speak in their course of lectures. I was to choose my own subject.
They had hired Chickering Hall, at Fifth Avenue and Fifteenth Street, a
large lecture hall in those days, and as great importance was being
attached to the occasion I naturally put my best foot forward in the
preparation of my material. I chose as my theme "The Origin of the
Republican Form of Government." In it I traced the rise of democracy, in
contradistinction to monarchy, from the Hebrew Commonwealth as expounded
in the Old Testament and interpreted by the early Puritans of New
England, especially in their "election sermons," which were of a
politico-religious character and were delivered annually before the
legislatures of the various New England colonies.

There was a huge audience, and the next morning the press gave very
generous reports of the address. It attracted the attention of various
ministers in Brooklyn, and subsequently I was asked to repeat it before
the Long Island Historical Society, in that city. There I had an amusing
experience. In the course of the talk I quoted ideas similar to mine
that had been advanced over a hundred years before by Thomas Paine in
his "Common Sense," and I referred to the high estimates of Paine held
by Washington, Monroe, Dr. Rush, and others of the time. I refrained
from expressing opinions of my own, contenting myself with a reference
to those of the fathers of the Republic. Suddenly, however, several
ministers left the hall, protesting that they had not come to hear a
eulogy on Paine.

Later I developed this address, under its original title, and published
it in book form. The first edition came out in 1885. The appearance of a
first book is quite an event in one's life, especially when it is well
received among critics and by the press. At any rate, it seemed like a
landmark in my own life. Historical writers referred to it as a distinct
contribution to our historical literature, and I felt that so far as the
pen was concerned I had discovered this branch of writing to be my forte
rather than poetry. After all, historical writing is no less imaginative
than poetry. Without the use of imagination history is lifeless and a
dry record of facts instead of literature.

A second impression of the book was issued in 1887, and in 1901 a second
and revised edition was published. A French edition had appeared
simultaneously in Paris and Brussels, 1890, translated by M. Emile de
Laveleye, eminent Belgian publicist and professor at the University of
Liége, and containing an introductory essay by him. This essay was
translated into English and embodied in the 1901 American edition. Since
then additional impressions of this revised edition have appeared. I
might mention that on the strength of this book I was admitted to
membership in the Authors' Club, in 1888.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the fall of the year following the original publication of my first
book I chanced to meet Senator Gorman of Maryland in the Palmer House,
Chicago, where we both happened to be stopping--he on his return from a
trip to the Far West, and I on an important business errand. He told me
he and his son had read my book on their trip, and that he had not in a
long time read a book with so much valuable information in it and giving
such a clear view of the sources and early growth of our form of
government. We naturally talked of matters political, and he reminded me
of an earlier conversation he had had with me since Cleveland's
election, stating that Mr. Cox--S.S. Cox--our minister to Turkey, had or
was about to resign, and that he would like to recommend me to President
Cleveland for appointment in Cox's place. He thought at the same time it
might enable me to make further studies along the lines of my book.

The idea was a complete surprise to me. As I have mentioned, I had no
thought of entering public life. My political activities had been
limited to the part I took in the re-election of Mayor Grace and the
Cleveland-Blaine, campaign. Even had I been ambitious for a political
position I should never have ventured application for a diplomatic post,
for I had never given much attention to our foreign relations. Besides,
I had been in business only a few years, I was married and had two small
daughters; everything considered, I felt I could not afford to leave my
affairs to go abroad.

Upon returning to New York I conferred with my father and brothers, and
their attitude changed my views somewhat. They generously offered to see
that my interests should not suffer, and gave me every encouragement to
entertain Senator Gorman's suggestion. I could not possibly have further
considered the subject without this generosity on their part. My
obligations to my family did not permit the expenditure of several times
my salary, required in a position of this kind. The salary of minister
to Turkey had been reduced to seven thousand five hundred dollars,
though it was subsequently restored to ten thousand; and in order to
live properly he had to rent a winter house in the capital and a summer
house outside, or live in hotels as Mr. Cox, and his predecessor,
General Lew Wallace, did. General Wallace was restricted to his salary
and felt compelled to decline the invitations of his colleagues because
he was not in position to reciprocate. (His "Ben Hur," by the way, he
had written before his sojourn in the East, and not afterward as is
often supposed.)

Senator Gorman was not finally able to make the recommendation he had
proposed. His relations with the President became strained, so that
recommendations for appointments coming from him were not regarded with
favor by Cleveland. Gorman told me as much when we met subsequently, but
advised me to use such influence as I might command in other directions.

I presently spoke of it to an old friend of my days in the law, B.
Franklin Einstein, who was counsel for the "New York Times" and the
personal adviser of George Jones, its proprietor. Einstein suggested
that I speak with Jones about it, and this I did. Jones encouraged me
and said he would be glad to help. He said he had read my book and felt
sure I would give a good account of myself and be a credit to the
administration; that he had never asked any favor of the administration
and felt justified in asking Cleveland to make the appointment. The
"Times" had been an independent Republican paper, but in the campaign of
1884 it came out for Cleveland.

I also conferred with Carl Schurz, with whom I stood on intimate terms,
and with John Foord, another friend. In the early eighties we used to
have a lunch club that met about once in two weeks at a little French
restaurant, August Sieghortner's, at 32 Lafayette Place, now Lafayette
Street, in a house that had been a former residence of one of the
Astors. We used to discuss various political and reform matters--the
"mugwump" movement, the Cleveland campaigns, or what not. There were ten
or twelve of us, and Carl Schurz was one; the late Charles R. Miller,
who was for many years the leading editorial writer of the "Times," was
another; and John Foord, whose death by accident occurred in Washington
only a few days ago as I write, was another. Foord was then
editor-in-chief of the "Times." He took up my appointment with both
President Cleveland and Secretary of State Bayard. Schurz encouraged me
and said he would speak to Oswald Ottendorfer about having me appointed.
Ottendorfer, proprietor of the "New Yorker Staatszeitung," was a client
of our law firm and knew me well. Subsequently I saw him and he wrote to
Cleveland strongly recommending the appointment.

Cleveland was favorably enough impressed, but he hesitated. He said our
chief concern in Turkey was the protection of American missionary
interests, and he would not like to appoint any one to this particular
mission who might be objected to by the two principal missionary
bodies--the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions and the
Presbyterian Board of Missions.

It happened that on a return trip from Washington about this time my
brother Isidor met A. S. Barnes, prominent textbook publisher and a
member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, to
whom also I was quite well known. He had been in frequent consultation
with our law firm when we represented the City of Brooklyn in its suit
against the Atlantic Avenue Railroad to compel the road to sink its
tracks, in which suit, as one of Brooklyn's public-spirited citizens, he
was much interested. He was sympathetic toward me and brought the
subject of my appointment before his missionary board, with the result
that its Prudential Committee wrote a letter to the President expressing
fullest approval of my appointment, suggesting only that I be asked not
to hold receptions on the Sabbath, as one of my predecessors had done to
the great disapproval of the missionaries and all Protestant Christians
in Constantinople. Even without this intimation I would quite naturally
have refrained from offending the religious sensibilities of my
nationals at that post.

The representatives of all the Protestant churches who had interests in
Turkey were most generous in favoring the appointment when they learned
that I was being considered for that mission. The most admired and best
beloved American preacher of his time, Henry Ward Beecher, of Plymouth
Church, Brooklyn, heard of it through Mr. O. A. Gager, one of the
trustees of his church; also that there was some diffidence about my
actual selection because of my religion. He immediately wrote the
President a beautiful and characteristic letter, urging my appointment.
The original of this letter, now in my possession, was given to me by
Governor Porter, first assistant Secretary of State.

With my wife I had gone to Atlantic City for a few days, to recuperate
from a cold, when on March 24, 1887, I received telegrams from friends
all over the country congratulating me on my appointment as minister to
Turkey. The papers of the day announced it, and the "New York Times"
published the Beecher letter just referred to.

To the press of the country my appointment was of added interest because
of the Keiley incident of two years before. A. M. Keiley, of Virginia,
was nominated by Cleveland as minister to Austria-Hungary, but objected
to by that country because Mrs. Keiley, being of Jewish parentage, was
_persona non grata_. As a matter of fact this excuse for the rejection
of Keiley was supposedly made because the Austro-Hungarian Government
thought it might be acceptable to us in lieu of the truth.

The real reason lay much deeper. Keiley had earlier been nominated as
minister to Italy. The Italian Government, through its representative at
Washington, made known to our Department of State that Keiley would be
_persona non grata_ because it was remembered that in 1870 he had made a
public speech in Richmond violently denouncing King Victor Emmanuel for
his treatment of the Pope. The nomination was therefore withdrawn. And
when a few months later Keiley was appointed minister to
Austria-Hungary, that country, being a member with Italy in the Triple
Alliance, did not want to run the risk of displeasing Italy by accepting
a representative not satisfactory to her; but not wishing to admit this,
based its excuse on religious grounds.

[Illustration: Hand written letter page 1]

[Illustration: Hand written letter page 2]

[Illustration: Hand written letter page 3]

[Illustration: Hand written letter page 4]

This so incensed our Administration that Secretary Bayard rebuked the
Austro-Hungarian Government with the statement:

     It is not within the power of the President nor of the Congress,
     nor of any judicial tribunal in the United States, to take or even
     hear testimony, or in any mode to inquire into or decide upon the
     religious belief of any official, and the proposition to allow this
     to be done by any foreign Government is necessarily and _a
     fortiori_ inadmissible.

And Mr. Cleveland made reference to the episode in his First Annual
Message to Congress:

     The reasons advanced were such as could not be acquiesced in,
     without violation of my oath of office and the precepts of the
     Constitution, since they necessarily involved a limitation in favor
     of a foreign government upon the right of selection by the
     Executive, and required such an application of a religious test as
     a qualification for office under the United States as would have
     resulted in the practical disfranchisement of a large class of our
     citizens and the abandonment of a vital principle of our
     Government.

These statements contain a clear exposition of one of the fundamental
principles of our laws and system of government; they form one of the
most illuminating and inspiring chapters of our diplomatic literature.
Following the Keiley incident, my appointment was a silent but effective
protest against such illiberal views as those expressed by
Austria-Hungary; and to me personally it meant something to be sent as
the representative of my country to the power whose dominion extended
over the land that cradled my race, Palestine.

Leaving Atlantic City, we soon proceeded to Washington, where I called
on Secretary Bayard, who received me with characteristic cordiality and
referred me to John Bassett Moore, now our famous authority on
international law, compiler of the International Law Digest, American
judge of the Court of International Justice by vote of the Council and
Assembly of the League of Nations. At the time I met him, thirty-five
years ago, he was third assistant Secretary of State, and I could not
have wished for a better instructor in the intricate matters that
involved our relations with the Ottoman Empire.

Alvey A. Adee, veteran of our Foreign Office, then as now the second
assistant Secretary of State, was another man who gave me most helpful
advice. His encyclopædic knowledge of our foreign relations for more
than forty years is remarkable, and our diplomatic appointees for years
have been indebted to him for much helpful guidance.

       *       *       *       *       *

Later in the day we called on the President. Our conversation during
this call was purely of a general nature, and as I was leaving Mr.
Cleveland expressed pleasure at my promptness in calling and hoped that
I would start for Turkey as soon as personal convenience permitted. When
I told him I hoped to sail at the end of a week, he answered, "That is
businesslike; I like that," and he asked me to call again before leaving
Washington.

Two days later, by appointment of Colonel Lamont, the President's
secretary, Mrs. Straus and I, accompanied by brother Isidor and E. G.
Dunnell, "New York Times" correspondent, called on Mrs. Cleveland in the
Green Room of the White House. I vividly recall this visit. Mrs.
Cleveland came into the room with a sprightly and unceremonious walk,
very friendly, with charm of manner and a sufficient familiarity to put
us entirely at our ease. She was a very handsome woman, with remarkable
sweetness of expression, and her appearance symbolized beauty and
simplicity.

What most impressed me about the Clevelands, after these two visits,
was the simple, unassuming manner that was so in keeping with the spirit
of our laws and the democracy of our institutions. Verily, I thought in
the words of Cleveland himself, "a public office is a public trust," and
while administering office we are indeed servants of the people.

Before leaving Washington we again called on the President as agreed.
His entire conversation and attitude showed satisfaction with my
appointment. He said he understood the missionaries were doing good
work, and he felt sure from what he had learned of me that they would
receive impartial and just treatment at my hands. He commented on the
fact that the press of the country had been so unanimously in favor of
my appointment. "I wished they would go for you a little; I have
something to give them," he said. From Mr. Dunnell later I learned the
meaning of this remark. He had received a letter from the Prudential
Committee of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions,
highly approving of his appointing me as minister to Turkey and
endorsing me of their own accord in unqualified terms. This letter he
was holding to give to the press should any unfavorable comment be made
because a member of the Hebrew race was being sent to a post where the
Christian mission interests were so large. Mr. Cleveland's parting
remark to me was: "I know you will do well; I have no trepidation--none
at all."

On Saturday, April 9th, at 6 A.M., we--my wife, Aline, the younger of
our little daughters, and myself--sailed out of the harbor on the S.S.
Aurania. My one prayer in bidding farewell to my home was that I might
find no vacant seat at my table upon my return, and that I might
discharge my high trust with credit and honor. For this no sacrifice
would be too great.




CHAPTER III

ENTERING DIPLOMACY

     At sea--Our arrival in London--Concerning George Eliot and
     Lewes--At the banking house of Baron de Rothschild--In
     Paris--Boulanger's Napoleonic dreams; his suicide--Josef Hofmann as
     a boy pianist--The artist who painted "Christ before Pilate"; an
     extraordinary wife--Distinguished hosts and rich cooking--Vienna
     and the Balkans--Thoughts on passing through the
     Bosphorus--Constantinople, the city of picturesque dirt--Many
     delays obstruct my audience with the Sultan--The fast of
     Ramazan--Diplomatic garden parties--An ambassador's £300 Circassian
     slave-wife--The Sultan says his prayers--Advice from a seasoned
     diplomat--My address at Robert College commencement--In the
     Sultan's Palace.


Our voyage was not altogether a light one. We had found it expedient to
leave Mildred, our elder daughter, then four years old, with her Grandma
Lavanburg; and while she was in excellent hands my wife was naturally
heavy-hearted at the thought of traveling so far and for so long without
her. The weather on board ship was for the most part stormy. Our little
Aline and her nurse were so seasick that the child resented being on
board with all the force of age three. "Mama, this ship is nobody's
home; why did you bring me here? I shall write sister Milly never to go
on the ocean," she declared rebelliously.

Having reached London, however, things went more pleasantly. Our
minister there at the time--we did not yet appoint ambassadors--was
Edward J. Phelps, for many years Professor of International Law at Yale,
a scholarly gentleman. I called on him almost immediately on my arrival,
and subsequently Mrs. Straus and I dined at the legation to meet Rustem
Pasha, Turkish ambassador, veteran diplomat who had been in the service
for thirty-three years and was about twice as old. He was leading
Turkish representative at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, following the
Russo-Turkish War. He referred to the various questions pending between
his Government and mine--the interpretation of Article 4 of the Treaty
of 1830, signed only in Turkish; the proposed treaty of 1874, negotiated
by Minister Boker and not confirmed by the Senate, concerning
naturalized citizens of the United States returning to Turkey;
missionary matters; our refusal to negotiate a treaty for the
extradition of criminals. I had informed myself regarding all of these,
but I deemed it wise not to discuss them in detail; rather I chose to be
the listener and draw him out, assuring him that when I arrived at my
post all these subjects would have my very best attention. He was
particularly concerned with the treaty for the extradition of criminals,
but the so-called criminals that came to the United States at that
period, especially from Russia and Turkey, were with rare exception
political refugees, and it is provided in most of our extradition
treaties that political offenders are not to be delivered up.

We remained in London about ten days, calling on a number of interesting
people. We spent one pleasant evening with Dr. and Mrs. John Chapman, of
the "Westminster Review." My article on "The Development of Religious
Liberty in America" was appearing in a current number of the "Review."
The Chapmans were good friends of George Eliot and Professor Lewes. In
fact, the novelist and the professor first met at the Chapman home. Dr.
Chapman also told me he was the one who first employed George Eliot in
literary work. He became editor of the "Review" in 1851 and engaged her
as associate editor. When George Eliot resigned, Mrs. Chapman became the
associate editor. With us that evening, too, was Harold Frederic, London
correspondent of the "New York Times" and a novelist of some promise.

From Messrs. J. & W. Seligman of New York I had received a letter to the
Seligman banking house in London, at 3 Angel Court. Mr. Isaac Seligman
invited us to dine _en famille_, and arranged for me to call at Messrs.
N. M. Rothschild & Sons', where I was very pleasantly received by Baron
Alfred Charles de Rothschild, who showed me through his magnificent
banking establishment and offered to send me a letter to the Paris
Rothschild firm. The Baron was then about forty-four years old, very
agreeable, a polished gentleman of the best Jewish type.

       *       *       *       *       *

In Paris, our next stopping-place, we also had a very interesting time.
Of course we called on our minister, Robert M. McLane, then seventy-four
years old, but looking sixty. He was distinctly of the old school, with
all the grace of manner, combined with ability and wide experience in
public service--an excellent representative who was esteemed by the
French people quite as highly as by our own citizens in France. I speak
of this especially because in capitals like Paris it is not an easy task
to please both elements.

At dinner one evening in the home of my friend Adolphe Salmon, an
American merchant residing in Paris, we met Count Dillon and his wife,
most affable people to whom we felt ourselves immediately attracted. The
Count was a thorough Royalist, had been for many years in the army. At
this time he was managing director of the Mackay-Bennett Cable Company
and the leader of a movement, really anti-Republican intrigue, designed
to put General Boulanger, Minister of War, at the head of the State. The
Count was a close personal friend and schoolmate of Boulanger, then the
most extolled man in all France. The Count suggested that he arrange a
luncheon or dinner to have us meet the General, if that was agreeable to
us, for he felt sure the General would be pleased.

Consequently a few days later we lunched at Count Dillon's beautiful
villa some thirty minutes outside of Paris. It was an intimate two-hour
luncheon party, just Mr. and Mrs. Adolphe Salmon, the Count and Countess
Dillon, General Boulanger, Mrs. Straus, and myself. Boulanger was a
young-looking man for his fifty years, of medium height and weight,
wearing a closely trimmed beard; rather Anglo-American than French in
appearance, unassuming, of pleasant expression, and probably at the
height of his power. Five years before he had been Director of Infantry
in the War Office and made himself very popular as a military reformer.
In 1886, under the ægis of Clemenceau and the Radical Party which
brought Freycinet into power, Boulanger was made Minister of War. He was
noted for his fire-eating attitude toward Germany in connection with the
Schnaebele frontier incident, and because of this was hailed as the man
destined to give France her revenge for the disasters of 1870. In fact,
the masses looked upon him as a second Napoleon, "the man on horseback,"
and his picture on horseback was displayed in countless shop windows.

At our luncheon party he entertained us with many an interesting
anecdote, and I particularly recall his telling of coming to the
Yorktown Centennial Celebration and traveling as far as the Pacific
Coast in company with General Sherman to see our fortifications. "I was
asked what I thought of your American fortifications ["You know what
antiquated and insignificant things they are," in an aside to Mrs.
Straus], and I praised them and said I thought they were splendid, that
I had never seen any better ones because"--and here his eyes
twinkled--"no country has such nice ditches in front of its
fortifications," He meant, of course, the Atlantic and the Pacific.

When the champagne was being drunk and toasts were in order I turned to
the General, after drinking to the health of the company, and said: "May
you administer the War Department so successfully that posterity will
know you as the great preserver of peace." To this he responded that for
fifteen years France had always been on the defensive and permitted
insults rather than take offense, but that the time had come when she
could no longer do so and must be ready for the offensive. He evidently
had in mind that war was imminent. At a later meeting he asked me
whether, in case of war, I would be willing to take charge of French
interests in Turkey. I told him that while of course it would be
agreeable to me personally, such action could be taken only under the
authority of my government, which authority I would have to obtain
before giving an official answer.

The subsequent meteoric career of Boulanger is a matter of history. For
two years more his personality was one of the dominating factors of
French politics. I remember writing from Constantinople early in 1889:
"The most menacing condition exists in France, where, I am of opinion,
Boulanger will gain the presidency before many months and from that time
perhaps try to tread in the footprints of his Napoleonic ideal. If
so--alas, poor France, and alas the peace of Europe!" He had become an
open menace to the republic; and when Constans was Minister of the
Interior a prosecution was instituted against Boulanger and a warrant
signed for his arrest. He fled from Paris and was afterward tried and
condemned _in absentia_ for treason. In 1891 he committed suicide on the
grave of his mistress in a cemetery at Brussels.

We dined, on another evening in Paris, with Mr. and Mrs. William
Seligman, of the banking firm of Seligman Frères, the Paris branch of J.
& W. Seligman of New York and of the London Seligman establishment. This
dinner was a very large and elaborate affair, with many distinguished
guests present. After dinner we were entertained by the budding genius
of Josef Hofmann, then ten or eleven years old.

The noted Hungarian, Munkacsy, painter of "Last Day of a Condemned Man,"
"Christ before Pilate," "Christ on Calvary," and other celebrated works,
was also there with his wife. As a couple they presented a striking
contrast indeed. He was a silent man, talking very little and haltingly;
he impressed one as a refined artisan of some sort, perhaps a carpenter.
He was a large man of about five feet ten in height, with bushy hair
combed up, bushy beard and mustache, and small eyes which he screwed up
to almost nothing when observing something. His wife, on the other hand,
was as coarse-looking a woman as one might discover, with a loud,
raucous, almost masculine voice which, like a saw in action, rose above
every other sound. However, I have observed that these contraries in
personality in couples often make for happiness.

The artist seemed to take a keen interest in Mrs. Straus. He quite
embarrassed her by his constant staring, and after dinner sought an
introduction and sat next to her. Her plain hair-dress, smoothly brushed
back and rolled in a coil behind, fascinated him. He remarked how
natural and becoming it was and wanted to know whether she always wore
it that way; he wondered whether it would be as becoming any other way.
He wanted to know how long we should remain in Paris and expressed
regret when told we were leaving in three or four days. Mrs. Straus
felt he had studied her head long enough to paint it from memory. And
who knows, perhaps he has used it in some painting that we have not yet
discovered!

Another memorable dinner was at the home of Eli Lazard, of Lazard
Frères, bankers, where we met Judge Wilson and daughters, of Cincinnati.
All of these hospitalities were very pleasant, but personally I should
have been glad to escape them, for the late hours, together with the
rich cooking of Paris, were not in accord with my quiet habits and
simple tastes in food and drink.

In Vienna I called on our consul-general, Edmund Jussen, whose wife was
the sister of my esteemed friend Carl Schurz, which fact really prompted
me to make the call. Jussen himself was not very admirable. He had much
of the arrogance of a German official, so out of place in an American
representative. However, during our sojourn in the city he and his wife
exchanged several visits with us. Mrs. Jussen did not much resemble her
distinguished brother, except for an expression about the eyes. She was
a very amiable woman with a good face. She told me much of her brother's
childhood and school years--how he had to struggle hard for his
education. Their father was a small shopkeeper, but no business man, and
was never able to make money. Carl did not earn money, but always
applied himself diligently. This and much more that has since been
published about Schurz interested me greatly, of course.

We continued our journey to Varna on the Black Sea, there to take the
steamer for Constantinople. In those days there was no railway
connection with Constantinople. The Oriental Express went only to Varna,
by way of Bucharest. On that particular part of our journey we got our
first glimpses of the picturesque costumes of the Balkan district,
especially those of the men with their bare legs and flying shirts.

The trip from Varna to Constantinople was beautiful and inspiring. We
boarded the boat at about four in the afternoon and retired early so as
to be up by five or six next morning, when we passed through the
Bosphorus, round which clusters so much of classical memory. I suddenly
realized how much of my Homer I had forgotten--the Homer on whom I had
spent years of hard study. However, most of us meet so many new subjects
that have a more direct relation to our surroundings that it is next to
impossible to get that "elegant leisure" necessary for a continued
interest in the classics.

The effect of the trip through the Bosphorus is quite like a dream. The
high coast on both sides is covered with green, with here and there a
house or some large huts; on one side is Europe and on the other side
Asia, looking very much alike, bathed by the same sunshine, peaceful.

We sailed past Buyukdereh, Therapia, the summer residence of most of the
diplomats, about twelve miles from Constantinople, where the English,
French, Austrian, and Russian embassies had magnificent palaces and the
Germans were engaged in building; on past the lovely old towers of
Roumeli-Hissar, built eight hundred years before, when first the Turks
set foot in Europe, and back of this the tower of Robert College.

Suddenly my ever-smiling and happy wife spied a launch flying a large
United States flag at the stern. "It's our launch!" And sure enough,
when we waved our handkerchiefs we discovered the members of my official
family, who had come in the legation launch to meet us. There were
Pendleton King, acting chargé d'affaires; Mr. Gargiulo, dragoman; J.
Lynch Pringle, consul-general; Mehmet, the _cavass_; and several clerks
of the consulate and legation.

The _cavass_, by the way, is a sort of bodyguard. He walks before the
minister, or rides on the box beside the driver, and serves the purpose
of designating that the minister or ambassador follows. He carries two
huge pistols and a sword suspended from a gold belt, and his coat,
sometimes red and sometimes blue, is much bebraided and embroidered. The
natives know each minister or ambassador by his _cavass_.

Our first impression from the windows of the Royal Hotel in
Constantinople was of picturesque dirt. As Mrs. Straus said at the time,
dirt not only on the hard earth roads and the people, but even on the
dogs. In time, however, one is less impressed by the dirt than by the
picturesqueness--the venders calling out their wares of fish, fruit,
meat, vegetables, all carried on the edges of baskets covered with
leaves; the water-carriers with their urns carried on yokes; and the
veiled women.

       *       *       *       *       *

Immediately upon my arrival, of course, I communicated with His
Excellency, Saïd Pasha, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to present my
credentials and arrange for an audience with His Majesty the Sultan,
Abdul Hamid. The Pasha replied at once, appointing a time two days
later, and accordingly I went to the Sublime Porte, as the Turkish
Government seat is called, in company with the chargé and the dragoman
or interpreter. That was about May 26th. Not until June 6th, however,
did I receive a communication from Munir Pasha, Grand Master of
Ceremonies, that His Majesty had named June 8th for my audience. The
next evening I received a telegram postponing the audience to the 10th.
On the 9th I received another communication, postponing it _sine die_.
On the 15th a new appointment was made for the 17th; then, between
midnight and one o'clock on the night of June 16th-17th, the personal
secretary of the Sultan came knocking at the door of my apartment, and,
after apologizing for his arrival at that untimely hour, informed me
that he had come at the Sultan's special request to say that word had
come from the Porte that June 17th was a most sacred day, a fact just
determined by the phases of the moon, and the Sultan therefore was
constrained to postpone the audience again. The date was later set for
July 1st, when I finally had my audience.

It was a peculiarity of Abdul Hamid to delay audiences to new
representatives for weeks and sometimes months by these successive
appointments and postponements, to no other purpose than to impress the
agents of foreign governments with the importance of His Majesty. In my
case there was some added cause: it was the month of Ramazan, during
which only the most pressing official functions take place.

Ramazan, ninth month of the Turkish calendar, is a period of fasting.
For twenty-nine days every Mussulman abstains from food and water, and
even smoking, from sunrise to sunset; which the rich arrange
conveniently by sleeping all day and eating all night, while the poor
who have to work all day eat at sundown, at midnight, and very early in
the morning. The first meal after the fasting, at sunset, is called
_iltar_. The fast is broken with Ramazan bread, a cakelike bread,
circular in shape, which we saw much in evidence at a bazaar in the
courtyard of a mosque at Stamboul, the more Oriental part of
Constantinople, where the costumes of Greeks, Armenians, Turks, and
Arabs form a strange mixture indeed.

During Beiram, a three days' feasting following Ramazan, the mosques
are all illuminated at night, and the view over the water, with the
moving lights of boats in the foreground and the dimly lighted houses
beyond, interspersed with brightly illumined mosques, is quite like a
picture of some enchanted land.

       *       *       *       *       *

Because of the Sultan's peculiarities in receiving foreign
representatives, the custom in regard to official calls at
Constantinople is different from that at most capitals. Elsewhere calls
on colleagues are not made until after a minister or ambassador has had
his audience; but here usage dictated calling on one's colleagues as
soon as possible. Therefore I called first on Baron de Calice,
ambassador from Austria-Hungary and _doyen_ of the diplomatic corps. He
received me with great cordiality and kindness, and advised me fully
regarding diplomatic practices at Constantinople. And we were welcomed
by each and all of my colleagues in turn, so that I found these calls
very much less disagreeable than I had anticipated; I even enjoyed many
of them. At each visit coffee or tea was served, and generally
cigarettes too, as is customary with the Turks, which is wonderfully
effective in taking off the chill of diplomatic formalities. One soon
gets to expect these refreshments; it is a delightful custom that might
be adopted in other places to advantage.

Another reason why these formal calls were less formidable than they
might have been was that three days after our arrival at the capital we
were invited to a garden party given by Lady White, wife of the British
ambassador, Sir William A. White. This served to give us a prompt
introduction to all my colleagues. In fact, in the five weeks
intervening between our arrival and my audience, we had attended so many
garden parties and dinners given to us, that I found myself heartily
longing for respite. My natural inclination was to regard these social
gatherings in the light of idle frivolities, especially in the summer,
when one is supposed to be relatively free from functions of this kind;
and I was not alone among my colleagues in preferring more evenings at
home to the occasional headaches that it cost to continue the very late
hours these many engagements forced us to keep. Yet I could not
consistently decline invitations; such a course might have been
interpreted as a desire on my part to withdraw from the diplomatic
circle and would have interfered with the pleasant social relations it
was incumbent on me to cultivate. Attendance was really part of my duty,
and in time I found these functions distinctly advantageous.

We looked forward with more than usual interest to the evening of our
dinner at the Persian embassy. The Persian ambassador's wife had been a
Circassian slave, whom he was said to have bought for £300 with a horse
thrown into the bargain. The ambassador's wife was, of course, typically
Circassian; chalky white skin, soft black eyes, small features, an
unattractive figure unattractively dressed, with whom conversation was
almost nil because she knew only Persian.

The streets of Pera, the European part of Constantinople, are
exceedingly narrow and very hilly, for the city is built on several
hills, like ancient Rome; in addition they are poorly paved and dirty.
This makes driving dangerous and, as in mediæval times, sedan chairs
were quite generally in use as a means of conveyance for the ladies of
the diplomatic corps and the wives of the higher Turkish officials,
especially at night to dinners and other official functions. Two sinewy
porters carry these chairs, one in front and the other behind, and they
shuffle along with considerable rapidity. Usually the lady is carried
while the gentleman, preceded by his _cavass_ in the case of a diplomat,
walks alongside, except in inclement weather when he follows also in a
chair. I am reminded of the wife of the German ambassador at the time, a
large, heavy woman, whom the porters quite justly charged double. She,
however, was entirely oblivious of her extra avoirdupois and always
complained of the injustice of these porters! The Austrian and Russian
embassies were particularly difficult of approach by conveyance other
than the sedan.

We certainly were living in a new sphere of life, in a strange land
among strange people, with customs and habits that brought to mind the
age of the patriarchs. There was much to see where some thirty
nationalities lived and did business as if in their own homes--much to
wonder at, much to deplore, much to praise and admire. The natives are a
peculiar people, with many admirable characteristics; they are kind and
hospitable, comparatively honest and reliable, especially the lower
classes, and they manifest a most sincere devotion to their religion.
The lower classes are poor, very poor; yet they are content and
reasonably happy because their wants are few. Their poverty is not a
suffering condition and they seemed to be better off than the poor
elsewhere. Their religion strictly interdicts the use of alcoholic
drinks, and as they are true to it and live faithfully up to its
principles, they are spared all the evils that fall in the train of
drunkenness.

[Illustration: MRS. STRAUS IN TURKEY]

During the weeks that I waited for my audience with the Sultan I devoted
my time to studying in detail the various questions in regard to our
diplomatic relations, so that I might be better informed when they came
up. This study was very interesting from an historical point of view,
for some of the questions were related to capitulations that dated as
far back as the fall of Constantinople in 1453. My legal training also
proved valuable in enabling me to understand and handle matters.

       *       *       *       *       *

On our first Friday in Constantinople we witnessed Selamlik, the
picturesque ceremony held with great pomp every Friday, attending the
Sultan's going to the mosque. The Sultan's mosque is on the top of a
hill commanding the most beautiful view of the city, from which can be
seen the Bosphorus and, farther on, the Sea of Marmora. On the roads
surrounding the mosque as far as the eye could see were ranged ten or
more regiments of infantry and cavalry, each dressed in glittering
uniforms according to the section of the empire from which they came,
the most resplendent being the Nubian and the Arabian. The Sultan
arrived in an open landau, and opposite him Osman Pasha, distinguished
soldier, hero of the Battle of Plevna in the Russo-Turkish War, and
Grand Marshal of the Palace. The coachman was magnificently dressed in
scarlet and gold, and following were the aides-de-camp, also beautifully
dressed, one, an Armenian, all in white and gold. As the Sultan entered
the mosque a priest chanted a call to prayer which sounded not unlike
the old Hebrew chants in some of our synagogues. The mosque was so
crowded that we could see many Moslems kneeling and salaaming on the
streets outside the doors. The service lasted about twenty minutes,
whereupon the bands played and the Sultan reviewed his troops from one
of the windows of the mosque. He then returned to the Palace in a
beautiful top phaëton drawn by two horses, which he drove himself, again
with Osman Pasha opposite, followed by his aides and the carriage that
had brought him. Usually several carriages, open and closed, also
several saddle horses, are brought from the royal stables to the
mosque, that the Sultan may take his choice for his return to the
Palace.

It is expected as a display of good will that the ministers and
ambassadors occasionally attend this ceremony. It was practically the
only occasion on which Abdul Hamid appeared in public, for he constantly
feared assassination, and his expression showed his timidity. Following
Selamlik he quite frequently arranged to receive in audience. In the
kiosque or small house beside the mosque, there is a special suite of
rooms reserved for the diplomatic corps. An aide informs the Sultan what
diplomatic representatives or other persons of distinction are at the
kiosque, to each of whom His Majesty then sends some gracious message.
While prayers are being said in the mosque, the guests at the kiosque
are served coffee and cigarettes.

       *       *       *       *       *

One of the persons whom I met shortly after my arrival in the city was
Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, who was in Constantinople as Britain's special
envoy to negotiate a convention regarding the withdrawal of British
troops from Egypt. He had a suite at our hotel where we saw each other
frequently and became very good friends. Drummond Wolff, as he was
usually spoken of to distinguish him from the several other prominent
Wolffs, was certainly a remarkable and clever man, and a great
_raconteur_. He was then in his late fifties, had had wide experience as
a diplomat, and was thoroughly familiar with the Turkish temperament. In
fact, he was at home in all that part of the world. He was born in
Malta, the son of the famous missionary, Rev. Joseph Wolff, a Jew who
became a convert first to Catholicism and then to Episcopalianism, being
ordained as priest in the Church of England. While in America he
received the degree of Doctor of Theology from the College of St.
John's, Annapolis, Maryland.

Sir Henry advised me in dealing with the Turkish authorities always to
be patient, pleasant, persistent. He also impressed upon me the
importance of maintaining the most cordial relations with my colleagues
and of returning all hospitalities; that a well-disposed colleague can
often be of incalculable assistance in inducing the authorities to
accede to any proper demand one might have to make. However, his own
relations with the British ambassador, Sir William White, were not so
friendly. The estrangement between them was quite evident, caused no
doubt by personal jealousy, which is so likely to result between a
special envoy and the regularly accredited representative of the same
country in a given territory.

We stayed at the Royal only about ten days, and then moved to summer
quarters in a hotel at Therapia, a name given to the district some three
thousand years ago by the Greeks because of its healthful and balmy
climate. Here, too, Drummond Wolff had a neighboring suite, and later,
when by reason of a longer stay than anticipated he was obliged to give
up his apartment before he was ready, we put a portion of ours at his
disposal, which he much appreciated. It was a very pleasant arrangement,
and diplomatically no less profitable. We dined together every evening,
and often in our party were also Prince Ghika, Roumanian chargé, and the
Princess; Baron Van Tetz, Dutch minister, and the Baroness. The Baron
was later accredited to Berlin, and then made Minister of Foreign
Affairs in his own country. He has now retired and at this writing he
and the Baroness still live at The Hague. They are charming people.

On June 21, 1887, the entire diplomatic corps was present in official
dress at services in the English chapel, in honor of the Queen's
Jubilee. The chaplain of the English embassy, the Reverend George
Washington, officiated. He said he was of the same family as our own
George Washington.

       *       *       *       *       *

The day before my audience I presided at the commencement exercises of
Robert College at Roumeli-Hissar, by invitation of the venerable
president, Dr. George Washburn. The college in 1887 had about one
hundred and eighty students, mainly Bulgarians, Greeks, and Armenians,
with two or three Turks. The commencement was quite similar to those at
home, except that the orations were delivered in the various languages
of the East as well as in French and English.

I took this first occasion to refer in a larger way to the aims and
purposes of Robert College and similar American institutions. The Turks
had not been able to understand the benevolence that prompted the
establishment of schools and colleges by Americans throughout the
empire. They were suspicious, and their attitude was founded on
experiences with various institutions and societies of several of the
other nations, notably the Greeks, who, under guise of scientific and
benevolent activity, had fostered political design. The Turks believed
that behind our institutions lay a purpose inimical to the sovereignty
of Turkey, a belief stimulated by Russia and by some of the French
Catholics, who were opposed to the extended use of the English language
and the influence of Protestant English and American ideas in the East.
This gave rise to many of the vexatious questions that the legation had
to solve. By way of throwing some oil upon these troubled waters,
therefore, I said, during my address:

     For centuries the tide of progress and civilization has been making
     its way toward the West. Its course has been marked by blood and
     carnage. The history of the Middle Ages and of modern times
     chronicles the nations and empires that have sunk in this mighty
     current, and the new life and new civilization that have sprung up
     over the ruins of the old. That flood tide, pushing its
     irresistible course onward, still swept on, until in our day it
     mingled its waters with the Great Pacific Ocean. The Ultima Thule
     having at last been reached, the great ebb-tide began to course its
     way backward; and America, the youngest of nations, in gratitude
     for all the past, as a token of her amity and her friendship, has
     sent back on the advance current of this return tide not ships of
     war nor armed troops, but her most cherished institutions, a fully
     equipped American college.

     So that here, to-day, on the beautiful and picturesque shores of
     the classic Bosphorus, on the very spot where the nations of the
     East four and a half centuries ago erected and left the
     well-preserved monument of their passage to the West, stands Robert
     College. What a tale and what a history! Robert College here and
     the Towers of Roumeli-Hissar there! The one the fortified remains
     of bygone wars, the other the tranquil emblem of returning peace.
     What a double tale do these two institutions speak to one another!
     The tie that unites them is one of love and peace, a league more
     puissant than army or navy for the welfare and happiness of
     nations. When centuries shall have rolled by and another Gibbon
     shall come to write of empires, may it be his privilege to record
     no longer the decline and fall, but the rise and rejuvenation of
     this Orient to which we look with affection.

And now that I had been received and entertained by about everybody in
Constantinople, it was time for my audience with the Sultan, who came
last like the prima donna. Official functions at Yildis Palace, as the
Sultan's residence is called (Yildis meaning star), were always most
dignified and punctilious. Royal carriages were sent from the Palace
with escorts for myself and staff. At the entrance to the Palace we were
met by the Introducer of Ambassadors; then we proceeded to the salon of
the Grand Master of Ceremonies, where I was met by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and conducted by Osman Pasha, Grand Marshal, into the
presence of His Majesty.

The Sultan was standing ready to receive me. He was a small man, of
rather spare frame, sallow complexion, dark eyes that sparkled with a
furtive expression, prominent aquiline nose, and short full black beard
which later, when it turned gray, he dyed reddish with henna. He had on
a black frock coat that buttoned to the neck.

According to custom I handed him the letters of recall of my
predecessor, then presented my credentials, and made a brief address, a
copy of which in writing I left with him. It read as follows:

     The President of the United States has been pleased to charge me
     with the distinguished honor and agreeable duty of cultivating to
     the fullest extent the friendship which has so happily subsisted
     between the two Governments, and of conveying to Your Imperial
     Majesty the assurances of his best wishes for the welfare of Your
     Imperial Majesty and for the prosperity of Turkey.

     As the faithful representative of my Government, charged with the
     duty of protecting the interests of her citizens, permit me to
     express the hope that Your Imperial Majesty's Government will lend
     me its kindly aid in the efforts I shall at all times make to
     maintain and further cement a good understanding for the
     development of the relations of amity and friendship between the
     two Governments, and that the same courtesy and cordiality may be
     shown me which were so generously accorded to my honored
     predecessors.

     The time has at last come, through the progress of science, when
     all nations by reason of the facility and rapidity of communication
     have been brought nearer together, so that their mutual interests
     and relations verily entitle them to be called one great family.

     In the spirit of that relationship I have come to dwell near the
     Government of Your Imperial Majesty, and to greet you in behalf of
     and in the words of our Chief Magistrate as his "Great and Good
     Friend," with the hope "that God may have Your Imperial Majesty in
     His wise keeping."

Which is the customary language of such documents, with the exception of
the third paragraph. His Majesty replied in a brief address, expressing
his pleasure in receiving me. He then sat down and bade me do likewise,
whereupon we were served with cigarettes and Turkish coffee, the latter
in egg-shaped cups resting in jewel-studded holders. The Sultan speaks
only Turkish, and I spoke English, so we understood one another by means
of the dragoman, Mr. Gargiulo, who had been for twenty years the very
able Turkish adviser and interpreter of the legation and remained at
that post for ten years thereafter.

The audience concluded, we returned to the legation in the same stately
fashion we had come, following which we gave a reception to the American
colony, composed almost exclusively of the missionaries resident in
Constantinople, together with the president and faculty of Robert
College and of the Home School for Girls, then located at Scutari,
across the Bosphorus. I was now ready for the official business of my
mission.




CHAPTER IV

FIRST TURKISH MISSION

     Turkey's jealousy of foreigners--My protest against the closing of
     American mission schools--Diplomacy prevents drastic regulations
     proposed by Turkey--The schools are reopened--Defending the sale of
     the Bible--A cargo of missionaries and rum--Robert College--A visit
     to Cairo--"Bombe à la Lincoln"--Governmental reforms in Egypt--My
     protest against persecution of Jews in flight from Russia and
     Roumania--At Jerusalem--Huge delegation of Jews pleads with me for
     release of imprisoned relatives--I make drastic demands, and
     prisoners are promptly released--Their grateful memorial to
     me--Rights of American citizens on Turkish soil--Disputes regarding
     our Treaty of 1830--Uncle Sam gives $10,800 worth of presents to
     Turkish officials, on conclusion of a treaty--Diplomatic tangles;
     United States left without Treaty of Naturalization with
     Turkey--Baron de Hirsch, international celebrity--I am invited to
     arbitrate his dispute with the Sultan, and am offered an honorarium
     of 1,000,000 francs--I decline honorarium, but offer to
     mediate--Baroness de Hirsch's philanthropies--American capitalists
     consider Turkish railway concessions--Sultan grants permission for
     American excavation in Babylon--My resignation in 1888--The
     Sultan's farewell.


For several years the Turks had been very jealous of foreigners,
especially in Asia Minor, and the result was many restrictions which
manifested themselves in a variety of relations. The growth of the
mission schools and their increase in number quite naturally enhanced
the suspicion of the authorities, with the help, as I have mentioned, of
those whose interests were served in helping the Turks to see danger in
this growth of our institutions.

At the legation the interests of the American missionaries with regard
to their schools and their printed matter formed the major portion of
the affairs requiring my immediate attention. About four hundred schools
had been established in Turkey by the Presbyterian and Congregational
missionary boards. Beginning with the winter of 1885, upon one pretext
or another, thirty of these schools in Syria were closed, many of the
teachers arrested and forbidden ever to teach in the country again,
while the parents were threatened with fine and imprisonment if they
continued to send their children to American schools. With few
exceptions all the teachers and parents were natives and Turkish
subjects. The official reason given for the closing of these schools was
that their boards had not complied with the Turkish law requiring that
textbooks, curriculums, and certificates of the teachers be submitted to
the authorities for examination; although the missionary representatives
gave assurance that these requirements had been met.

Soon after my audience with the Sultan I took up the subject of these
schools with the Grand Vizier, Kiamil Pasha, who was perhaps the most
enlightened statesman of the Turkish Empire. Mr. King, while acting
chargé, had made an agreement with the Minister of Public Instruction
whereby the missionaries at these schools were to submit the textbooks
and other documentary equipment to the local authorities. I protested to
the Grand Vizier against the closing of the schools, and after some
weeks we reached an understanding: he was to telegraph the vali or
governor-general at Syria that the schools were to be allowed to reopen
upon their compliance with the law, according to an arrangement between
himself and myself. The outcome looked hopeful, though months dragged
along without further result.

Meanwhile, and quite by accident, I learned that the Porte had
formulated proposed additional regulations concerning all foreign
schools, and that these regulations were about to be submitted to the
Council of Ministers to be made law. I immediately requested a copy from
the Grand Vizier. I found, to my surprise, that the regulations were
calculated to place insuperable obstacles in the way of every foreign
school in the empire. Among other things, in addition to the requirement
that textbooks, curriculums, and teachers' certificates be submitted for
examination, all schools were to obtain an iradé or express sanction of
the Sultan in order to function. Failing to receive that iradé within
six months from the date of the law embodying the new regulations, the
authorities in the several provinces were commanded to close such
schools.

I communicated my discovery to those of my colleagues who were
interested with me in this dispute: Count de Montebello, French
ambassador; Baron Blanc, Italian ambassador; and Sir William White,
British ambassador. At the same time I submitted copies of the proposed
regulations to the Reverend Doctor Isaac Bliss and the Reverend Henry O.
Dwight, of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in
Western Turkey. They all viewed the matter as I did.

The following day I again called on the Grand Vizier, informing him that
I looked upon these regulations as seriously infringing upon the rights
of American citizens in Turkey, and pointing out my objections in
detail. The three colleagues just referred to did the same on behalf of
their respective subjects who had mission or other schools in the
empire. We succeeded in impressing the Grand Vizier with the force and
validity of our objections, for he requested us to put them in writing
and forward them to the Porte. With the aid of Drs. Bliss and Dwight I
prepared such a document, and I am glad to be able to say that our
protests came in time and were sufficiently forceful to prove effective
in preventing this new legislation.

As I had now been negotiating for several months with reference to the
Syrian schools, I decided that the most efficient way of translating
into concrete result the repeated promises in regard to them was to
visit some of our missionary schools throughout the empire. I obtained
the necessary permission from Washington and took a journey to Cairo,
Jaffa, Jerusalem, Beirut, Mersina, and Smyrna, where I conferred with
our missionaries, with our several consuls, as well as with the
respective governors and governor-generals. I found the relations
between the local authorities and our consuls, and between the
authorities and the missionary representatives, quite friendly, in some
places indifferent, but nowhere hostile.

I had instructed the missionaries to get ready for the opening of the
schools, and I planned the trip so as to be in Beirut about the time my
order for the reopening was to be put in force. My plan had the desired
effect. In anticipation of my arrival at Beirut, fifteen of the schools
were reopened; and while I was there five or six more. That was about as
many of the total thirty as the missionaries cared to or were in a
position to reopen then. For the time being I felt satisfied that I had
sufficiently reversed the Government policy to check the progressive
closing of the schools which, if continued, would seriously have
threatened the existence of all American schools in Turkey.

I must here express my appreciation of the assistance given me by Erhard
Bissinger, our consul at Beirut. He was an earnest, sincere man,
formerly a New York merchant. Although his health was frail he worked
with unremitting zeal and efficiency, discharging his official duties
with rare judgment and tact. I could always rely on the correctness of
his reports respecting the many difficulties as they arose, and I could
always feel assured that in each instance he would apply every effort to
bring about an adjustment with the local authorities, by whom he was as
highly esteemed as by the missionaries.

       *       *       *       *       *

Another expression of the Government's enmity toward the activities of
our missionaries was the treatment being accorded the colporteurs, or
persons who went about selling Bible tracts. The agents of the American
as well as the British Bible Society were constantly and arbitrarily
being arrested. They were charged with plying their trade without
license, yet when they made application they were never able to get
license. From time to time I protested against these arrests and secured
the release of one after another of the agents; but the thing to be done
was to prevent arrests.

The fact was they were being made without real cause. Before these
tracts or any other material could be printed a permit had to be
obtained from the Ottoman Government. The material had to pass
censorship before it was allowed to be printed, so that the very fact of
its appearing in print was proof of the authorization of the censors. I
held that, once printed, to prohibit the sale of these tracts was in
restraint of commerce; that there was no reason why book hawkers should
be under different regulations from hawkers of any other wares.

I prepared an argument along these lines, which I presented to the Grand
Vizier, and he agreed with my conclusions. He forthwith gave orders for
the release of all colporteurs and that no further arrests were to be
made. The British Bible Society, of course, benefited equally with our
own by these orders, and I received their grateful appreciation through
my colleague, Sir William White.

All this hostility toward the missionaries and their work might be
construed to be founded upon an objection by the Government to having
its subjects converted to Christianity. But it was rather foreign
influence as a whole that was being fought, and religion was simply the
convenient peg. Conversions from Mohammedanism were few and far between,
and for the number of Mohammedans turned Christian in the course of a
year there were as many Christians turned Mohammedan. The Mohammedans
are intensely and sincerely devoted to their faith. On the whole they
are convinced that their religion is the only true one and that
Christianity is inferior and less rational. Such converts as the
missionaries do make come almost exclusively from among the Armenians,
Syrians, Greeks, Maronites, and other Christian sects whose form of
Christianity is of a mediæval character. The chief missionary work in
Turkey is educational, carried forward in a religious spirit. At the
time of my visit to the various vilayets, the Presbyterian Board alone
had over one hundred schools throughout Syria, all located in places
where previously there had been no schools at all.

       *       *       *       *       *

Many of the men who carried forward missionary work had consecrated
their whole lives to it. Chief among these were Rev. Henry H. Jessup,
venerable patriarch of the Presbyterian missionaries; Rev. Daniel Bliss,
president of the Syrian Protestant College; and Dr. George Washburn,
president of Robert College.

Dr. Jessup and Dr. Bliss had started for the field together in 1856,
when, in bleak December, they both left Boston in the sailing vessel
Sultana, which, according to Dr. Jessup's autobiography, "Fifty-Three
Years in Syria," carried in addition to nine or ten missionaries a cargo
of New England rum to Smyrna--a cargo spirited no less than spiritual.

Dr. Bliss was succeeded in 1902 by his distinguished son, Rev. Howard S.
Bliss, who conducted with renewed vigor the work of his father,
enlarging the scope and curriculum of the college so that through its
thousands of graduates in the arts, in science, and in medicine it
became a potent force throughout the whole Near East. During my
subsequent missions to Turkey I became very intimate with the younger
Bliss, and during the Peace Conference in 1919, when he was in Paris in
behalf of Syria, I was able to continue this intimacy. Unfortunately in
Paris he was already suffering from a serious malady which resulted in
his death in America the year following. He was honored, respected, and
beloved in both the old world and the new.

Dr. Washburn was a man of statesmanship as well as erudition. His book
of recollections, "Fifty Years in Constantinople," is valuable for the
light it throws on political issues in Turkey no less than on questions
educational and religious. He was recognized as an authority on Turkish
and Balkan affairs, and the influence of the college was by no means
limited to the Turkish Empire; it was felt quite as much throughout the
Balkan States. Bulgaria at one period was largely governed by officials
who had been graduated from Robert College, and they looked to Dr.
Washburn as their chief adviser. The British ambassador at
Constantinople frequently consulted him and was swayed by his advice,
for Dr. Washburn understood the Turks and spoke their language. He was
the second president of the college, having succeeded his father-in-law,
the Reverend Cyrus Hamlin, D.D.

On the faculty of Robert College were a number of other very able men:
Dr. Albert L. Long, Professor of Natural Science, distinguished as an
archæologist as well, was a man of engaging personality. He had a large
acquaintance among the learned Turks, whose estimate of our country was
materially influenced for the good by their association with him. Then
there was Dr. Edwin A. Grosvenor, Professor of Latin and History, who
resigned shortly afterward to accept a professorship at Amherst. He was
then at work on his scholarly "History of Constantinople," which I
consider the best and most reliable work on that subject.

In 1888 I secured for Robert College, after arduous negotiation,
permission for the erection of two new buildings, one a house for the
president and the other an addition to the college itself. When the
permits came through there was no mention of the addition to the
college, and as work on it meanwhile had been begun, no little anxiety
ensued. It developed that some one on the staff of the Grand Vizier had
been bribed by an enemy of the college to tamper with the permits.
However, because of the good relationship between Kiamil Pasha and
myself, he acknowledged this bit of chicanery and duly rectified it.

I might add that in numerous instances I was able to arrange
unofficially with the Grand Vizier matters which threatened to become
more or less troublesome. This method of negotiating was peculiarly
advantageous at the Porte, where delays were proverbial and so
frequently defeated official action. Again, some of the difficulty
experienced by my colleagues in getting proper redress for violations,
even gross violations, was due to the fact that the Porte was not always
able to control the governor-generals of the provinces.

       *       *       *       *       *

I have said that my trip among our missionary schools included a visit
to Cairo. At that time Egypt was still under Turkish sovereignty and
questions of larger importance had to be taken up with the Sublime
Porte. Thus American questions came under my jurisdiction as envoy
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the empire. Our
representative at Cairo, John Cardwell, had the title of consul-general
and diplomatic agent, and had to receive his exequatur from the Sublime
Porte. He was a conscientious and capable official who had been there
since the beginning of the first Cleveland Administration.

On this trip also I saw much of Anthony M. Keiley and his charming wife;
I have spoken of him in a previous chapter as having been rejected for
the post of United States minister by Austria-Hungary. Keiley was
serving as one of the American judges of the Mixed or Reform Tribunal at
Cairo and was highly respected for his ability at this international
court.

Mohammed Tewfik, son of the extravagant Ismail of Suez Canal fame, whom
he succeeded, was Khedive of Egypt and entertained us during our visit.
He was only thirty-six years old, and without his fez might have been
taken for an Englishman. He spoke fluent English and his conversation
showed him to be well informed regarding the governments and peoples of
Europe. Within an hour after my first call upon him he called with his
aide-de-camp upon me at the Hotel Shepheard. He wanted to decorate me,
but I informed his aide that under our system we did not permit
diplomatic representatives to accept such distinctions; so the next day
he sent a lesser decoration to the manager of the hotel, which, it was
said, he did in my honor.

A few days later we were invited to lunch with him, and there were also
present a number of higher officials. The menu consisted of dishes with
such improvised names as "crevettes à l'Américaine," "bombe à la
Lincoln," etc. One dish that made a deep impression upon my
none-too-keen gastronomic memory was the delicious Egyptian quail, which
is larger and plumper than our own. In season the birds migrate from the
north and are trapped in great numbers. They could be bought in the
markets for a piaster, or less than five cents.

I had frequent conferences with Nubar Pasha, Egypt's foremost statesman.
He was an Armenian educated by Jesuits in France. His knowledge was
extensive, and he combined the enlightened viewpoint of a European
statesman of the first rank with all the subtlety of an Oriental. It was
he who conceived the plan of introducing a legal system and good
government in Egypt, and creating the mixed tribunals or international
law courts. In the reorganization of Egypt he acted in sympathy with
Lord Dufferin's programme and consequently was highly regarded by the
British.

With Sir Evelyn Baring, British agent and consul-general in Egypt,
afterwards Lord Cromer, I had a pleasant conversation. He was then at
the height of his power in the reconstruction of Egypt. Major-General
Sir Francis Grenfell, sirdar or commanding general of the Egyptian army,
is another memory in connection with that visit.

I regretted that time did not permit my going up the Nile; but like
every one with an historical imagination I was immensely impressed with
the grandeur and massive beauty of the pyramids and the classic ruins of
ancient Egypt, which with their five thousand or more years of existence
have outdistanced all other relics in bringing the handiwork of man down
through ages of devastating time.

       *       *       *       *       *

There was a matter pending at Jerusalem regarding which our Secretary of
State had instructed me, and which I thought best to look into
personally while on this trip. Foreign Jews were being expelled simply
because of their race, and American Jews were being discriminated
against along with those of other nations. In the background of this
action by Turkey were Russia and Roumania, for since the days of the
Spanish Inquisition the Ottoman authorities, with rare exceptions, had
been not only tolerant but hospitable to Jewish immigrants. Roumania,
contrary to express provisions of the Treaty of Berlin guaranteeing
equal political and civil rights to all subjects in this newly created
principality, placed restrictions upon her Jewish subjects, causing a
large number to emigrate. And from Russia, following the enforcement of
the Ignatieff laws of 1882 (some of them laws that had been on the
statute books unenforced for years), there was also a wholesale exodus
of persecuted Jews. Most of these people went to America, but some to
other countries, including Palestine.

It was the irony of persecution that the Russians who came to Turkey
were claimed as subjects by Russia, which entered a protest at the Porte
against making them Ottoman subjects. On the other hand, the Russian
Patriarch in Turkey and the dignitaries of the Roman Church objected to
the settlement of foreign Jews in Palestine. This pressure from powers
that Turkey wished to please brought forth the promulgation of a law
interdicting all Jews from coming to Palestine for permanent residence.
Besides those from Russia and Roumania, there were a few Jews coming
from England and France. And there were a very few coming from
America--naturalized citizens.

At the Porte I had taken this matter up with the Grand Vizier. He told
me that a regulation was communicated to the Imperial authorities at
Jerusalem limiting the stay of foreign Jews there to one month. Later he
told me that the Council of Ministers was about to change this limit to
three months. He gave as reasons for the existence of any such
regulations, first, that at certain times of the year, Easter, for
example, religious fanaticism was at so high a pitch that Jews had to
remain in their houses to escape attack and perhaps murder at the hands
of the Christians. In the second place, it had been reported that the
Jews of all the world were planning to strengthen themselves in and
around Jerusalem with a view to re-establishing their ancient kingdom at
some future time.

I answered that of course the first reason could be done away with by a
strong force of police. As for the second, if the Porte would make
inquiry it could satisfy itself that there was no such plan among the
Jews of the world, that the immigration was caused by the persecution in
Russia and Roumania. (This was nine years before the publication of the
pamphlet, in 1896, by Dr. Hertzl, from which generated modern Zionism. I
shall speak of Dr. Hertzl later.) So far as the American Jews were
concerned, I informed the Grand Vizier that it was a fundamental
principle of our Government to make no distinction of race or creed
among our citizens, and that we had consistently denied to foreign
nations that right over our citizens, as the provisions in our treaties
with the Ottoman Empire showed. To all of this the Grand Vizier replied
simply that should any American be expelled he would carefully consider
my arguments and give instructions accordingly.

On communicating with our consul-general at Jerusalem, Henry Gillman, I
learned that he had taken the same position, and that to date no
American citizen had been expelled; also that the American consulate was
the only one which had refused aid to the authorities in the expulsion
of foreign Jews, and our representative was not being made very
comfortable for this non-coöperation with the local government. Here the
matter stood when I left Constantinople.

There were a number of other vexatious questions pending between the
vali at Jerusalem and Mr. Gillman, and I deemed it good policy to show
my resentment to the vali for his arbitrary methods. I declined the
courtesy of the official conveyance with which he sent one of his aides
to Jaffa to meet me and my family and take us to Jerusalem. We took a
Cook's conveyance, stopped overnight at Ramleh, and next day drove over
the hills of Judea to Jerusalem, where Mr. Gillman conducted us to
comfortable quarters at a hotel outside the walls.

       *       *       *       *       *

Scarcely had I arrived at the hotel when a huge delegation of Jews, men
and women, some with infants in their arms, came to plead with me to
obtain the release of relatives and friends who had been put in prison
by the vali or governor because they had come to settle there. I had
known of the troubled conditions in Jerusalem because of the immigration
of the Jews; but until my arrival there I was not aware of the
imprisonment of these people. More than four hundred of them were being
held in prison awaiting deportation.

Instead of calling on the vali as ordinarily would have been proper, I
sent a note to him through the consul demanding the immediate release of
the immigrants who, I claimed, were being imprisoned contrary to our
treaty as well as the treaties of Great Britain, France, and other
powers; I said that I should decline to call upon him until this
injustice was righted by such release; and that, further, unless my
request was promptly complied with I should appeal to the Sublime Porte
for his removal.

I felt authorized to take so drastic a step by reason of the
negotiations I had had with the Grand Vizier and in view of our treaty
and the treaties of several of the powers I have referred to. I obtained
the desired result. The vali communicated my message to the Porte, and
the Grand Vizier instructed him to comply with my request. Within
twenty-four hours all the prisoners were released.

The following morning there was a delegation of several thousand people
outside my hotel, who had come to express their gratitude. They
presented me with a beautifully embossed memorial, the text of which,
translated, reads:

     With delight of soul we bring to thee, O Sir, glory of our people,
     the blessing of our community, the congregations of Israel dwelling
     in Zion and in all the cities of the Holy Land,

                            THE BLESSING OF MAZZOL TOV
                                       (good fortune)

     because the Lord God of Israel has raised thee to fame and glory
     and has given to thee a seat of honor among the mighty of the
     earth. And we lift our hands to the Holy Sanctuary (praying) that
     thy horn be exalted with honor and splendor, and that thou be given
     the strength and the power to exalt the horn of Israel, thy people,
     to speak in their favor before the throne of the Government--may
     its glory increase!--and that thou continue in thy honored office
     for many days, until he (the messiah) shall come unto Shiloh "and
     unto him shall the obedience of the people be"--soon, in our days,
     amen!

     Such is the blessing of those who respect and honor thee in
     accordance with thy high and exalted station.

     The leaders of the Jews in Jerusalem--may it be built and
     established in our days!

It is signed with the seals and signatures of Rafail Meir Panisel (Haham
Bashi), chief rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews in Jerusalem, and
Samuel Salant, chief rabbi of the Ashkenazim, Perushim, and Hasidim in
Jerusalem.

Now I called upon the vali, who received me very graciously and with
great courtesy. I thanked him for his prompt compliance with my request,
and expressed the hope that, inasmuch as I had an understanding with the
Porte that no discrimination was to be made against Jewish immigrants to
Jerusalem, I should not in future have to complain of any infringement
upon this understanding, otherwise I should again be compelled to take
drastic action. I called his attention to the treaties referred to, of
which he had had no previous knowledge.

I stopped to make some official calls, accompanied by the consul and his
staff. As is customary when high officials go through the streets of the
Holy City, several halberdiers of the vali preceded, to give distinction
to the party as well as protection and a clear passage through the
crowds. I could remain in Jerusalem only three or four days, however,
for I had to catch the steamer that stopped at Alexandretta and Smyrna,
where I wanted to confer with our consuls.

Upon my return to Constantinople my French and British colleagues were
much pleased at my having secured the release of the Jewish immigrants
in Palestine. They had received, through their foreign offices,
expressions of appreciation and grateful acknowledgment from such
organizations as the Anglo-Jewish Association of London, and the
Alliance Israélite of Paris.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Illustration: TESTIMONIAL GIVEN TO MR. STRAUS IN JERUSALEM IN
APPRECIATION OF THE RELEASE OF SEVERAL HUNDRED PRISONERS]

The next step in the development of this question was a communication
received by our State Department from Mavroyeni Bey, Turkish minister at
Washington, informing the Department of a change, indeed, of the time
limit from one month to three for the sojourn of Jews in Jerusalem, with
the proviso, however, "that they are going to Jerusalem in the
performance of a pilgrimage, and not for the purpose of engaging in
commerce or taking up their residence there."

This communication was received while I was on my trip, and Secretary
Bayard forwarded it to me with the instruction that I take up the
subject with the Ottoman Government as follows:

     To require of applicants for passports, which under our laws are
     issued to all citizens upon the sole evidence of their citizenship,
     any announcement of their religious faith or declaration of their
     personal motives in seeking such passports, would be utterly
     repugnant to the spirit of our institutions and to the intent of
     the solemn proscription forever by the Constitution of any
     religious test as a qualification of the relations of the citizen
     to the Government, and would, moreover, assume an inquisitorial
     function in respect of the personal affairs of the individual,
     which this Government can not exert for its own purposes, and could
     still less assume to exercise with the object of aiding a foreign
     Government in the enforcement of an objectionable and arbitrary
     discrimination against certain of our citizens.

     Our adherence to these principles has been unwavering since the
     foundation of our Government, and you will be at no loss to cite
     pertinent examples of our consistent defense of religious liberty,
     which, as I said in my note to Baron Schaeffer of May 18, 1885, in
     relation to the Keiley episode at Vienna, "is the chief
     corner-stone of the American system of Government, and provisions
     for its security are embedded in the written charter and interwoven
     in the moral fabric of its laws."

I received this upon my return. Secretary Bayard asked me also to
ascertain the views of my colleagues respecting this iradé, and I found
them willing and ready to take it up with the Porte in a manner similar
to the instructions I had received.

I called on Saïd Pasha and left with him a note in accordance with my
instructions, and I sent a copy of this note to the French and British
ambassadors. They in turn each advised the Ministry that they could not
admit of regulations prejudicial to the existing rights of their
subjects as secured by treaties. And here for a time the matter rested.

Several months later three American Jews were expelled from Jerusalem
because they had not left the city at the expiration of three months,
and again the question had to be taken up with the Porte. This time Saïd
Pasha replied that the restrictions with regard to the three Americans
had been ordered withdrawn, "the Sublime Porte having lately decided
that the measure concerning the Israelites going to Palestine shall not
be applied but to those who emigrate in number (_en nombre_), and that
no obstacle shall be opposed to the sojourn of those who are not in this
class."

This, like most other questions that arose between the Ottoman
Government and our own, could not be settled for any length of time by
principle, law, or treaty. Such documents might be used as reminders of
agreements once reached, but in Turkey they do not of themselves direct
policies or action. Drummond Wolff had advised being "patient, pleasant,
persistent," to which I would add: eternally vigilant.

       *       *       *       *       *

On the whole, the interests of the United States throughout the Ottoman
Empire were peculiar, in that the majority of the complaints related to
personal, as distinct from commercial, rights. I have said in an earlier
chapter that some of the questions at issue, especially those involving
extraterritoriality, grew out of capitulations dating back over four
hundred years, to the conquest of Constantinople by the Moslems in 1453.
The terms of these capitulations or "privileges" were made originally
between the Greeks and the various Italian city republics--Pisa, Genoa,
Venice. The Moslems later embodied them in revised capitulations with
France in 1535, 1604, 1673, and 1740; with England in 1583 and 1675;
with Holland in 1680; with Austria in 1718; and with Russia in 1783. On
these later European capitulations was based our own first treaty with
the Sublime Porte in 1830. Practically speaking, therefore, consular
jurisdiction in Turkey was then not very different from what it was in
the fifteenth century.

When I took office one of the vexatious questions to be settled was the
interpretation of Clause IV of the Treaty of 1830. This treaty was
negotiated by Charles Rhind, as American commissioner, with Reis
Effendi, Turkish representative. Rhind had prepared it, with the help of
dragoman Navoni, in French and in Turkish, and when it was finally drawn
up, according to Rhind's own report, Reis Effendi "signed and sealed the
treaty in Turkish and I did the same with the French translation, and we
exchanged them." Thereupon the original Turkish version, together with a
copy of the French translation as signed by the American
commissioners--President Jackson had appointed Captain James Biddle and
David Offley together with Rhind--and several English translations were
transmitted to Washington. The treaty actually approved by the Senate
was one of the English versions.

Before the ratifications were exchanged the American chargé d'affaires
at Constantinople, David Porter, received word that the French version
was not exactly in agreement with the Turkish. Porter's simple method of
correcting this discrepancy was to sign a document, also in the Turkish
language, accepting the Turkish version of the treaty without reserve;
and when the translation of this document reached Washington nothing
further was said.

Indeed, the treaty rested in peace until 1868, when the American
minister, acting according to the English version, clashed with the
Turkish authorities in the interpretation of Clause IV, regarding
jurisdiction over American citizens--in this case two who had been
arrested and imprisoned for alleged offenses against the Turkish
Government. The English version read:

     Citizens of the United States of America, quietly pursuing their
     commerce, and not being charged or convicted of any crime or
     offence, shall not be molested; and even when they may have
     committed some offence they shall not be arrested and put in
     prison, by the local authorities, but they shall be tried by their
     Minister or Consul, and punished according to their offence,
     following, in this respect, the usage observed towards other
     Franks.

When our Government proceeded to obtain exact translations of this
clause, it was found that the Turkish version did not contain the words
"arrested" or "tried," although the phraseology made clear that American
citizens were not to be imprisoned in Turkish prisons, but punished
through their minister or consul. Consequently, the Turkish authorities
could arrest but not imprison, could try but not inflict punishment.

The Turkish Government would not recognize as accurate any of the
translations the United States presented. When asked to present a
translation of its own, however, the matter was gradually put in
abeyance.

       *       *       *       *       *

In 1862 our minister, E. J. Morris, concluded another treaty with the
Porte, entitled, as was the first one, "A Treaty of Commerce and
Navigation," which, by its Article XX, was to remain in force
twenty-eight years unless either party saw fit to abrogate at the end of
fourteen or twenty-one years. In January, 1874, the Turkish Government
gave notice to our Department of State of its desire to terminate the
treaty, following this notice up with another communication to the same
effect in September, 1875. Although by the terms of the treaty such
notice was to be permissible not earlier than June, 1876, nothing was
said in Washington regarding the untimeliness of these communications,
and in his Annual Message of December, 1876, President Grant announced:
"Under this notice the treaty terminated upon the fifth day of June
1876." President Cleveland, on the other hand, in his first Annual
Message nine years later, questioned the official termination, but
added: "As the commercial rights of our citizens in Turkey come under
the favored-nation guarantee of the prior treaty of 1830 ... no
inconvenience can result" from our agreeing to the abrogation. Thus
questions of jurisdiction and commercial rights were thrown back for
settlement under the Treaty of 1830, the translation of which was and
has remained in dispute.

Much of this confusion was due, again, to the slight actual regard, on
the part of the Ottoman Empire, for the terms of treaties. In this
attitude they had been encouraged by some of the European nations--most
of all Russia in its more powerful days--who, in return for other
advantages, were not insistent upon their claims under the
capitulations, especially the claims of jurisdiction over nationals. So
far as concerned the United States, this loose effectiveness of treaties
caused constant misunderstanding with regard to the handling of cases
arising under them.

With every question that came up under the disputed Clause IV, for
instance, the Turks would controvert the right of our consuls to try,
and we would insist on that right. The battle then would be won after a
fashion by the side with the most persistence. During my administration
I happened to be the winner much of the time, although my winning merely
released a possibly innocent person; for while we argued about a trial
for the suspect he lingered in jail, and after I got his release the
Turks would refuse to acknowledge our jurisdiction and not prosecute.
Innocent and guilty alike were made to suffer in jail, and alike were
set scot-free upon release. Not only that, but whenever an American
citizen committed, or was alleged to have committed, a crime and was
arrested by the Turkish authorities, it created irritation and a strain
of our relationship.

       *       *       *       *       *

The only other treaty then negotiated between the Ottoman Government and
our own--the Treaty of Naturalization and Extradition--had also been a
subject for discussion and dispute ever since it was signed by Minister
George H. Boker in 1874. When it was concluded, the Senate refused to
confirm it because under it American citizenship was forfeited _ipso
facto_ by the return of the naturalized citizen to his native land and
his remaining there two years; but the Senate amended this treaty by
changing the phraseology of the clause containing the two-year
reference. The Sublime Porte accepted the amendment by a declaration of
what it understood to be its intent and significance, which
interpretation our Government, in turn, would not accept.

And there that treaty was hung in 1875, although our Government that
year made an appropriation of ten thousand eight hundred dollars for
presents to Turkish officials, which was then customary on concluding a
treaty with the Porte.

As the conditions which had called forth the treaty continued to exist,
I was instructed to renew negotiations in the matter. A number of
Christian subjects of the Porte--some Greeks and some Syrians, but
principally Armenians--in order to free themselves from Turkish
jurisdiction had fled to the United States. Here they remained long
enough to become citizens, and from time to time they came back to
Turkey, where they were charged with being involved in alleged
conspiracies against the Turkish Government. Such cases arose
frequently, and it was felt that the Treaty of Naturalization and
Extradition with the two-year clause, similar to the one we have with
many other nations, would prevent citizens of the Porte from using
naturalization in America as a means of escaping liability as subjects
of Turkey upon their return there.

I addressed myself to bringing about an adjustment of these
difficulties, either by securing a new treaty or having the one of 1874
accepted as amended. A long and tedious exchange of notes on the subject
ensued. Finally the Porte agreed to accept the Treaty of 1874 as
amended.

Of course I was elated, and the State Department was pleased. That the
treaty was one very much desired by our Government was clear. I received
a long, flattering cable of congratulation from Mr. Bayard, and a letter
in similar vein from Mr. Adee, saying in part:

     Whatever may be the outcome of these negotiations, you are to be
     congratulated without stint on having achieved a decided diplomatic
     success by causing the Government of the Porte to recede from the
     position which it took in 1875, with respect to the Senate
     amendments, and to which it has so pertinaciously adhered ever
     since, until you wrought a change of heart and induced it to take a
     more rational view of the subject. This makes it far easier for us
     to deal with the question now as justice and equity and due respect
     for the rights and privileges attaching to American nationality may
     demand.

Then the bubble burst! Under my instructions I had assured the Turkish
authorities that with their acceptance of the amendments of our Senate
the negotiations in the matter would be concluded, and all that would be
necessary to give effect to the treaty was the proclamation of the
President. Instead, however, it was thought best again to submit the
terms to the Senate, as fourteen years had elapsed since the negotiation
of the original treaty. Thereupon some of our leading missionaries, at
the instigation of prominent Armenians who had been naturalized in
America and returned to Turkey, opposed ratification, and no further
action was taken. It was a very discouraging situation, for many
annoying cases constantly came up, some of a rather serious nature.

I might add that ten years later, when I was again minister to Turkey, I
was instructed to renew negotiations, but the Ottoman Government was now
unwilling to negotiate at all on this subject, and we were left without
any treaty of naturalization.

       *       *       *       *       *

There were one or two interesting special matters that came up during
this mission. Toward the end of 1887 Baron Maurice de Hirsch came to
Constantinople to adjust some financial differences with the Turkish
Government. His railway, connecting Constantinople with European cities,
was about completed. The Turkish Government claimed that he owed it
132,000,000 francs, a claim growing out of kilometric guarantees and
other concessions.

One day while I was calling on the Grand Vizier, Kiamil Pasha, he asked
to introduce some one to me, and forthwith I met a tall and slender man
in his fifties, dark eyes sparkling with spirit and energy, clean-shaven
except for a full black mustache, dressed rather dudishly in a cutaway
coat, white vest and white spats--Baron de Hirsch. I was glad of this
opportunity, for I had often heard of him and his great philanthropic
activities. We had a pleasant conversation about things in general.

A few days later I took dinner with the Sultan. He spoke to me about
Baron de Hirsch and the claim of Turkey against him. The Turkish
Government was hard-pressed for funds--its chronic condition. The Sultan
explained that for some time efforts had been made to arrive at some
settlement, and that it was now proposed to arbitrate. The Baron had
suggested first the French and then the Austrian ambassador as
arbitrator, but neither was satisfactory to His Majesty; he, however,
had much confidence in my judgment and impartiality, so that he had
counter-suggested my name to the Baron, which was satisfactory to the
latter; and they had agreed to pay me an honorarium of one million
francs.

I assured the Sultan that I was much complimented by his request, but I
would have to consult the Secretary of State. He told me he had already
requested the Turkish minister at Washington to inquire the views of the
Department, and that Mr. Bayard had said there was no objection to my
acting as arbitrator. But I said I would have to communicate with Mr.
Bayard personally and would let His Majesty hear from me in the course
of a few days.

I cabled Mr. Bayard and learned, as the Sultan had said, that there was
no objection to my acceding to the latter's wishes and accepting the
honorarium if it appeared to me advisable. Upon giving the proposal
careful consideration, however, I felt it would not be wise for me to
comply with the Sultan's request, much as I should have liked to please
him. Any transaction with the Turkish Government involving money was
open to suspicion of improper methods and bribery. Had I as arbitrator
made a decision disappointing to the Turkish Government, I should
certainly have fallen under such suspicion, and I deemed it improper to
assume an obligation which might throw the American legation into a
false light.

I advised Secretary Bayard accordingly and frankly told the Sultan I
could not accept. I added, however, that while I would not accept an
honorarium, I should be glad to act as mediator to see whether a
satisfactory adjustment could not be brought about between the Baron and
the Grand Vizier, which offer the Sultan accepted.

As the negotiations went forward, the Baron and the Grand Vizier had
frequent disagreements and altercations. Each of them would come to me
with his grievance, and I would give my opinion and bring them together
again. Finally there arose a legal question, and this was submitted to
Professor Gneist, the famous German authority on international law. Upon
his decision the Baron finally paid the Turkish Government 22,000,000
francs.

       *       *       *       *       *

During these negotiations, which lasted several months, an intimate
friendship developed between the Baron and his wife and Mrs. Straus and
myself. They often took family dinner with us. They were declining
official invitations because of the recent death of their only child,
Lucien. The Baroness was an exceptionally fine woman, learned and able,
whose principal aim in life seemed to be to find ways of being most
helpful to others. In the quarters of the poor, both Jew and Gentile,
her short, trim figure, dressed in deep mourning, was familiar. Her face
had an attractively benign expression. A story regarding her activities
in connection with the construction of her husband's railroad was
characteristic of her.

In a village near Constantinople a number of houses belonging to the
poor had to be torn down to make way for the railway station. The work
was to be done with the understanding that the Turkish Government would
compensate these people, but evidently no such consideration was
forthcoming. A number of those thus dispossessed came to the Baron to
complain, but he answered that it was the Government's responsibility,
not his. On hearing of this the Baroness informed her husband that she
did not propose to let the railroad cause unhappiness to people, that it
would probably be a long time before the Government paid the
compensation, if ever, and that she insisted on paying these people out
of her own private fortune so they could at once build new houses and be
happy. Then and there she carried out that programme.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Baron spoke to me of his own benefactions and said he purposed
during his lifetime to devote his fortune to benevolent causes. His
philanthropy up to that time had been bestowed mainly in Russia, but he
was desirous of doing something for the Russians who, because of the
oppression resultant from the Ignatieff laws, were emigrating to
America. They had been persecuted and were poor, and he wanted to enable
them to reëstablish themselves.

I was familiar with the conditions of these Russian immigrants, because
prior to my coming to Turkey I had been in close relationship for
several years with Michael Heilprin, author of a number of scholarly
works and one of the chief editors of Appleton's Encyclopædia. He worked
untiringly on behalf of these new arrivals, collecting money for them
and aiding them personally in numerous ways. I think his untimely death
was due primarily to his generous expenditure of energy in this way. I
mentioned Heilprin to the Baron and said I would write him for
suggestions how best the immigrants might be helped.

When I heard from Heilprin I forwarded the letter to the Baron, together
with a list of men who had done most in the way of benevolent work for
the Jews of New York. Prominent on that list were Meyer S. Isaacs,
president of the United Hebrew Congregations; Jesse Seligman, president
of the Hebrew Orphan Asylum; Jacob H. Schiff, who was connected with a
number of our charitable enterprises; and my brother Isidor. The Baron
subsequently communicated with Mr. Isaacs and some others, and out of
their arrangements grew the Baron de Hirsch Fund and the Baron de Hirsch
Trade School. Later the Baroness, upon conferring with Mrs. Straus,
endowed the Clara de Hirsch Home for Working Girls.

Neither my wife nor I wish to claim any credit for the founding of the
de Hirsch benevolent institutions. We were simply the medium through
which these came into being. We never even suggested the nature of them.
We only gave the requested information regarding the need for such
institutions.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Illustration: OSCAR S. STRAUS

Constantinople, 1888]

But to come back to Constantinople and its railroads. During 1888 the
question of a railroad from Constantinople to the Persian Gulf was much
agitated, especially by the Germans. The Grand Vizier several times
brought up the subject in conversation with me, asking me to help him
get in communication with some reliable American railroad builders. He
assured me that the Turkish Government would give more favorable terms
to a group of Americans because the project would then be free from the
political complications that might ensue if a road through the heart
of the empire were controlled by Germany or any other European power.

William K. Vanderbilt was in Constantinople at the time. He had arrived
in his yacht, which was larger than most yachts that came through the
Dardanelles, so it was stopped until I could procure for him a special
permit from the Sultan to proceed. At the Sultan's request, I spoke to
Vanderbilt about the railroad and introduced him to the Grand Vizier.
But he was on pleasure bent and not inclined to take up the cares and
burdens involved in such an undertaking.

Of course it was apparent that if American capitalists and railroad
builders with their vast experience would take up the construction of
this road it would put tremendous power and prestige into American
hands. I suggested that Carl Schurz and Henry Villard might be the
proper persons to undertake this gigantic work. Villard's name had
figured prominently in the completion of the Northern Pacific; he was
close to Schurz, and they each enjoyed a high reputation. Soon
thereafter the Porte submitted the matter to a syndicate of German,
British, and French bankers, and the famous Bagdad Railroad was not
built by Americans.

Early in 1888 I received a letter from an old friend, the Reverend
William Hayes Ward, eminent Assyriologist and scholarly editor of the
"Independent," respecting an expedition for excavating in Babylonia
which the Reverend John P. Peters, of the University of Pennsylvania,
contemplated. Under Dr. William Pepper, provost of the university, Dr.
Peters was organizing the Babylon Exploration Fund, which would base its
work on the recommendations made in 1884-85 by the Wolfe expedition
headed by Dr. Ward himself. The Wolfe expedition, financed by Miss
Catherine L. Wolfe, of New York City, had been limited to
reconnoissance and exploration. Shortly thereafter the subject was
brought to my attention officially by Mr. Adee, of the Department of
State, who wrote me:

     We find ourselves between two fires,--on one hand is the
     Philadelphia organization under the lead of Dr. Peters, which has
     the money, and on the other is the Johns Hopkins enterprise, which
     has the most solid ballasting of Assyriological talent, but,
     unfortunately, its dollars are limited. As the Johns Hopkins people
     deposit all their collections in the National Museum, Professor
     Langley feels kindly disposed towards them.... We shall probably
     have to look to you as the _deus ex machina_ to prescribe a
     solution.

I conferred unofficially with Hamdy Bey, director of the Imperial Museum
at Stamboul, himself a very competent scientist and in charge of all
excavations in Turkey, who informed me fully regarding the Turkish law
governing excavations, among other things that a permit for making them
had to be obtained from the Ministry of Public Instruction (and these
permits were not easily obtained); and that all objects discovered were
the property of the Turkish Government, the excavator being permitted
only moulds or drawings thereof, except possibly in the case of certain
duplicates.

To save time in the matter, I brought it before the Grand Vizier, who
promised support in laying the project before His Majesty the Sultan,
with the view possibly of getting an iradé to export at least a portion,
if not half, of the objects discovered. I suggested to our State
Department that the University of Pennsylvania and Johns Hopkins work
together and operate as one body, so that an iradé, should it be
obtainable, might serve for the benefit of all concerned.

While _en route_ to the United States on a short leave of absence I met
Dr. Peters in London. He handed me a letter of introduction from
President Cleveland asking my good offices. The proposed excavations
interested me very much, and I promised Dr. Peters I would give the
subject immediate attention upon returning to my post. Meanwhile I
instructed the chargé, Mr. King, how to proceed in my absence.

Early in November when I got back to Constantinople I asked for an
audience with the Sultan to explain the purposes of the exploration
fund, the interest of the various universities and scientific societies
in it, adding that I had received a personal letter from the President
in regard to it, and that if he would give the permit to excavate it
would meet with high appreciation in my country.

It was the custom for ministers, as distinct from ambassadors, to
dismount at the Palace gate and proceed to the Palace on foot. For this
occasion, however, orders had been given for our coming in at the Palace
door. Here I was met by His Highness, the Grand Vizier; the Minister of
Foreign Affairs; and the Grand Master of Ceremonies. After some fifteen
minutes the Grand Vizier and the Grand Master of Ceremonies ushered me
into the presence of His Majesty. A private audience took place, wherein
the Sultan seemed very affable indeed. He said he was happy to welcome
me back to my post and hoped that Mrs. Straus and I had had a pleasant
trip.

His Majesty then led the way to the brilliantly illuminated dining-hall,
where a military orchestra of about thirty members was playing. I was
seated at His Majesty's right, with the dragoman next to me, and the
Grand Vizier was at the left; down both sides sat the pashas, their
breasts sparkling with diamond orders. The dinner was served on gold and
silver plates, and the menu was excellent and not overburdened. The
Sultan conversed freely, cheerfully, and apparently without reserve.

After dinner we went with him to a play in the little theater on the
Palace grounds. At an opportune moment between the acts, while His
Majesty questioned me regarding some matters in the United States, I
referred to the excavations, and to the fact that several
representatives of the universities were awaiting his decision. He
graciously stated that permission would be granted, and it was given a
very few days thereafter.

Though we were all somewhat disappointed because the permit was more
restricted than we had been led to expect, it enabled Dr. Peters and his
party to go ahead with their work. Dr. Peters has left a full account of
the explorations and the objects discovered, some of them dating back
earlier than 4000 B.C., in his two volumes entitled "Nippur," which form
a lasting memorial to his services in the cause of archæology.

Unfavorable as we thought the permit was, I was accused by Theodore
Bent, British archæologist, writing in the "Contemporary Review," of
bribing Hamdy Bey to obtain a favorable firman. He himself had dug at
Thasos the previous year and had run into difficulties with the Turkish
authorities, resulting in the seizure of his findings. He still felt
revengeful toward Hamdy Bey, and the knowledge of our negotiations for a
permit afforded him ground for a scurrilous attack on the director of
the museum, who was, nevertheless, a man of fine character and high
repute.

The fact really was that the Sultan felt somewhat under obligations to
me because of my services in another matter. There were in the Ottoman
Empire a million or more Persians, mainly rug dealers. Many of them had
married Turkish women. The Sultan claimed that when a Persian in Turkey
married a Turkish subject his nationality followed that of his wife. The
controversy had gone so far that the Shah of Persia was about to recall
his ambassador, and they finally agreed to submit the matter to me for
decision.

I took the subject under advisement and wrote an opinion in accordance
with the universally accepted doctrine of nationality under such
conditions, namely, that upon marriage nationality followed that of the
husband. But instead of rendering my decision, I advised the Sultan what
it would be and suggested that it would probably make for better
relationship if he would anticipate my decision by agreeing with the
Shah's contention. This he appreciated. At the same time it relieved me
from the necessity of deciding against the sovereign to whom I was
accredited.

Of course the Shah's ambassador, Mohsin Khan, who was practically
viceroy in the Ottoman Empire, desired to confer upon me Persia's
decoration, the Lion and the Sun, set in costly brilliants, and once
more I had to explain our custom in regard to such things. It is indeed
a wise provision of our Constitution which prohibits American officials
from accepting "any present, emolument, office or title of any kind
whatever" without the consent of Congress.

       *       *       *       *       *

The election of 1888 having resulted in a Republican victory, I tendered
my resignation to the new President upon his taking office, as is
customary for heads of missions when there has been a change in the
administration. I was unofficially informed that numerous letters and
memorials had been received in Washington from individuals and
missionary and church bodies, asking that I be retained at my post; Dr.
Pepper, of the University of Pennsylvania, and several other university
heads also joined in urging my retention. But I wrote Dr. Pepper not to
push the request, as I could no longer absent myself from my private
affairs. The main matters of difference between the two Governments had
been settled, and I felt justified in resigning, even had Cleveland been
reëlected, for I could not afford to stay on except under pressure of
patriotic necessity.

The salary at the Porte barely covered my house rent. I had secured the
best available house with facilities for entertaining and the returning
of hospitalities, and, as I have mentioned before, such functions are
essential for the proper relations with one's colleagues and the
government to which one is accredited. Besides, it is important to be
able to show to one's nationals the hospitality they expect from their
diplomatic representatives, especially in the case of prominent visitors
who bring letters from high officials at home.

Again, "noblesse oblige" has its widest and most emphatic application in
diplomacy. Americans are supposed to be rich, and if an American
diplomat does not show the usual hospitalities he is charged with
penuriousness, for it is understood that a man who is not able to live
according to his station would not be chosen to head a mission. That his
pay may be inadequate for the discharge of his social duties is not
generally known. When I was in Washington during my leave of absence Mr.
Cleveland asked me how I got along on my salary, and I told him then
that I could have got along fairly well on four times the amount, for I
had spent between thirty-five and forty thousand dollars a year.

A few days prior to leaving my post in June, 1889, I again dined with
the Sultan. I had often done so during my stay, but this time he was
especially gracious and unreserved. He expressed great regret at my
going, saying that at no time during his reign had the relations of our
countries been more agreeable, and that he and his minister had had
every confidence in my candor and fairness. What seemed to have
impressed him most was my handling of a large claim by an American which
was being urged through the legation. I carefully examined this claim
and found it to be justified neither in morals nor in law, and I
informed the Turkish Government accordingly that I had withdrawn it. The
Porte was not accustomed to such fair treatment! Of course, ever
afterward when I presented a matter it was believed to be justified.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Sultan held the government pretty firmly in his own hands--too much
so in fact--and kept himself very well informed regarding all manner of
things. On this evening he said he had heard of the great disaster and
loss of lives caused by the Johnstown flood and he desired to transmit
through me two hundred pounds to be used for relief work. I cabled the
amount to the Secretary of State on the following day and communicated
to His Majesty our Government's acknowledgment:

     Express grateful appreciation of the President and the Government
     of the United States for the Sultan's generous relief for flood
     sufferers.

When it became known that I was about to leave my post I received many
communications expressing regret. These were a great satisfaction,
especially one beautiful letter from the missionaries of Constantinople,
signed by Edwin E. Bliss, I. F. Pettibone, Joseph K. Greene, H. S.
Barnum, Charles A. S. Dwight, Henry O. Dwight, and William G. Bliss.

After we had boarded the steamer to Varna, homeward bound, a royal
caïque--a rowboat of the graceful lines of a Venetian gondola and manned
by six oarsmen--came alongside our ship and one of the Sultan's aides
came aboard to present to Mrs. Straus the highest order of the Shefekat
decoration, a star set in brilliants, with the special request of His
Majesty that she accept it as a token of his esteem and regard. As the
regulations prohibiting me from accepting such honors did not apply to
my wife, she graciously accepted this parting gift from Abdul Hamid.

And so farewell to Pera and the beautiful Bosphorus!




CHAPTER V

HARRISON, CLEVELAND, AND McKINLEY

     One function of ex-diplomats--Russian refugees in flight to
     America--President Harrison remonstrates with Czar against
     persecutions--"A decree to leave one country is an order to enter
     another"--Grover Cleveland's fight for sound money--His letters to
     me--"The Little White House"--Cleveland under fire for Van Alen
     appointment--Cleveland's theatrical tastes--A midnight supper of
     delicatessen and beer--Cleveland's first meeting with Charles F.
     Murphy, of Tammany Hall--The final confidences of an
     ex-President--A pilgrimage in England to the school attended by
     Roger Williams--I join the fight for election reforms--President
     McKinley summons me to Washington to discuss plan to avert war with
     Spain--A proposal to "rattle the Sultan's windows"--McKinley urges
     me to again accept the Turkish post--"Secretary of State for
     Turkey."


Had diplomacy been a career, nothing would have pleased me more than to
continue in such service of my country. On the whole I cannot say that I
advocate changing our system as to a more permanent service for the
heads of missions. Our President is now unhampered to select men who are
best qualified to deal with the problems in hand at the various posts.
This is an advantage over a system that tends to keep in office
ministers and ambassadors who are ill equipped to bring statesmanlike
qualities to their work, though they may be past-masters in routine and
social requirements. But it would be well if, on a change of
administration, removals of heads of missions were the exception rather
than the rule. Of course, after four or eight years, the return of our
diplomatic chiefs from foreign fields to the various parts of our
country has the advantage of enabling these men, by reason of their
experience and standing, to inform and in a measure guide public opinion
on questions concerning international affairs.

On my return to New York I reëntered business, but continued to take a
deep and active interest in public affairs. I spent much of my spare
time lecturing on public questions and historical matters.

       *       *       *       *       *

Waves of Russian-Jewish immigrants were pounding our shores in the
spring of 1891. In Russia, pogroms and other forms of mob persecution
had become so persistent that refugees were arriving in pitiful droves
at our ports. Sinister circumstance had hurled them from one country
into another. Many had been compelled to abandon their employment or
even their own established businesses in Russia, owing to the
enforcement of the Ignatieff laws and the consequent prohibitions,
restrictions, and persecutions.

Determined to make a strenuous protest, a small committee was formed of
prominent Jews from New York, Cincinnati, and Chicago, to lay before
President Harrison the pitiable conditions day by day presented by the
arriving refugees, many of whom had been stripped of all their
possessions.

Our committee was headed by Jesse Seligman, and among the others I
recall Jacob H. Schiff, of New York, and General Lewis Seasongood, of
Cincinnati, besides myself. The President listened to our story with
sympathetic interest, and then turned to me and asked what, in the light
of my international and diplomatic experience, I thought should be done.
I told him that we had a right to remonstrate with any nation with which
we were on friendly terms, as we were with Russia, for committing an
unfriendly act if that nation by special laws forced groups of its
people, in pitiable condition, to seek refuge in another country and
that country our own.

The President agreed, but suggested that our Government ought to have
before it an official report or statement of facts. I replied that this
could easily be obtained by sending a competent commission to Russia to
make inquiry. Promptly Colonel John B. Weber, immigration commissioner
at Ellis Island, admirably qualified because of his experience in office
and his sympathetic interest, together with Dr. Walter Kempster, a
physician known for his studies of the pathology of insanity, were sent
abroad to make an investigation and report. Their investigation was
thorough, and they embodied their findings in a report that is a model
of its kind. It was the first authentic and official report on these
Russian restrictions and persecutions, and when published it aroused
great interest in all enlightened parts of Europe as well as at home.
The distinguished English historian, Lecky, refers to it in his own
work, "Democracy and Liberty."

George Jones, of the "New York Times," also had an investigation and
report made by his London correspondent, Harold Frederic. These findings
the "Times" published as articles and syndicated them to several other
papers of the country, and later Frederic brought them out in book form
under the title "The New Exodus."

President Harrison was much impressed with the report of the commission,
and through diplomatic channels brought the matter to the attention of
the Russian Government. His reference to this action in the Annual
Message of December, 1891, is such a clear and convincing recognition of
humanitarian diplomacy, that I quote it:

     This Government has found occasion to express, in a friendly
     spirit, but with much earnestness, to the Government of the Czar,
     its serious concern because of the harsh measures now being
     enforced against the Hebrews in Russia.... It is estimated that
     over one million will be forced from Russia within a few years....

     The banishment, whether by direct decree or by not less certain
     indirect methods, of so large a number of men and women is not a
     local question. A decree to leave one country is, in the nature of
     things, an order to enter another--some other. This consideration,
     as well as the suggestions of humanity, furnishes ample ground for
     the remonstrances which we have presented to Russia, while our
     historic friendship for that Government can not fail to give the
     assurance that our representations are those of a sincere
     wellwisher.

The President's Message was largely quoted and favorably commented upon
in this and many European countries. All of this had a reaction in
Russia itself. No matter how autocratic a government may be, as Russia
then was, it cannot free itself from "a decent respect to the opinions
of mankind." For the time being conditions in Russia for the Jews were
ameliorated.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the fall of 1891 I was a delegate to the Democratic State Convention
at Saratoga and was a member of the platform committee. One of the
questions to be solved was: What should be our position regarding
silver? Cleveland's statement of his position during his first term had
lost him the Presidency.

Quite purposely Cleveland had boldly accentuated, while in office, the
outstanding issues then before the country--the tariff and sound
money--without any regard to political consequences. His friend, Richard
Watson Gilder, has said of him in this connection:[1]

  [Footnote 1: _Grover Cleveland_, _A Record of Friendship_, p. 33.]

     Every once in a while Cleveland "threw away the Presidency," and I
     never saw him so happy as when he had done it; as, for instance,
     after the tariff message, and now again after the silver letter.

Cleveland, while not a scholar, was ultra-conscientious and had an
honest and logical mind that dealt with fundamentals. He would "mull
over" (that is the very phrase I have heard him use) a question until
he got to the bottom, and there he would start to build up his premises
and arrive at his decisions. Because of the surplus accumulating in the
Treasury he had been impressed more and more with the fact that the
taxes and the tariff should be reduced. He realized, during the spring
and summer of 1887, that the rapid increase of this surplus was becoming
a menace to the stability of our financial system, and he felt it his
duty to provide some means for averting commercial disaster. At the
opening of Congress that year, instead of a message covering all of the
Government activities as was the invariable custom, he prepared one
devoted exclusively to the revenue system and to the necessity of
reducing the tariff. He gave much care and deliberation to this message,
but none to the political consequences.

Again later, when the free coinage of silver became a topic of
prominence, the Reform Club of New York invited him to attend a banquet
at which this question was to be discussed. Many of his friends advised
that he remain silent on the subject, in order not to mar his chances
for reëlection. Cleveland, however, accepted the invitation and boldly
announced his position regarding "the dangerous and reckless experiment
of free, unlimited and independent silver coinage." That was too much
for the machine men of the party; the note of Cleveland's doom was
sounded from one end of the country to the other.

After his retirement partisan bitterness largely disappeared, and it
soon became a foregone conclusion that he would again have to stand for
the Presidency. Although he had occupied the President's chair only one
term, I doubt whether any ex-President of our time, with the exception
of Roosevelt, carried with him into private life a deeper interest or a
higher esteem on the part of the great body of the people. His rugged
honesty of purpose and determined stand for the best principles in our
public life were more and more appreciated and valued. During the entire
period between his defeat and his reëlection he was the most
distinguished representative of his party.

When the silver question came up in the State Convention at Saratoga, a
few others and myself contended for a sound money plank. We met with
opposition from a majority of the platform committee. Richard Croker,
boss of Tammany Hall, had not up to that time bothered much about the
subject. I laid before him the reasons underlying the question and got
him to throw his powerful influence and help on our side, and we
succeeded in the end in incorporating a strong sound money plank.

Cleveland expressed his satisfaction with that accomplishment in the
following note to me:

                                                  _Sept._ 27, 1891

     MY DEAR MR. STRAUS:

     I have a suspicion that you had much to do with the formation of
     the silver plank in the platform adopted at Saratoga. I am so well
     satisfied indeed that you thus merit my thanks as a citizen who
     loves the honor of his country and as a Democrat who loves the
     integrity of his party, that I desire to tender them in this frank
     informal manner.

                                       Yours very truly
                                            GROVER CLEVELAND


I may add here that upon his retirement in 1889 Cleveland came to New
York to live, and the pleasant relations I had had with him in office
became close and intimate.

Early in July, 1892, I wrote Cleveland regarding his position on the
tariff, and after the Chicago convention which nominated him for the
Presidency, I received the following communication from him:

                                                 GRAY GABLES
                                            BUZZARDS BAY, MASS.
                                              _July_ 25, 1892

     MY DEAR SIR:

     I wish to thank you for your letter of July 12, and to express my
     disappointment that while in New York last week I did not have the
     opportunity to converse with you on the suggestions which your
     letter contained. You cannot fail to see by some expressions in my
     address in reply to the notification committee, that thoughts quite
     similar to yours have occupied my mind in regard to the tariff
     plank in our platform. I am exceedingly anxious that there should
     be no misrepresentation of our true position, and I regret
     exceedingly that there should have been any form of expression
     adopted which makes us liable to that danger.

     I shall continue to give the subject earnest thought and when I
     write my letter of acceptance if it should then seem to be
     necessary I shall not hesitate to pursue the subject further. I
     have heard of your labors at Chicago and of your constant and
     earnest devotion to my cause, and while your previous conduct and
     our relations have been such as to lead me to expect such things of
     you, I am none the less gratified and beg to thank you from the
     bottom of my heart.

     With the kind remembrances of Mrs. Cleveland to you and Mrs.
     Straus, in which I heartily join, I am

                                       Very truly yours
                                               GROVER CLEVELAND


In 1888 his position on these two questions caused his defeat; in 1892,
his position still the same, these very issues were the dominant factors
that brought about his renomination and election.

       *       *       *       *       *

During the winter before his second term of office, in order to get some
rest and be freer than was possible in New York from the constant stream
of visitors and place-hunters, he and his family accepted the invitation
of my brother Nathan to occupy a little frame house which my brother
had bought from a New Jersey farmer in connection with the property on
which stands the Lakewood Hotel. The little two-story house, surrounded
by pines, simple as could be, was renovated and painted white, and
became known as "the little White House." To it from time to time
Cleveland summoned the people with whom he wished to confer--the leaders
of his party with regard to policies and the make-up of his Cabinet, and
personal friends. He had no secretary and wrote all letters with his own
hand.

During his stay at "the little White House" he sent for me several times
to talk over things with him. On one of these occasions he proposed
connecting me with the Administration in some way that might be
agreeable to me. While I appreciated highly his intention, I told him I
felt I owed it to my brothers to stick to business for the next few
years. He answered that he would have to have one of the brothers in his
Administration. I learned later that in his mind he had reserved the
ministership to Holland for Isidor. At about this time Isidor had been
nominated, and was subsequently elected, to fill a vacancy in Congress,
and Cleveland purposely did not fill the Dutch post until after that
special election. He afterwards remarked to a friend he and Isidor had
in common, William L. Wilson, of West Virginia, chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee and responsible for the Wilson Tariff Bill, that he much
preferred Isidor in Congress where he could have the benefit of his
wisdom and knowledge in financial and tariff matters. Indeed, my brother
was largely responsible for Cleveland's calling the extra session of
Congress for the repeal of the Sherman Silver Coinage Act.

Among my letters from Cleveland at this period I have one concerning a
subject that caused a great deal of stir and unfavorable comment: the
appointment of James J. Van Alen, of Newport, Rhode Island, as
ambassador to Italy. Van Alen was a very rich man. He was the son-in-law
of William Astor and the personal friend of William C. Whitney, the real
manager of the Cleveland campaign, whose appointment as Secretary of the
Navy was not liked by the "mugwump" wing of the party, headed by Carl
Schurz and others. When Van Alen was appointed a hue and cry arose from
the idealists, and Cleveland's enemies alleged that the appointment was
nothing more than a reward for the very large contribution Van Alen had
made to Whitney for the campaign, for which Whitney had promised this
position. Schurz, as editor of "Harper's Weekly," wrote a savage
editorial against Cleveland on this subject, and in a letter to me he
stated that he felt Cleveland's prestige would never recover from the
blow he had struck against himself in making that appointment. I wrote
to Cleveland about the matter and how it was regarded by some of his
friends, mentioning Schurz among others. The President sent me the
following reply:

                                      EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON
                                              _Oct._ 29, 1893

     MY DEAR MR. STRAUS:

     Your letter was received to-day.

     I need not tell you how much I value your friendship; and I hardly
     need confess how touched I am by the manifestation of affection
     afforded by the solicitude you evince in the Van Alen matter. I am
     amazed by the course pursued by some good people in dealing with
     this subject. No one has yet presented to me a single charge of
     unfitness or incompetency. They have chosen to eagerly act upon the
     frivolous statements of a much mendacious and mischievous
     newspaper, as an attempt to injure a man who in no way has been
     guilty of wrong. I leave out of the account the allegation that his
     nomination was in acknowledgment of a large campaign contribution.
     No one will accuse me of such a trade and Mr. Whitney's and Mr.
     Van Alen's denial that any such thing existed in the minds of any
     one concerned, I believe to be the truth. I think it would be a
     cowardly thing in me to disgrace a man because the New York World
     had doomed him to disgrace. Since the nomination was sent in I have
     left the matter entirely to the Senate, and I hear that the
     nomination was confirmed to-day. This ends the matter. I am
     entirely content to wait for a complete justification of my part in
     the proceeding.

     I am sorry you regard this matter as so unfortunate, and if
     anything could have induced me to turn away from a course which
     seems to me so plainly just and right, it would be my desire to
     satisfy just such good friends as you have always proved yourself
     to be.

     I shall be glad to see you at all times.

                            Yours very sincerely
                                      GROVER CLEVELAND


Van Alen was confirmed by the Senate, but on November 20th he sent in
his resignation, which Cleveland reluctantly accepted, but urged Van
Alen to reconsider his decision, as his (the President's) preference was
emphatically that Van Alen accept the post and by the discharge of his
duties vindicate the wisdom and propriety of his selection.

       *       *       *       *       *

During the second term I saw little of the President. I was very much
tied to business and went to Washington only when summoned there to
discuss a few international questions as they arose. But while I am
reminiscing about my relations with Mr. Cleveland, I shall jump ahead
about ten years and speak of a visit he paid me for three days during
March, 1903. He was to deliver an address at the Henry Ward Beecher
Memorial in the Brooklyn Academy of Music on Sunday evening, and he
arrived from Princeton on Saturday. He was like a boy out of school.

We were going to the theater on Saturday evening and I suggested Justin
McCarthy's "If I Were King," played by Sothern.

"I hope it is not sad," Cleveland said. "I want to see it from start to
finish"; and with a smirk he added, "for I am a hayseed." I discerned
afterward that he would rather have seen a comedy or vaudeville.

When we arrived at the theater, many in the audience recognized
Cleveland and heads were constantly turning in the direction of our box.
I mentioned it to him, but he said: "Oh, no, they don't know me any
more." After the theater we had a supper of delicatessen and beer at
home, which I knew he would like, and he amused us with several funny
stories and mimicry. My wife remarked that he might have made a success
on the stage, and he replied that his friend Joe Jefferson had often
deplored his having missed that profession.

Cleveland gave an imitation of the humorous Congressman Campbell, of New
York, who used to come to the White House and, pointing to the room
occupied by Cleveland, ask the clerk: "Is His Royal Nibs in?" And
sometimes Tim Campbell made requests that Cleveland had to deny as
unconstitutional; then Tim would come back with "Oh, I wouldn't let the
Constitution stand between friends!"

At dinner on Sunday we were joined by Mr. and Mrs. John G. Carlisle, my
brother Isidor, his wife, and his business associate, Charles B.
Webster. Carlisle had been one of the most distinguished Senators in
Congress, former Secretary of the Treasury, and a close friend of
Cleveland. When the champagne was served my wife said to the
ex-President:

"Does Mrs. Cleveland let you drink this? You know it is bad for your
rheumatism!"

"No, but I won't tell her," answered Cleveland.

They compromised on one glass.

After dinner the conversation turned to the bond loans during
Cleveland's second Administration--the first made through J. P. Morgan &
Company and the subsequent popular loans--to keep the gold in the United
States Treasury. The ex-President referred to his fight against the
silver craze and said he had been compelled to abandon the fundamental
issue, the tariff reform, to combat that dangerous heresy.

When the guests had gone, Cleveland wanted to know whether we would like
to hear the speech he was to deliver that evening, and of course we
assured him we should be delighted. This led to conversation about
Beecher, and I showed him the original letter that Beecher wrote him in
1887 recommending my appointment to Turkey. He said he remembered it
perfectly, and it was the thing that turned the scale while he was
considering whether or not he could properly appoint a person of my race
to a post largely concerned with the protection of Christian missions. I
made bold to request the manuscript of his Memorial Address to file with
my Beecher letter, and he kindly consented with the words: "Yes,
certainly; they are kind of cousins."

After a light supper we drove to Brooklyn. Cleveland liked to be
punctual and I took care that we should arrive at the appointed hour,
7.45. It was pouring rain, and Cleveland anticipated that most people
would be kept away; but when we entered the hall it was packed from pit
to dome and several thousand persons were turned away. At the close of
the meeting hundreds crowded onto the stage to greet the ex-President,
showing that the love and admiration of the people had in no degree
waned.

The next morning we prevailed upon him to stay another day. He said he
knew I had a speech to make at Brown University and that its preparation
would engage my time. But I assured him the speech was all prepared and
the subject was "Brown in Diplomacy." He asked me to read it to him, and
I did. He pronounced it appropriate and fine, which gave me some
confidence in the success of the occasion, for I knew he was not given
to flattery and would not have praised the speech without meaning it;
that was not his habit.

He had to go to Rockwood, the photographer, at Thirty-Ninth Street and
Broadway, so I went with him. He said he had hundreds of requests for
pictures and wanted a new one taken so that when people wrote for them
he could refer such requests to Rockwood; similarly he had had some
pictures made by a Philadelphia photographer. These arrangements would
save him much trouble. I asked Rockwood to take a special, large picture
for me. He brought forward his larger camera and took one of the best
photographs of Cleveland I have ever seen. I had two finished: one for
Mrs. Cleveland and the other for myself, and it now hangs in my library.

For luncheon we met Isidor at Delmonico's. At the next table sat Charles
F. Murphy, successor to Croker as boss of Tammany Hall, who requested me
to introduce him to Cleveland. They had quite a chat, after which
Cleveland remarked: "He looks like a pretty clean fellow."

During the meal our guest told us, with language, voice, and manner
befitting the tale, how, when he was being spoken of for reëlection
before his second term, he met a farmer who said to him: "Now if you
will go on sawin' wood and don't say nothin', they will give you back
that job in Washington." No actor could have given a more vivid
characterization of that farmer.

That evening we went to Weber and Field's Music Hall, on Twenty-Ninth
Street near Broadway. Cleveland suggested this himself. He said he liked
to be amused at the theater and not saddened or instructed.

       *       *       *       *       *

At about this period Cleveland from time to time showed evidences of
illness. He called them stomach attacks. Whether or not his personal
friend and physician, Dr. Joseph D. Bryant, had diagnosed the malady as
more serious I do not know; but at times I rather inferred that he had.
Dr. Bryant made it a point to accompany Cleveland on several of his
hunting and fishing expeditions, which were taken not alone for
pleasure, but as health measures, for a change of air and the outdoor
recreation.

On and off during those years also, when the family wanted a little
change, they occupied "the little White House" at Lakewood. Cleveland
liked it for its simplicity and because it was not unlike the parsonage
at Caldwell, New Jersey, where he was born. Early in June, 1908, while
the Clevelands were at Lakewood, the ex-President sent for my brother
Isidor; he desired to have a talk with him. He seemed to wish to
unburden his mind.

This proved to be the last time he spoke to any one outside of his
immediate family while still in the possession of all his faculties.
That very night he had another attack of his malady, after which, as I
was told, his faculties seemed to go under a cloud. Two weeks later, on
June 24th, the country was shocked, though it was not unprepared, to
learn that the ex-President had died that morning at his Princeton home.

On June 26th Grover Cleveland was laid to rest. The funeral was private;
my brothers and I had received a note from Mrs. Cleveland asking us to
be present. At his home we met about one hundred of his personal
friends. It had been his express wish that there be no eulogy or funeral
oration, and his friend Dr. Henry van Dyke conducted a simple service at
which he read passages from Wordsworth's poem, "The Happy Warrior." In a
carriage with Chief Justice Fuller, Judge George Gray, of Delaware, and
Governor Fort, of New Jersey, I accompanied the body to the cemetery.

For Grover Cleveland there were no longer enemies to traduce and vilify.
Perhaps no President had ever been so reviled by a hostile press
throughout the country as this great man, and, strong as he was, these
attacks quite naturally pained him. Public appreciation of men who
struggle against the tide for righteous things is often deferred,
sometimes until after death. In his case, happily, it came while he was
yet among us in the constantly increasing manifestations of admiration,
love, and esteem by the people of the country.

       *       *       *       *       *

I have mentioned that during Cleveland's second Administration I seldom
went to Washington. At that time I was occupied also with the writing of
two books. I was not, of course, relying upon my pen for a living. I
should not have survived long if I had! Historical writing has fittingly
been called the aristocracy of literature; it requires long and patient
investigation and yields meager returns. For me it made a fascinating
avocation. My "Roger Williams, the Pioneer of Religious Liberty," was
published by the Century Company in 1894, and "The Development of
Religious Liberty in the United States" appeared in a limited edition,
published by Philip Cowen, New York, in 1896.

The latter was a slim volume, an amplification of an address I had
delivered in New Haven before the Yale College Kent Club, and elsewhere;
the former grew out of studies I had made in preparing my first book,
"The Origin of Republican Form of Government." "Roger Williams" was well
received and had a generous circulation, being several times reprinted.
Brown University, under the presidency of that eminent historian and
scholar, E. Benjamin Andrews, conferred upon me the honorary degree of
Litt.D.

When I was again in London in 1898 I carried out a purpose I had long
had, to visit Charterhouse School, earlier known as Sutton's Hospital
School, where Roger Williams received his early education. I met the
Reverend Doctor William Haig Brown, master, who showed me the register
of the school for 1624 containing the inscription of Roger Williams.
When he saw I was much interested in Roger Williams he told me of a
recent life of him that had been written, which he considered very fine
and with which he wanted to acquaint me. He went to his library on the
floor above, and when he returned he handed me my own work! (I had not
previously told him my name.)

I observed in the main hall of the school a number of tablets
commemorating distinguished scholars who had attended there. There were
represented Thackeray, General Shakespeare, Archdeacon Hale, Sir Henry
Havelock, and several who were sacrificed in the Crimean War and the
Indian Mutiny. I asked Dr. Brown whether he did not think it fitting
that a tablet should be added in memory of Roger Williams, and said that
I should be glad to defray the expense thereof. He agreed, and I
authorized him to have the tablet made. He employed Howard Ince, a
well-known architect, to design the tablet, which contains the following
inscription:

                    IN MEMORY OF ROGER WILLIAMS

                Formerly a Scholar of Charterhouse
           Founder of the State of Rhode Island, and the
      Pioneer of Religious Liberty in America. Placed here by
      Oscar S. Straus, United States Minister to Turkey, 1899

I did not wish my name on it, but Dr. Brown quite definitely preferred
it so.

Of all my books, the "Life of Roger Williams" contains the greatest
amount of work in the way of research and study; but the amount of
pleasure it gave me in the doing was commensurate.

       *       *       *       *       *

In politics I had become more impressed year by year with the importance
of a reform in our electoral system, especially in our large cities. The
bosses in the two big parties were the "invisible powers" who dictated
the nominations. Primaries were primaries in name only, and were so
conducted as to strengthen the power of the bosses. In Chicago a
campaign to purify the primaries had been carried on by the political
committee of the Civic Federation. The Federation, of which its
organizer, Ralph M. Easley, was the secretary, now enlarged its scope in
the political field and issued a "Call for a National Conference on
Practical Primary Election Reform," in the name of some two hundred and
fifty of the leading men of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and
thirty-five cities in between. Prominent in this list I remember Mayor
William L. Strong, of New York; ex-Mayor Abram S. Hewitt, of New York;
Darwin R. James, president of the New York Board of Trade; Andrew B.
Humphreys, of the Allied Political Clubs of New York; Mayor Josiah
Quincy, of Boston; Mayor James D. Phelan, of San Francisco; ex-Mayor
George W. Ochs, of Chattanooga; Albert Shaw; Nicholas Murray Butler;
Carl Schurz; Lyman Abbott; Lyman J. Gage; Melville E. Stone; Myron T.
Herrick; Albert J. Beveridge; Robert M. La Follette.

The meeting was held in the rooms of the New York Board of Trade on
January 20, 1898, and we organized the National Primary Election League.
I was elected president; Josiah Quincy, first vice-president; Charles
Emory Smith, of Philadelphia, second vice-president; Walter C. Flower,
of New Orleans, third vice-president; Ralph M. Easley, secretary; and
Darwin R. James, treasurer. The conference gave a distinct impetus to
primary reform all over the country, and in many of the States led to
the passage of laws providing for such reforms.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the presidential election of 1896 I voted for McKinley, despite my
former political affiliations. The outstanding issue between the
Republican and Democratic Parties was the money question, and I was an
advocate of sound money.

Early in the new Administration our relations with Spain were rapidly
drifting to a crisis over conditions in Cuba. My friend General Stewart
L. Woodford was appointed minister to Spain. I gave him a letter of
introduction to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, who was now British ambassador
at Madrid. Wolff was very sympathetic toward America. Woodford later
informed me that the letter had been very serviceable, especially as his
audience had been delayed for several weeks on account of the Queen's
absence from the capital. He very frankly laid before Wolff the American
position and attitude with regard to Cuba, which Wolff asked permission
to detail to his Government. Based on that information the British
diplomatic representatives were advised by Lord Salisbury: "The
American cause is absolutely impregnable; govern yourselves
accordingly."

President McKinley frequently invited me to Washington and encouraged my
writing to him, especially on international matters; and my letters
always received prompt reply over his own signature. Accordingly on
March 12, 1898, I wrote him at length stating that perhaps the impending
war with Spain could be averted if we proposed to Spain a plan of
suzerainty. I quote from my letter:

     We have no need for Cuba; our destinies point to the Continent; to
     leave it to make conquests will weaken our rights, ... and will
     place us against our will on the world's chessboard, from which we
     have happily kept clear. The Cuban insurgents are imbued with a
     spirit of belligerency, but have neither past training nor the
     knowledge to maintain freedom and to accord to each other
     individual liberty.

     The great problems, I take it, are, first: to stop the war;
     secondly, to find a solution which will bring independence to Cuba,
     and at the same time preserve the _amour propre_ to Spain.... The
     proposition to which I have given considerable thought ... is the
     following:

     That we insist that Spain accord and Cuba accept the position of
     suzerainty such as are the relations between Turkey and Egypt. This
     will give Cuba self-government, and will at the same time preserve
     the _amour propre_ of Spain by retaining a semblance of a claim of
     sovereignty without power to interfere with self-government on the
     part of the Cubans.... We could much better afford to help Cuba
     with a number of millions which would after all be a small fraction
     of what a war would cost us, ... especially when the end attained
     is the independence of Cuba, and attained in such a way as not to
     entail upon us unending responsibilities full of care and
     entangling obligations.

Immediately upon receipt of this the President asked me to come to
Washington for a conference. He was very much interested in the idea and
requested me to write out the plan in more detail. This I did. I
discussed with him the suzerainty plan as developed in Europe and as it
was working in Egypt. I expressed the opinion that as the leading
nations of Europe were familiar with the idea it was not likely to meet
with any serious objections. McKinley was impressed with the feasibility
of my proposal and was in favor of some such arrangement. He said he was
having difficulty because of the jingo agitation in Congress and the
storming for war of the American press. He felt when the report of the
Board of Inquiry on the destruction of the Maine was made public, as it
would be in a few days, nothing could hold back Congress and the press,
and the Cuban controversy would be pushed to an issue.

However, he immediately communicated the plan to Minister Woodford, who
brought it to the attention of the Spanish Government. General Woodford
reported that he had every reason to believe it would be acceptable to
Spain. But meantime things moved with lightning speed and war was
declared.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Illustration: PRESIDENT McKINLEY SENDING THE AUTHOR TO TURKEY ON HIS
SECOND MISSION, 1898]

Matters in Turkey at this time were also not going very smoothly. At a
conference with McKinley one day he showed me a communication from Dr.
James B. Angell, minister at the Porte, suggesting that the only way to
bring Turkey to terms was to send warships up there and "rattle the
Sultan's windows." The President was much disturbed. He felt the sending
of warships might result in another incident like the blowing up of the
Maine. He said the situation had worried him so that it interfered with
his sleep, and he begged me to accept again the appointment of minister
to Turkey, declaring with conviction that he regarded me as the only man
who could adjust the situation. I explained to him frankly how I was
situated in regard to my business obligations and that it was very
difficult for me to drop them at this time; but under the circumstances
as he had stated them to me I felt I had no right to interpose my
personal affairs as a reason for refusing, for I certainly regarded no
sacrifice too great to make in the service of the country when it was
needed, as in this instance. I said I had been too young to shoulder a
gun in the Civil War as he had done, but with a full understanding of my
situation if he should feel it necessary to call upon me I should be at
his service.

Dr. Angell was a distinguished scholar and not lacking in diplomatic
experience. He was president of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor,
and had been special envoy to China. He was also an adviser and one of
the trustees of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions. However, in some public utterance he had criticized Turkey
unfavorably, and the Porte was having its revenge. Every request Dr.
Angell made was declined; exequaturs were refused to our consuls
appointed at Erzerum and Harpoot. Dr. Angell was discouraged and
incensed. He was about to resign.

Finally one day I received a telegram:

                                               EXECUTIVE MANSION
                                                  WASHINGTON, D.C.
                                                       _May 27_, 1898

     HONORABLE OSCAR S. STRAUS
         New York

     Remembering our talk of a few months ago I would be glad to have
     you accept the post of Minister to Turkey. Dr. Angell has resigned
     to take effect 15 of August. I would be pleased to nominate you
     before Senate adjourns.

                                              WILLIAM MCKINLEY

And I telegraphed back that same day:

        PRESIDENT MCKINLEY
           Executive Mansion
               Washington

     Your request that I should accept the post of Minister to Turkey,
     with which you honor me, I regard as a command, and deem it my
     patriotic duty to you and to the country to accept.

                                                    OSCAR S. STRAUS

Among the telegrams and letters of congratulation I received was one
from William L. Wilson, then the president of Washington and Lee
University at Lexington, Virginia, reading: "Washington and Lee greets
you as Doctor of Laws."

The National Civic Club of Brooklyn gave me a dinner and reception,
presided over by my friend and college mate, Frederic W. Hinrichs, at
which the leading speaker was Dr. St. Clair McKelway, editor of the
"Brooklyn Eagle." During the evening a letter was received from my
former chief and Secretary of State, Thomas F. Bayard, saying:

     It was my good fortune to be associated with Mr. Straus when he
     first took up the tangled web of Turkish diplomacy, so that few
     persons can so well attest as I, his possession of those talents
     and high personal characteristics which give him weight everywhere.

Ex-President Cleveland, who was prevented from being present by another
engagement, wrote:

     I would be glad to join those who will do honor to Mr. Straus ...
     and thus show my appreciation of his usefulness and the worth of
     his good example in recognizing the demands of good citizenship and
     responding to the call of public duty.

And there were also messages from many others, including President
McKinley.

I did not leave for my post for several months. Meanwhile I had more
conferences with the President regarding the Spanish situation. Early
in August, in discussing pending Spanish peace negotiations, he wanted
my ideas regarding them and as to how much of the Philippines we should
take. I strongly advised that we take as little as possible--nothing
more than a naval and coaling station; otherwise to appropriate the
Philippines would in the long run entail endless obligations without
commensurate benefits. I told him I believed these to be the views also
of many of the more thoughtful citizens, and that I had spoken with a
number of prominent men, such as ex-Postmaster-General Wilson,
ex-Secretary of the Treasury Carlisle, and Clifton R. Breckinridge,
formerly of the Ways and Means Committee, all of whom were of like
opinion. The President seemed to appreciate my view, but again feared
the jingo spirit of Congress. He complained also of the attitude of the
Cuban insurgents, who were exaggerating their numbers as well as their
demands.

Turning for a moment to my appointment, he said: "I don't know whether
you know it, but your nomination has been received with more praise by
all parties throughout the country than any nomination to office I have
made since I am President." I assured him I was gratified, but realized
the emphasis this put upon my responsibilities.

Because I had been a Cleveland Democrat my appointment by a Republican
President had, of course, created a great sensation in the press; it was
heralded as a step toward the merit system in our foreign service.

John Bassett Moore was now assistant Secretary of State, and with him I
spent several days in the preparation of my instructions. I considered
him even then the best equipped authority on international law in the
country, and I thought it was a pity his services could not be retained
in the Department of State; but his salary there was five hundred
dollars a year less than as professor, and he had a family to support.
He told me that the President and Secretary Day wished him to accompany
the Peace Commission to Paris, and subsequently he went as secretary and
counsel.

While I was with the President for a final conference a week before
sailing, Attorney-General Griggs came in all aglow and announced with
much enthusiasm that he had just had a telephone message from Justice
White (Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, later Chief
Justice) that he would consent to be one of the members of the Spanish
American Peace Commission. That specially pleased the President because
White was a man of great ability, and because the fact that White was a
Catholic might make a more favorable impression upon Catholic Spain. The
President immediately directed that the names be given to the press.
Shortly thereafter, however, White reconsidered his acceptance, for
reasons which were not made public, and Senator George Gray, who was
serving as a member of the Quebec Commission, and who like White was a
Democrat, was prevailed upon by the President to accept in his stead.
The other members were all Republicans. The commission as finally
constituted was: Secretary of State William R. Day, Senator Cushman K.
Davis (chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate),
Senator William P. Frye, Senator George Gray, and Whitelaw Reid.

There was considerable clamor, from missionaries and others, that we
send warships to Turkey. Of this I entirely disapproved and so told the
President. He answered me: "I shall be guided by you; I shall support
you; I have confidence in your ability and foresight. No vessels will
be sent to Turkey unless you demand them, and then, only then, will they
be sent. And when you get to London I wish you to see Ambassador
Hay"--Hay was about to return to take up the post of Secretary of
State--"and tell him that I have not only constituted you Minister to
Turkey, but Secretary of State for Turkey, and that both he and I will
be guided entirely by your judgment and advice."




CHAPTER VI

MY SECOND MISSION TO TURKEY

     Conferences with Ambassador Hay and Dr. Angell in London regarding
     Turkish matters--I make suggestions for coördinating work in our
     diplomatic service--With Baroness de Hirsch in Vienna--Arrival at
     Constantinople; audience with the Sultan--The visit of the Emperor
     and Empress of Germany--Breaking Turkish passport regulations--The
     Porte refuses to negotiate a treaty of naturalization--The
     indemnities for missionaries at Harpoot and Marash; the Sultan
     admits claim and promises to pay; I obtain iradé for rebuilding
     college at Harpoot--The Philippine Mohammedans; a diplomatic
     romance--American flour cheapens bread in Turkey--Aid to the
     British ambassador in the protection of Armenian orphanages--A
     renegade Roman priest--Lord Rosebery--Dr. S. Weir Mitchell--The
     Sultan entertains American tourists--His Majesty's only smile--A
     visit to Athens--Happy days on the Bosphorus--The Sultan's gift of
     vases--Dr. Theodor Hertzl--A visit to Rome--I return to Washington
     and conduct negotiations from there--LL.D. from Pennsylvania
     University--I end my mission.


In London I had several conferences with Ambassador John Hay, who was
shortly to return to Washington as Secretary of State in the place of
William R. Day, chosen to head the Spanish-American Peace Commission at
Paris. Mr. Day a few years afterward was made associate justice of the
United States Supreme Court, and the duties of that post he still
discharges with distinction.

Mr. Hay and I went over in detail the questions at issue in Turkey and
the plans I proposed for their adjustment. I told him of the pressure
being brought upon the President to send warships to the Bosphorus, and
said I regarded such a course as mixing up in the Eastern question, that
traditional tinder box of Europe, aside from the possible danger of
another incident like the blowing-up of the Maine. Mr. Hay agreed and
promised to support me to the fullest extent in settling matters with
Turkey.

I also met Dr. Angell in London on his way back from Constantinople, and
went over matters with him. He told me what a fruitless year and a half
he had had there and how he was made to feel he was _persona non grata_.
He had not been invited to dine at the Palace once during his entire
stay.

Before I left London I had a call from William E. Dodge, of Phelps,
Dodge, & Company, New York, and president of the Evangelical Alliance of
America. He came to express his appreciation for my making the personal
and business sacrifice to go to Turkey again. He was one of our most
benevolent citizens, prominently connected with the missionary bodies
and therefore deeply interested in the American colleges and schools in
the Ottoman Empire.

When I left for Constantinople this time, there were with me, besides my
wife, my daughters, Aline and Mildred, respectively fourteen and fifteen
years old; my little son Roger, six and a half years old, and his nurse;
my niece Sissy, daughter of my brother Nathan; and my nephew Percy,
second son of my brother Isidor, who was to be my private secretary.
Mildred we allowed to return from Paris to continue her studies at
Barnard, as we were unable to find a suitable school for her in either
England or France. We had sailed for Liverpool on the S.S. Lusitania on
September 3d.

       *       *       *       *       *

My friend General Horace Porter had been appointed ambassador to France,
and while in Paris I dined with him several times. He was a man of means
and had located the embassy in a magnificent residence in one of the
most fashionable parts of Paris. There we met among others Ferdinand W.
Peck, United States Commissioner to the Paris Exposition, and Mrs. Peck;
also William F. Draper, ambassador to Italy, who with Mrs. Draper was
in Paris on a leave of absence.

To Messrs. Porter and Draper I proposed what I had felt the need for
during my earlier mission: some sort of coördination and coöperation
among our various diplomatic representatives throughout Europe. I
suggested we might have conferences from time to time, or prevail upon
the State Department to keep each of us informed respecting negotiations
between the Department and all the others. Much of this material would
be of interest and value to us in connection with our respective
embassies or missions. It was being done by other foreign offices. The
British Foreign Office, for instance, issues confidential communications
in the form of blueprints, which are sent to the heads of all British
missions. During my previous sojourn at Constantinople my colleague, Sir
William White, frequently gave me the benefit of extracts from these
blueprints referring to American matters. They were very informing and
helpful.

Porter and Draper said they would coöperate with me in urging the State
Department to adopt some such scheme, and when I wrote to our colleague
at Berlin, Andrew D. White, he gave similar support. However, when I
suggested the idea to the State Department nothing came of it. Since
then some further effort has been made in that direction, but I have not
learned to what extent this desired system has been effected.

       *       *       *       *       *

We went on to Vienna to meet Baroness de Hirsch, who was coming from her
estate at Eichhorn. She had put her beautiful Paris residence on the rue
d'Elysée at our disposal, but unfortunately my appointments made it
impossible for us to avail ourselves of her hospitality. The Baroness
looked ill to me, and I warned her against allowing her intense
occupation with benevolent activities to wear upon her. She said she had
had the grippe, and later told my wife that her physicians feared her
ailment might be more serious. In spite of this, however, she went right
on, while at the Hotel Bristol in Vienna, with conferences with her
almoners, among others Ritter von Gutmann and Baron Günzburg, who were
associated with her in her endowed enterprises in Austria and elsewhere.
Alas, her malady was more serious than grippe, for it was only a short
time after our reaching Constantinople that her family informed us of
her death.

We met some of the leading Jewish scholars, artists, and literary men
while in Vienna: the architect, Wilhelm Stiassny; the actor, Adolf von
Sonnenthal; Dr. Adam Politzer; the Hungarian artists, Leopold Horowitz
and Isidor Kaufmann; Professor David Heinrich Miller, of the Vienna
University; and the attorney, Dr. Adolph Stein. Herr Stiassny was
president of the Jewish Historical Society, and at a meeting of that
body at which I was present he referred in glowing terms to my
appointment, saying that, amid the anti-Semitic spirit that was taking
hold of Austria and other European countries, America had shown by my
appointment that no race or religious distinction existed here, which
could not fail to have an influence in Austria and in several other
European states.

       *       *       *       *       *

On arriving at Constantinople we were welcomed by the secretary of the
legation and acting chargé, John W. Riddle, together with other members
of the legation and consulate and several of the missionaries. Mr.
Riddle, by the way, had conducted the affairs of the legation in the
interim with discretion and ability. He has since filled several other
posts most creditably; he was ambassador to Russia under Roosevelt, and
at the present writing is ambassador to Argentina.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Porte now was Tewfik Pasha, who
had been ambassador to Germany. He spoke German better than French, so I
conversed with him in the former language. As was customary, I left with
him the letters of recall of my predecessor and a copy of my
presentation address. I was informed that the Sultan and all the
officials at the Porte were pleased at my return, because they knew me
and had every confidence in me both personally and officially. Of
course, these remarks may have been diplomatic politeness, but events
seemed to show some sincerity in them. My audience, for instance,
instead of being delayed for weeks, was granted within one week of my
arrival; and instead of being accorded the lesser formalities of a
minister, I was received with all the ceremony accorded an ambassador:
four state carriages were placed at my disposal, preceded by four
postilions and outriders; a detachment of guards rendered military
honors as I arrived at the Palace; the Sultan was attended by Osman
Pasha, Fouad Pasha, general-in-chief of the Turkish armies, and some
thirty other high civil and military officers.

After the formality of presenting my credentials and making my address,
the Sultan reiterated three times that he felt great pleasure in
welcoming me back, as my former mission had given him much satisfaction.
He said that he knew I was a "gentleman"; and that is the only English
word I had ever heard him use.

President McKinley had authorized me to arrange for the elevation of the
mission at Constantinople to an embassy, as by the Act of March 3, 1893,
provision was made for the appointment of ambassadors. Up to that time,
based on the idea that ambassadors represented the person of a monarch
and that republics should not thus be represented, we had had only
ministers. The act reads:

     Whenever the President shall be advised that any foreign government
     is represented, or is about to be represented, in the United States
     by an ambassador, envoy extraordinary, minister plenipotentiary,
     minister resident, special envoy, or chargé d'affaires, he is
     authorized, in his discretion, to direct that the representative of
     the United States to such government shall bear the same
     designation.

The initiative for sending an ambassador, therefore, rested with the
foreign power, and we could not send an ambassador to Turkey until that
Government accredited an ambassador to us.

During my audience I informed the Sultan that the President had said he
would be pleased to raise our mission to an embassy, but I observed that
His Majesty did not take kindly to the suggestion. He replied politely
that he would take it under consideration.

Among my colleagues, Baron Calice still represented Austria-Hungary.
Germany was represented by Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, former
Prussian minister, a large man of the von Moltke physique; he died later
in London (1912) after a short service as ambassador to Britain. From
France there was Paul Cambon, brother of Jules Cambon, who was
ambassador at Washington at the time of the Spanish-American War and
continued the Spanish negotiations after our rupture with Spain; a
little while after my arrival in Constantinople Paul Cambon was
transferred to London. From Great Britain there was Nicholas R. O'Conor,
whom I met during my former mission when he was consul-general and
chargé at Sophia; he had meanwhile been ambassador to Russia. And from
Italy there was Signor Pansa. Severally they informed me that since my
first mission, ten years before, the power of the Ottoman Government
had been more and more concentrated in the Palace, that the Sultan
himself was the "whole show" and very little power was left at the
Porte.

       *       *       *       *       *

Constantinople was all agog with preparation and excitement, for the
Emperor and Empress of Germany were expected on October 17th! (As a
matter of fact, rough weather on the Ægean caused them to arrive a day
late.) The main streets of Pera were paved anew, and the walls
surrounding Yildis were newly whitewashed. All business at the Porte was
suspended. A Government official told me that the visit would probably
cost the Ottoman Empire not less than five hundred thousand pounds! One
of the residences at Yildis, near the Palace, was placed at the
Emperor's disposal.

As is customary on such visits, all the heads of missions left their
cards at the German embassy and inscribed their names in the Emperor's
visiting register. Each visit was promptly returned the next day by von
Bülow, Minister of Foreign Affairs, who left his card.

The Emperor and Empress drove through Pera in state, preceded by a
company of Turkish lancers and followed by numerous officers on horses
and in carriages. They rode in the royal victoria, drawn by four horses,
accompanied by numerous outriders in gala uniforms and on caparisoned
horses. The whole procession was gorgeous, and the royal pair bowed to
left and right as the crowds in the streets greeted them.

Some time after midnight on October 20-21 the doorbell rang and my
portier brought me a communication, just received from the Grand Master
of Ceremonies at the Palace, inviting Mrs. Straus, myself, and our first
dragoman to the banquet to the German Emperor and Empress at 7.15
o'clock on the evening of the 21st. The doyen of the diplomatic corps
had sent suggestions that the ladies wear high neck and long sleeves, as
the Sultan objected to the regulation European evening dress. The ladies
accordingly contrived to cover their necks and arms with chiffons,
laces, and long gloves. It proved unnecessary, however, because the
Empress and her ladies-in-waiting wore the usual décolleté.

In the recollection of the oldest diplomats present, this banquet was
the most brilliant in its appointments that had ever been given at the
Palace. More than one hundred persons were there, all the heads of
missions and the leading officials of the empire. The approach to the
Palace for quite a distance was illuminated and lined on both sides of
the way with rows of soldiers. At the Palace entrance, where we were met
by the court officials, we passed between rows of magnificently
uniformed Turkish and German officers, each wearing his full regalia of
numerous decorations.

At the proper time we were ushered into the audience room, where the
diplomats and their wives were arranged in a circle, the ladies on one
side and the gentlemen on the other. When the Emperor and Empress with
the Sultan entered, every one made a court bow. The Sultan and the
Emperor then engaged in conversation through an interpreter in the
center of the circle, while the Empress greeted each lady individually.
Each person, as was the custom, bowed before and after being spoken to.
When the Empress had greeted all the ladies and started with the
gentlemen, the Emperor started with the ladies.

When he came to Mrs. Straus, he made some mention of having seen her
queen lately and that she was as beautiful as ever. Mrs. Straus, by way
of indicating that she was from the United States, said, "I suppose Your
Majesty refers to Mrs. McKinley"; but the Emperor, evidently without
stopping to listen to what was being said, clicked his heels, made his
courtesy, and greeted the next person. It seems on being introduced he
had misunderstood "Roumanie" for "Etats-Unis," especially since Mrs.
Straus was next to the Serbian minister's wife. Count Eulenburg later
explained to Mrs. Straus that the Emperor's hearing was a little
defective.

When the Emperor reached me, he at once expressed a keen desire that it
might be possible for him to visit my country, and especially our great
shipyards, such as those of Cramp, which he had heard were wonderful. He
then asked me whether I knew our ambassador at Berlin, Andrew D. White;
and when I informed him that Mr. White had been a friend of mine for a
number of years, he said a few complimentary words about him.

The dinner service included gold plates and gold knives and forks. The
waiters wore brilliant red and gold uniforms. Between courses the Sultan
and the Emperor conversed by means of the interpreter who stood behind
them, and until they had finished talking the waiters were patiently
holding the next course up in the air for a cooling.

After the dinner we again formed a circle, made more courtesies at the
proper time, while the Sultan himself went round and greeted and shook
hands with each one. That ended the royal dinner.

During the meal I sat next to the Emperor's personal physician, Dr.
Lidhold. He had held the same position under the late Frederick III,
whom he characterized as a most lovable man. He said William II was
active and fond of amusing himself, and enjoyed constantly traveling
about, which was not so pleasant for his physician and other members of
his train. He admitted that the Emperor's left arm was quite lame, but
it did not interfere much with his movements because he had acquired
such dexterity with the other. He added that the magnificent attentions
of the Sultan could not fail to have a great influence upon Germany's
attitude toward the Ottoman Empire.

The visit of the Emperor at this time, following as it did the dreadful
massacre of Armenians only a few years before at Harpoot and then at
Constantinople itself, was very much resented by the Christians
throughout Europe. It was interpreted as an effort on the part of the
Emperor, for his own gain, to reinstate the "bloody Sultan" in the
esteem of the world. It was stated that the Sultan presented the Empress
with a very costly string of pearls.

       *       *       *       *       *

One of the four outstanding questions included in my instructions
concerned the right of our citizens to travel in the interior of Turkey.
Following the Armenian massacres of 1896 the Turkish Government made new
passport regulations, and all foreigners were required to get a
tezkirah, or special local passport, from the Sultan before traveling
into the interior. As usual in Turkey, asking for a permit of any kind
was one thing; getting it was quite another. This regulation proved most
obstructive to our missionaries and those of Great Britain who had
missions in the interior. They would go home or to Europe on a leave of
absence, and upon returning to Constantinople would be held up,
sometimes for weeks, on account of these tezkirahs, which were not
definitely refused, but not given, which practically amounted to the
same thing.

When I arrived at Constantinople eight Americans, bound for Erzerum and
Harpoot, were being held up in this way. One of them was Dr. C. F.
Gates, president of the Euphrates College at Harpoot. After exhaustive
negotiations with the authorities, in which I pointed out the fact that
refusal of the tezkirah was in violation of treaty rights, I myself gave
Dr. Gates a permit, signed by me, with the seal of the legation on it. I
then informed the Porte of my action and said that if any injury befell
the party _en route_ I should hold the Turkish Government responsible. I
also sent an open cable to our State Department informing Secretary Hay
what I had done. My British colleague was a bit disturbed when he heard
of it, because there were several British missionaries in the party.

That same night I got another of those Turkish midnight messages. After
apologizing for disturbing me, the messenger brought me the intelligence
that my cable had been held back, and that the Minister of Foreign
Affairs sent word that instructions had been given for the full
protection of the missionaries _en route_ to their posts. That broke
down the passport regulations, and a very few days thereafter I received
notice that the Council of Ministers had taken up the matter and ruled
that the regulations for traveling into the interior should be restored
to what they were before the Armenian troubles.

At about the same time I was enabled to cable to our Department of State
that I had obtained the Sultan's iradé granting the exequatur for our
consul at Erzerum.

       *       *       *       *       *

The third item in my instructions, the Treaty of Naturalization, I had
to drop. The Porte refused to negotiate this question because of the
failure of our Government to accept the terms I had obtained during my
previous mission, and for this I could not blame them. As during my
earlier mission, when matters involving questions of naturalization
arose I succeeded in securing the rights of the persons concerned on the
merits of each individual case.

       *       *       *       *       *

Lastly there was the question of indemnities due missionaries at Harpoot
and Marash for property, real and personal, plundered and destroyed
during the massacres. This was a delicate matter, because the Americans
were not alone in making claims for such damage; also the Government was
very poor. At first the Porte denied all liability and refused to pay. I
started the negotiations in November, 1898, and the process proved a
long and tedious one, lasting over a year. But step by step progress was
made. By December the Sultan admitted the claims and promised to pay as
soon as the amount was fixed. By February, with the amount still
unfixed, he had decided how payment was to be made: he would buy a
cruiser in America, to the cost of which the indemnities could be added,
enabling him to make payment "behind a screen," which he preferred. He
said arrangements were being made for loans through a bank in Paris to
begin installments on such a contract. By early September the iradé for
the purchase of a ship from some American builder had been given, and
plans were being studied to determine the type of ship. By the end of
the month the Sultan again assured me that the subject was receiving his
attention and would be settled in a month or two.

The state of the Turkish finances was, of course, deplorable, and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs told me that the Government was planning to
apply to the purchase of the ship, money coming due in two months upon
the conversion of some loans. And there were claims from England,
France, Germany, and Italy, none of which the Sultan had recognized or
promised to pay.

Even so, I planned that if His Majesty showed a disposition to deny his
promise I should offer to arbitrate and thus bring matters to a head.
That would put him upon one of two horns of a dilemma: if he accepted,
it definitely and authoritatively exposed to all the world the horrible
details of the massacre; if he refused, it put him in the position of
having declined the only peaceful method of adjustment. Tewfik Pasha,
however, in the name of the Sultan continued to make promises of
payment, and the matter dragged along a few months more.

Having settled all other problems that were irritating the relations of
the two Governments, I asked for leave to visit the United States. I
planned this trip so as to accentuate our displeasure at the
procrastination of the Ottoman Government in settling the indemnities,
and notified the Minister of Foreign Affairs that as my Government had
been patient for over a year I should now return home for consultation
regarding the delay.

Upon my return to the United States I carried on the negotiations
through the Turkish minister at Washington and prepared the instructions
for our chargé at Constantinople through the State Department. This
finally resulted in a contract with the Cramp Shipbuilding Corporation,
with an additional amount of ninety-five thousand dollars to pay the
indemnity claims, though actual payment was not made until June, 1901,
under the incumbency of John G. Leishman, my successor.

During the course of the indemnity negotiations I succeeded in obtaining
the Sultan's iradé for the rebuilding of college and missionary
buildings at Harpoot which had been injured or destroyed during the
massacres.

       *       *       *       *       *

Among the interesting episodes during these fifteen months at
Constantinople was what might be termed a diplomatic romance. In the
spring of 1899 I received a letter from Secretary Hay enclosing a
communication from William E. Curtis, Washington correspondent of the
"Chicago Record," and one of the best-known syndicate writers of the
time, who was well informed regarding what was going on in both official
and unofficial circles at Washington. Curtis reported a conversation
with an important official of the Turkish legation wherein he learned
that since the Turko-Greek War the Sultan had regained authority and
respect among Mussulmans throughout the world, and his advisers thought
the time propitious for him, as the religious head of Islam, to make
known his authority to the Mohammedans of the Philippines, Java, and
neighboring islands. The official had gone on to say that our victories
over Spain had surprised the Sultan beyond description, and he was
anxious to cultivate the friendship of a government whose navy could
sink the enemy's fleet and go round the world without the loss of a man.

Curtis thought that, in view of our present minister's influence and our
good relations with the Turkish Government, the Sultan under the
circumstances might be prevailed upon to instruct the Mohammedans of the
Philippines, who had always resisted Spain, to come willingly under our
control. Secretary Hay said he would give me no advice or instructions,
but would leave to my judgment what, if any, action I might deem it wise
to take; that if I could succeed in getting the Sultan of Turkey to send
a message to the Sultan of the Sulu Islands which would result in
peaceful and harmonious relations between the Sulu Sultan and our
officers, it would of course be a great accomplishment. The subject
interested me greatly. I saw the possibility of rendering an effective
service, and I was fascinated by the romance of the suggestion.

When I went to Turkey on my first mission, my father placed his hands
upon my head, gave me his blessing, and a parting advice which sank deep
into my consciousness: "When you have an important matter coming before
you, don't act promptly, but sleep over it." My father's death in
January, 1898, accentuated this advice in my memory, and when I received
the Hay-Curtis letters I followed it. I knew very little about the
Philippines. I doubt that our State Department knew much more. The
library at Constantinople had nothing on the subject. I had a copy of
the testimony taken by our commissioners at the Paris peace
negotiations, but it contained only vaguest references. But one of my
colleagues had the works of Jean Jacques Reclus, the French geographer.
From this I learned that the Mohammedans of the Philippines were not
Shiites, like those of Persia, but Sunnites, and therefore recognized
the Sultan of Turkey as their spiritual head.

I thought about the problem for a few days, and then I sent a note to
the Palace that I should like to have an audience with His Majesty, as I
had some private communication to make to him that I believed might
interest him, for it would enable him to render a great service to a
section of his co-religionists. The audience was promptly arranged, and
I gathered that the Sultan knew very little about the Sulu Mohammedans.
He asked regarding their sect. I told him they were Sunnites. He asked
whether they made pilgrimages to Mecca. I told him I thought they did,
the same as those of Borneo.

Then a curious incident occurred. In order to be able to take up the
matter very fully with the Sultan, I had anticipated all kinds of
questions and armed myself with pertinent information. Among them I
thought he might seek some assurance as to our Government's attitude
toward Mohammedanism, and to reassure him I had come prepared with a
translation into Turkish of Article XI of an early treaty between the
United States and Tripoli, negotiated by Joel Barlow in 1796. It read:

     As the Government of the United States of America is not in any
     sense founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no
     character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of
     Musselman; and as the said States never have entered into any war
     or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by
     the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall
     ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the
     two countries.

When the Sultan had read this, his face lighted up. It would give him
pleasure, he said, to act in accordance with my suggestions, for two
reasons: for the sake of humanity, and to be helpful to the United
States. He added that he hoped his services would be appreciated, and
that when occasion presented itself a like friendly spirit would be
shown to him. He knew I was a "gentleman" and would make known to my
Government the spirit in which he met my suggestions. The Mohammedans in
question recognized him as khalif of the Moslems and he felt sure they
would follow his advice.

We discussed means of conveying his message to them, and finally decided
to send a telegram to Mecca, where the Moslem pilgrims were then
gathered, to ascertain if any Sulu chiefs were there. Before
transmitting it, His Majesty's secretary read the telegram to me in
translation.

Two days later the Sultan invited me to the Palace to inform me that he
had received a reply that two Sulu chiefs were at Mecca. Another
telegram was then formulated instructing the chiefs in the name of the
Sultan that a definite understanding had been reached with the American
Elchi Bey (American minister) that they would not be disturbed in the
practice of their religion if they would promptly place themselves under
the control of the American army; that because of the Sultan's deep
concern for their welfare he advised and instructed them to return at
once to their people to prevent any bloodshed.

Immediately I cabled Secretary Hay, that he might be able to advise
General Bates, one of our commanders in the Philippines. The negotiation
proved to be very important and valuable to us. Some three months later
our Government received word from the Philippines that an
insurrectionist leader, Aguinaldo, had sent emissaries among these Sulu
Mohammedans, but they had refused to join the insurrectionists and had
placed themselves under the control of our army, thereby recognizing
American sovereignty.

Lieutenant-Colonel John P. Finley, who had been governor of the District
of Zamboanga, Moro Province, of the Philippine Islands for ten years,
wrote an article for the April, 1915, issue of "The Journal of Race
Development" in which he refers to this incident:

     At the beginning of the war with Spain the United States Government
     was not aware of the existence of any Mohammedans in the
     Philippines. When this fact was discovered and communicated to our
     ambassador in Turkey, Oscar S. Straus, of New York, he at once saw
     the possibilities which lay before us of a holy war.... He sought
     and gained an audience with the Sultan, Abdul Hamid, and requested
     him as Caliph of the Moslem religion to act in behalf of the
     followers of Islam in the Philippines.... A telegram to Mecca
     elicited the fact that they not only visited Mecca in considerable
     numbers, but that at that very time there were Moros from Sulu in
     the Sacred City.... The Sultan as Caliph caused a message to be
     sent to the Mohammedans of the Philippine Islands forbidding them
     to enter into any hostilities against the Americans, inasmuch as no
     interference with their religion would be allowed under American
     rule.

     President McKinley sent a personal letter of thanks to Mr. Straus
     for the excellent work he had done, and said its accomplishment had
     saved the United States at least twenty thousand troops in the
     field. If the reader will pause to consider what this means in men
     and also the millions in money, he will appreciate this wonderful
     piece of diplomacy in averting a holy war.

There was one commercial trouble to be attended to, in the settlement of
which I nevertheless emphasized the human aspect. Bread was, of course,
one of the main staples of the people, and it was rising in price. There
was a shortage of flour, yet a shipment of twenty thousand bags from the
Pillsbury-Washburn Flour Company of Minneapolis had been rejected. The
reason given was that it did not contain a sufficient percentage of
gluten and elasticity.

As a matter of fact, a shipment received six months before had had the
effect of reducing the retail price of bread about thirty-three per
cent. Such shipments competed with the local flour mills, whose owners,
chiefly Greeks, thereafter paid liberal baksheesh (tips, or bribe money)
to have the flour rejected.

I secured expert testimony to show that the flour, instead of being
inferior, was far superior to the local flour. I made the issue urgent
and sent an open telegram to our State Department that the flour was
being refused admission in distinct violation of our treaty rights. This
had the effect I anticipated. The flour was admitted.

The result of this negotiation was reflected in every household, and was
significant especially for the poorer people, who were grateful to the
American legation and the American people for further reducing the price
of their bread. After this, other large shipments of flour arrived from
time to time and were admitted without difficulty.

       *       *       *       *       *

The British ambassador came to me one day to ask whether, in view of the
success I had had in opening and protecting American schools, I could
give him some assistance in the protection of the orphanages which
British benevolent societies had established following the Armenian
massacres. The Duke of Westminster had called the attention of Her
Majesty's Government to the Porte's ruthless closing of a number of
these orphanages.

Although it was not a matter that came officially under my jurisdiction,
I told my colleague I should be glad to aid in every way possible. I
called on the Grand Vizier and explained to him that if the Government
persisted in destroying these institutions for the protection of orphan
children, it would have a prejudicial effect in aggravating the
justified horror produced in America as well as in England by those
massacres. I stated frankly that while this was not an American
question, it would, none the less, from a humanitarian standpoint,
create a disastrous impression to the further disadvantage of the
Turkish Government.

We got the desired result. It so pleased my colleague that in reporting
to Lord Salisbury he expressed great appreciation for the valuable help
I had given him. This recognition was widely published, in the London
"Times" and other British papers, as well as throughout America. The
Germans also reaped some benefit, for several of the orphanages, as at
Palu and Diarbekir, were under the supervision of their nationals.

       *       *       *       *       *

Occasionally in the City of the Sultan there arose strange and peculiar
incidents. I had a call one day from Monsignor Bonetti, the papal
delegate, who had a summer residence near mine. He said it had been
reported to him that a Roman priest named Brann, who had left his
position in America about a year before because of some moral
delinquencies, had arrived in Turkey within a few days. He was doubtless
under an assumed name, but Bonetti had heard that the renegade priest
was among our missionaries, and requested that I make inquiry. I asked
him what he proposed doing should the priest be found. He said he wanted
to counsel him to return to the church. The missionaries with whom I
spoke gave me every assistance, but the priest had evidently not come
among them, for he could not be found.

       *       *       *       *       *

A number of distinguished people, European and American, visited
Constantinople during the winter of 1898-99. Lord Rosebery arrived in
his mother's yacht and was the guest of the British ambassador, Sir
Nicholas O'Conor. We had the pleasure of meeting him several times at
dinner. In a conversation I had with him he expressed great admiration
for America and said that at one time he was on the point of becoming an
American. I remember particularly his remark to the effect that he
believed America and England, by coöperating, would control the world
for the interests of the world, without having to fight a battle; that
the peace and welfare of the world were in their hands, and sooner or
later it must come.

We talked about our respective forms of government, parliamentary and
congressional. He thought McKinley wise in referring all questions,
during and since the Spanish-American War, to Congress. To quote his own
words: "He is sailing on unknown seas, and it is wise to let the
representative body do the steering."

He asked whether I was an ambassador or a minister. I explained to him
that the President desired to raise the mission to an embassy, but as
the law stood we were dependent upon the initiative of the Sultan. He
said that during his incumbency as prime minister he had much to do with
having the United States name an ambassador to London; he took special
care that Great Britain should be the first nation to send an ambassador
to Washington and to receive an American ambassador.

He spoke in a complimentary manner of Secretary Hay and said he should
have remained in London, especially as it seemed to be his preference.
He spoke of the ambassadorship of Edward J. Phelps and said he had heard
him make some of the ablest public speeches he ever listened to; they
were effective not only in what they expressed, but in their reserve. He
thought public speaking in America was more finished than in England, of
a higher order or better grounded from the standpoint of oratory: "We
can't speak as you do."

I replied that one had only to point to him as an example to disprove
that complimentary comparison. But he thought hardly anybody ever read
his speeches.

       *       *       *       *       *

Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, of Philadelphia, and his wife, together with the
great-grandson of Alexander Hamilton, Philip Schuyler, and his wife,
came to Constantinople. We saw much of them. The Mitchells had just lost
their daughter.

Dr. Mitchell, who was regarded as the leading authority on nervous
diseases--if I mistake not it was he who first introduced the rest cure,
at any rate so far as America is concerned--was very anxious to see
something of a Turkish household, which was not easily possible by
reason of the seclusion of Turkish women. It happened that Tewfik
Pasha, Minister of Foreign Affairs, had often spoken to me about the
illness of his wife, who seemed to be suffering from some nervous
ailment. She was a German-Swiss whom he had married while ambassador at
Berlin, but their _ménage_ was kept purely Turkish. Here, then, was my
opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: I should satisfy Dr.
Mitchell's curiosity by rendering Tewfik Pasha a service. In speaking to
the Pasha I explained, of course, that Dr. Mitchell would accept no fee,
that he would give his services as a favor to me and an act of courtesy
to him. Dr. Mitchell was able to prescribe with excellent effect for
Mme. Tewfik, and the Pasha was very grateful indeed.

Dr. Mitchell and I went to the museum one afternoon to see two famous
marble tombs that had recently been unearthed at Sidon, upon discovery
by Hamdy Bey, director of the museum. Both these tombs were supposed to
be of the best period of ancient Greece. One was known as the Alexander
tomb because it portrayed in high bas-relief the battle of Issus and
also a hunting scene, in each of which one of the figures was identified
as portraying Alexander. At first some scholars believed it to be the
tomb of the monarch himself, but that seemed not to be correct, and it
was doubtless the tomb of one of his generals. The other tomb was of
equal size and proportions, about five feet high and ten feet long.
Round its four sides it had a number of figures of a woman in various
phases of mourning, the same figure with varying expressions. This
ancient work of art appealed to the bereaved heart of Dr. Mitchell and
he sat before it for quite a while. Later he wrote an "Ode to a Lycian
Tomb," one of the best, if not the best, of his poems. He sent me a copy
when it was privately printed, and subsequently it appeared in the
"Century Magazine."

       *       *       *       *       *

The inauguration of trips to the Orient by the Hamburg-American and the
North German Lloyd Steamship Companies frequently brought hundreds of
Americans to Constantinople at a time. In March the S.S.
Augusta-Victoria arrived with three hundred and fifty American visitors.
The Sultan was most gracious to them. Through one of his aides he asked
me to invite them to Selamlik, after which he arranged a luncheon for
them on the grounds of the ambassadorial kiosque, and had them visit the
royal stables. When they left, the Sultan's aide carried on board the
ship for them a large assortment of delicious Turkish candies and
cigarettes, which they appropriately acknowledged in a letter that I
transmitted to the Palace for them.

       *       *       *       *       *

From time to time, especially when the weather was fine, I attended
Selamlik, as was customary among the diplomats. On one very beautiful
Friday I took with me my little son Roger, then seven years old. It was
the Sultan's birthday and the pageant was exceptionally fine. From the
window of the ambassadorial kiosque Roger leaned out as far as he
possibly could to get a good view of the Sultan as he passed beneath in
his victoria. The Sultan bowed in acknowledgment of our greeting, when
suddenly Roger realized that he had not taken off his cap and pulled it
off rather comically. This made the Sultan smile, and it was the only
time I ever saw his habitually sad face wreathed in a smile.

       *       *       *       *       *

After a strenuous winter, replete with difficult and trying
negotiations, I took advantage of the invitation of M. Paul
Stefanovich-Schilizzi, a philanthropist of Greece, to visit him in
Athens in May. He was a man of great wealth and beloved throughout the
Near East by reason of his benevolence. It is his niece, who was a
frequent guest at our home, who recently married Eleutherios Venizelos,
the famous Greek statesman.

_En route_ to Athens we stopped for several days at Smyrna, where we met
Kiamil Pasha, the Grand Vizier with whom I had so satisfactorily carried
on a number of important negotiations during my first mission. He was
now vali at Smyrna, highly regarded, and justly called the "grand old
man" of Turkey, being about seventy-five years old. Amid the corruption
of his time no one ever questioned his honesty. He had been grand vizier
several times. He spoke English fluently, doubtless acquired in his
youth at Cyprus, where he was born.

He deplored the hopeless condition of affairs at Constantinople, where
all the power had gradually been concentrated at the Palace. Thus the
grand vizierate became a post without power, which, he explained, did
not interest him any longer. Besides, he did not agree with the Sultan's
methods, though he was thoroughly loyal to Turkey. His sympathies, as
between the contending powers, were with Great Britain; he believed good
relationship with her was the surest guarantee for the welfare of his
country.

From Smyrna we took a ship for Piræus, a sixteen-hour trip. There we
took a carriage, instead of the train, to Athens. We stayed at the Hotel
Grande Bretagne, which was owned by our friend Stefanovich. It was, and
doubtless still is, the leading hotel on the square near the King's
palace, and from the balcony of our rooms we had a clear view of the
Acropolis.

This was our second visit to Athens. We had been there ten years before
as guests at the beautiful residence of Dmitri Stefanovich-Schilizzi,
brother of Paul, where we were sumptuously entertained; we dined at the
palace, attended several functions there, and met, at various social
gatherings, the leading people of the city. This time, however, we came
for rest and recreation; we made no official calls, but spent the six
days or so visiting places of interest, chiefly the excavations that
were being made, and the museum.

       *       *       *       *       *

Returning we took a steamer direct for Constantinople. We had learned
that the Montenegrin portier in charge of our house at Pera had a slight
case of smallpox, so we went directly to our summer home at Yenikeui on
the Bosphorus, about a mile distant from Therapia where most of my
colleagues had their summer residences. We had succeeded in securing a
house that was a veritable palace and admirably arranged for
entertaining, so that we were well able to reciprocate the attentions of
our colleagues and extend proper hospitalities. A wealthy Greek had
constructed and owned this mansion, but on account of some questionable
dealings with the Palace involving large sums of money, he was a
fugitive from Turkey.

The house was surrounded by a park of its own, fronting on the
Bosphorus. There were pomegranate and magnolia trees in bloom, under
which we took our lunch. We had a launch that I named the Franklin, and
it was one of the fastest on the Bosphorus, so that within an hour I
could readily be at the Porte to transact the business of the legation,
although things are more quiet during the summer.

Altogether that summer was thoroughly delightful. My brother Isidor and
his devoted wife had both joined us. My brother had had an attack of
influenza and his health was not very good, so they had come to Europe
to consult a distinguished specialist, Professor Erb, at Heidelberg.
After completing the cure my brother came to Constantinople for rest and
quiet with us. The climate on the Bosphorus is ideal, never very hot
because of the constant cool breezes from the Black Sea. During that
summer there were only three days when the thermometer rose to ninety.

Everything seemed to prosper with me. I had brought several important
issues to a successful termination; our whole immediate family was
together, for Mildred had come to spend her vacation with us; and I had
the pleasure of a visit from my dear brother and his wife. I recall no
period of my life that was such a happy one.

       *       *       *       *       *

Toward the end of the year I telegraphed to Washington for leave to
return home. I had adjusted all the matters at issue between the two
Governments except the indemnity, so that I felt justified in leaving my
post. I knew that I could rely on Lloyd C. Griscom, the secretary who
would be in charge, for a tactful and efficient handling of the affairs
of the legation. The indemnity required only steady pressure and
patience. As I have already stated I timed my return so as to make it
effective in adding a little more pressure.

When I was about to depart, the Sultan sent to my residence a pair of
beautiful vases, each several feet high, and artistically ornamented.
They were manufactured at the royal pottery which the Sultan had had
established on the Palace grounds, and the workmanship was French. As
the question of cost did not enter into the manufacture, some wonderful
productions were turned out at this pottery, and the vases sent to me
were exceptionally fine specimens. I was very much embarrassed, yet I
did not want to give offense by refusing them. I sent Mr. Gargiulo, our
veteran dragoman, to explain to the Sultan's secretary how much I
appreciated this attention, but as I was not permitted to accept the
vases for myself I would accept them for our National Museum at
Washington. That pleased the Sultan, and the vases now have a place in
our museum at the national capital.

       *       *       *       *       *

As there was no need for hurrying home, we made a few stops on the way,
first at Vienna. The papers announced our arrival at the Austrian
capital, and I received a note from Dr. Theodor Hertzl asking for an
appointment. I was glad of the opportunity to meet him, for I had read
much about him. I found him a man of attractive appearance: a little
above medium height, coal-black beard and hair, very dark, expressive,
bright eyes. He was about forty years old, seemed full of energy,
beaming with idealism, but a man of the world. He did not at all impress
one as a religious fanatic.

He said the idea of Zionism, or, rather, the colonization of oppressed
Jews, had been developing in his mind for ten or twelve years. I told
him I was not a Zionist, though I did not want him to understand that I
was in any way opposed to the movement, or disposed carelessly to ignore
the solemn aspirations which the deeply religious members of my race had
prayerfully nurtured in sorrow and suffering through the ages. In answer
to his question whether the Sultan had ever spoken with me about the
subject, I told him he had not, as he probably understood it was not an
American question and did not in any way come under my jurisdiction. But
I told Hertzl of my negotiations regarding the immigration of the Jews
to Palestine during my first mission to Turkey, when I visited
Jerusalem.

We spoke of the condition brought about through the agitation of
Zionism, the immigration of hundreds of Jews without means into
Palestine, where there was as yet no industry to enable them to make a
livelihood. He said he appreciated that and was doing everything in his
power to prevent such immigration until a permit for a "chartered
company" with sufficient capital had been obtained from the Sultan, and
that he was in correspondence with an official of the Porte for the
securing of such a permit. I suggested that it might be best for him to
go to Constantinople and personally take up such negotiations; that I
had been shown a letter from him to Artin Effendi, the under-Secretary
of State, and this man was one of the biggest rogues in the empire, an
Armenian kept nominally in office by the Sultan to mislead and hold in
check his oppressed co-religionists. Dr. Hertzl thought he might take my
advice.

He informed me that some months before, he had taken the matter up with
the German Emperor and was led to believe that the Emperor was not in
any way opposed to Zionism, nor to the returning of the Jews to
Palestine, but Dr. Hertzl feared the opposition of the Catholics. He
gathered also, from what he had heard, that Russia did not oppose the
plan.

I mentioned Mesopotamia to him as a better place for the colonization of
the Jews than Palestine; it was the original home of Abraham and his
progenitors, was sparsely settled, and if the ancient canals were
reopened that country could support several million people. He said he
was somewhat familiar with this idea, as well as with Professor Haupt's
pamphlet, and a scheme for the colonization of Cyprus, and that it was
perhaps well to have more than one plan; if one did not serve as an
outlet for emigration another might.

It seemed to me that Hertzl was one of those men who, having capacity
and idealism, attach themselves to a cause that appeals to their
intellect or their sympathies, and grow in spirit and effectiveness
through the intensity of their devotion. Such men often develop
extraordinary qualities of true greatness under conditions that impose
weighty responsibilities, to an extent which they themselves did not
realize.

       *       *       *       *       *

We next went to Rome. All my life I had looked forward to visiting
"Imperial Rome" on her seven hills, the old Rome that inspired some of
the leading chapters of the world's history. And my imagination was
fired the more because in my mind's eye I carried for comparison a
picture of Athens, city of Pallas Athene, once proud intellectual
mistress of the world; Jerusalem, from whence emanated the spiritual
endowment of civilization; and the new Rome to which Constantine brought
the scepter of the world.

While in Rome we were entertained by our ambassador and Mrs. Draper.
They were occupying Palazzo Piombino, one of the most magnificent of the
newer palaces, where they entertained in a manner befitting their
station. We met there several of my former colleagues at Constantinople
who were now representing their governments in Rome. Moses Ezekiel, our
distinguished American sculptor, was also in Rome at this time, and with
him and Mr. Bonney, in charge of the excavations of the Forum then in
process, we went through the recently excavated chambers of the vestal
virgins.

Before leaving the city we were received by the beautiful and charming
Queen Margherita. She was a remarkably well-informed woman, even about
events in our country. She spoke about the American press, and said one
of our papers had a correspondent in Rome who was an ardent supporter of
papal rule and could see no virtue in the Italian Government. She
referred to the invention of the flying machine by Professor Langley, of
the Smithsonian Institution, which, if it proved a success, would
ultimately change the life of all peoples, which she hoped would bring
the nations nearer to one another and into closer spiritual contact.

We visited Pompeii, and then went to Naples, where we boarded a steamer
for New York, arriving home on February 8, 1900.

       *       *       *       *       *

Immediately I went to Washington for a conference with Secretary Hay and
to give him the details of the various negotiations. He was especially
interested in the communication of the Sultan to the Sulu Mohammedans,
for the friendly relations that this established between the Sulus and
our Government had already prevented the shedding of blood.

I told Secretary Hay that I desired to resign. The matters for which I
had been sent to Turkey were adjusted, the payment of the indemnity
being only a question of time and patience; on the other hand, it was
important, so far as concerned my personal affairs, that I be relieved
from further duty abroad, especially as I could not in Turkey properly
give to my children the education I felt they should have. The secretary
thought my request reasonable and just, but he thought the President
would regret it and would have difficulty in replacing me.

I took the subject up with the President next day. He said he realized I
had made sacrifices enough and was entitled to have my wishes respected;
he did not, however, wish me to send in my resignation just yet, but to
continue, for a time at least, to direct matters in Turkey in
consultation with Secretary Hay. He expressed great satisfaction with
the result of my mission and said if he hadn't sent me, some hostile
demonstration in Turkish waters would have been inevitable, with
possible serious complications as a result; but that the clamoring for a
warship to Turkey subsided with my going over because of the general
belief that I would succeed in handling matters. "No one else could have
done so well; you have done better than I thought it possible for any
one to do," he graciously added.

He indicated that there might develop some important post in the United
States which he should like to feel free to ask me to accept should the
occasion arise, but he made no further explanation. I later learned from
St. Clair McKelway to what this had reference. McKelway was on intimate
terms with the President and at the same time was a close friend of
mine. The President mentioned to him that he feared Secretary Hay, whose
health was failing, might have to relinquish his post, in which event
McKinley had in mind to offer it to me.

Within a week after my return I received a letter from Charles C.
Harrison, provost of the University of Pennsylvania, informing me that
the trustees had unanimously voted to confer upon me the honorary degree
of Doctor of Laws, and he would be glad if it were convenient for me to
receive the degree at a convocation of unusual importance on
Washington's Birthday. This ceremony took place at the Academy of Music,
Philadelphia, and similar degrees were conferred also upon Justice
Harlan, of the United States Supreme Court; Professor Ames, of the
Harvard Law School; Minister Wu, of China; President Diaz, of Mexico;
and two delegates from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

From time to time during the next few months I went to Washington both
to direct Turkish matters through the State Department and to confer
with the President on matters in general. On one of these occasions, in
August, he mentioned his forthcoming letter of acceptance of
renomination and spoke about the efforts of the Democrats to fasten the
charge of imperialism on the administration, but said he would make it
plain that we proposed to give as much freedom of government and
independence to the Philippines as they showed themselves able to
receive. I read to him from a memorandum I had drawn up regarding our
purpose to withdraw our troops as fast and in proportion as the
conditions of peace in the islands permitted. He said I had expressed
his ideas exactly, and as I was about to replace the memorandum in my
pocket he said he wished I would let him have it, which of course I did.

He asked what I thought of conditions in China, and I told him I was
convinced our true course was to oppose the partition of that country
and to stand firm for the open-door policy; that if Germany, or any
other Power, endeavored to bring about a division, we could doubtless
prevent it by insisting upon the open door, especially as the nations
could not agree among themselves.

Early in December I received a letter from Secretary Hay, asking whether
I still preferred to be relieved or whether for any reason I would
consent to continue as minister to Turkey. I definitely answered in the
negative and my second mission terminated with the following letter:


                                                DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                                        WASHINGTON, _December 18, 1900_

     OSCAR S. STRAUS, ESQUIRE
        42 Warren Street
          New York City

     MY DEAR MR. STRAUS:

     I have laid before the President your letter of the 12th instant,
     in which you express your preference not to return to
     Constantinople, and offer your resignation of the mission you have
     honorably and faithfully filled for the past few years.

     Deferring to your wish, the President has accepted your
     resignation. In charging me to inform you of this acceptance, the
     President desires me to make known in fitting words his high
     appreciation of the valuable services you have rendered to your
     country, and his sense of the ability and intelligence you have
     brought to bear in the performance of a task of more than usual
     delicacy and difficulty. Called, as you were, a second time to the
     Ottoman mission and confronted by the problems and entanglements
     that seem to especially environ that post, you have shown rare
     aptness in dealing with its perplexities and have notably
     strengthened the hands of the government in leading the long
     pending questions toward a settlement. While deeply regretting your
     retirement and while averse to losing your helpful counsels, the
     President has felt that he could not rightfully impose fresh
     personal sacrifices upon you by disregarding your wish. You take
     with you into honored private life the esteem of those who have
     known and understood your conscientious worth in the paths of
     official duty.

     I share the President's regrets and equally share his appreciation
     of the good services you have rendered. My sincere regards and
     personal friendship are with you always.

                          Very cordially yours
                                           JOHN HAY




CHAPTER VII

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

     Roosevelt appoints me member of the Hague Tribunal--Trouble with
     Philippine Mohammedans averted--Humanitarian diplomacy under
     Roosevelt; Hay's Roumanian note; Roosevelt's Russian cable--The
     Alaska boundary--Panama and the "covenant running with the
     land"--White House luncheons; Carnegie suggests to Roosevelt a
     legacy for my grandchildren--Roosevelt and organized
     labor--Roosevelt's definition of Americanism--Overnight at the
     White House; conference regarding the President's
     Message--Roosevelt and the Portsmouth peace negotiations; Count
     Witte invites a committee to discuss the Russian Jewish question;
     Roosevelt writes to Witte--Roosevelt's prophetic characterization
     of Germany--Some essential qualities of Roosevelt.


I began the year 1901 as a private citizen once more. I devoted much of
my time, however, to public activities, giving close attention
particularly to the international questions that arose.

The doctrine of citizenship and the rights of naturalized American
citizens in foreign countries had for many years formed the major
subject in our foreign relations, and it had been one for constant
controversy between our own and foreign countries, especially Germany,
Austria, and Turkey. In the spring I read a paper at a meeting of the
American Social Science Association, of which I was the president,
entitled "The United States Doctrine of Citizenship and Expatriation."
Later in the year I received, in consequence, a letter from Senator S.
M. Cullom of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, asking me to prepare material for amendments to legislation
on this subject, which I did.

When Theodore Roosevelt became President of the United States through
the lamentable death of William McKinley, one of my earliest relations
with him was my being appointed by him as a member of the Permanent
Court of Arbitration at The Hague. Whether or not he acted herein in
conformity with McKinley's intention, I cannot say. When McKinley was
selecting the original members, he conferred with me and indicated that
if agreeable to me, he would be pleased to appoint me as a member.
Shortly afterward when the appointments were announced, my name was not
among them. It was some time before I saw him again, and while I should
never have mentioned it, he did. He said he was very sorry that through
the pressure of duties he had quite forgotten his intention to name me
when the time came to announce the appointments. I told him I thought
perhaps I had been mistaken in understanding that he had offered me one
of the appointments. He said I had not misunderstood, but that he would
make amends should a vacancy occur while he was still President; he had
wanted me as a member of the Court, not alone in recognition of the
great services I had rendered, but because he regarded me exceptionally
qualified. He added that when he became ex-President he would like to be
a member of that Court himself; it appealed to him more than any other
office he could think of.

The vacancy in the membership of the Court occurred sooner than any one
anticipated, by the death, in March, 1901, of ex-President Harrison; but
by the decree of the gods McKinley himself was no longer with us when
the time came to fill President Harrison's place. In fact I think the
day we talked about the Court marked my last conference with him. He was
always simple in manner and of charming personality. Together we enjoyed
a good smoke that afternoon; he was fond of smoking and knew I enjoyed a
good cigar, and he was wont to have me take one of his brand. I begged
him not to concern himself further with the omission of my appointment
at The Hague, that I was satisfied to know he thought me worthy of the
selection.

It is possible that Roosevelt knew the circumstance and McKinley's
intention, for he was Vice-President at the time it happened. At any
rate, when the successor to President Harrison was chosen, I received
the following appointment, somewhat different in form from most
documents of the kind:


                                                     WHITE HOUSE
                                           WASHINGTON, _January 8, 1902_

     MY DEAR SIR:

     Article XX of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of
     International Disputes, signed July 29, 1899, by the
     Plenipotentiaries to the Hague Peace Conference, provides for the
     organization of a permanent Court of Arbitration, and Article XXIII
     of the same Convention provides for the selection by each of the
     signatory Powers of four persons at the most, as members of the
     Court, who are to be appointed for a term of six years.

     It will give me pleasure to designate you as one of the four United
     States members if you will advise me that such action is agreeable
     to you.

                                Very Truly Yours,
                                          THEODORE ROOSEVELT

     HONORABLE OSCAR S. STRAUS
         New York, N.Y.


Since then I have been reappointed three times: in 1908, again by
Roosevelt, in 1912 and 1920, by Wilson.

In April, 1902, there appeared in the press a dispatch to the effect
that an expedition of twelve hundred men was to be sent to the southern
Philippines to punish the Mohammedans there for killing one of our
soldiers and wounding several others. I immediately wrote the President
that I believed such a step would be unwise and would probably bring on
a general uprising in that province. I called his attention to the
negotiation I had had with the Sultan of Turkey regarding these people,
and suggested that instead of the expedition a commission be sent to
treat with them. The President asked me to come to Washington to confer
with him in the matter, and after the Cabinet meeting I met him in his
study. There were present also Mr. Taft, who had been appointed governor
of the Philippines, Adjutant-General Corbin, and Mr. Sanger, acting
Secretary of War. I presented my arguments more fully. The President had
already telegraphed General Chaffee regarding the sending of a
diplomatic mission, in accordance with my letter.

The result of our conference was that General Corbin was directed to
advise General Chaffee to use the office of the friendly datos to obtain
the desired redress. It developed later that the soldier killed was
laying a telegraph line, which procedure, not being understood by the
Moros, was regarded by them as a device for their destruction. The
slayers were surrendered and punished and the incident was
satisfactorily adjusted.

       *       *       *       *       *

At about this time disturbances in Roumania were being reflected in our
country. Eleven years before, a committee of prominent Jews had brought
before President Harrison the pitiable condition of the large number of
Jews arriving in New York from Russia, and it was now necessary to take
similar steps with regard to the Jews from Roumania.

In Chapter IV I mentioned that Roumania disregarded the provisions of
the Treaty of Berlin and placed restrictions upon her Jewish subjects.
Into that treaty, by which Roumania was made an independent kingdom
following the Russo-Turkish War, Article XLIV was inserted specially for
the protection of the Jews, of whom there were about four hundred
thousand in the new state. It provided that difference of religion
should not be ground for exclusion in the participation of civil,
political, or economic rights. In spite of this, however, the Jews in
Roumania were being oppressed and discriminated against on the specious
claim that they were foreigners, though they and their ancestors had
been living in the land for generations. They were compelled to serve in
the army, but not permitted to become officers; they were made subject
to exceptional taxes; they were excluded from the professions and from
owning and cultivating land. In every direction they were being
throttled, and new laws were being promulgated to shut off every avenue
of self-support.

The result was what had doubtless been the intention in putting into
force these drastic measures: the Jews who could emigrated, and they
left Roumania _en masse_. The obstacles in the way of their gaining
admission into the countries of Western Europe were so great that few of
them could settle there. The leading Jewish organizations of Great
Britain and France, namely, the Jewish Colonization Association in
London and the Alliance Israélite Universelle in Paris, laid the matter
before their respective governments, but, on account of the disturbed
conditions in the Balkans and the cross-currents of European politics,
no pressure could be exerted through these governments.

The main stream of the Roumanian exodus was thus directed to America,
and they arrived here in increasing numbers. The leading Jewish agencies
of the country, particularly the B'nai B'rith Order under the presidency
of Leo N. Levi, used their best efforts to distribute the immigrants
over the country and to places where they were most likely to find
employment. Later our very able commissioner of immigration at Ellis
Island, Robert Watchorn, went over to Roumania for the special purpose
of studying the situation and made a graphic report of what he learned.
But to alleviate the situation action of a more official character was
needed.

Jacob H. Schiff and I prepared a careful brief on conditions and
presented it to President Roosevelt. The President said he was willing
to take the matter in hand provided something could be done by our
Government. Congressman Lucius N. Littauer also extended helpful
coöperation. He had recently returned from Roumania and had first-hand
knowledge of the question, which he took up in conferences with the
President and with Secretary Hay.

Finally, in September, 1902, the President directed Secretary Hay to
prepare his now famous Roumanian Note to the Powers signatory to the
Treaty of Berlin. The note was sent to our diplomatic representatives in
those countries with instructions to present it to the governments to
which they were accredited. The occasion for sending it was found in
connection with negotiations initiated by Roumania for the concluding of
a naturalization treaty with our country. The note gave the reasons why,
under the circumstances, we were unwilling to conclude such a treaty.
After referring to the Treaty of Berlin and the obligations assumed by
Roumania under it regarding the treatment of subject nationalities, the
Secretary said:

     The United States offers asylum to the oppressed of all lands. But
     its sympathy with them in no wise impairs its just liberty and
     right to weigh the acts of the oppressor in the light of their
     effects upon this country, and to judge accordingly.

     Putting together the facts, now painfully brought home to this
     Government, during the past few years, that many of the
     inhabitants of Roumania are being forced by artificially adverse
     discriminations to quit their native country; that the hospitable
     asylum offered by this country is almost the only refuge left to
     them; that they come hither unfitted by the conditions of their
     exile to take part in the new life of this land under circumstances
     either profitable to themselves or beneficial to the community, and
     that they are objects of charity from the outset and for a long
     time--the right of remonstrance against the acts of the Roumanian
     Government is clearly established in favor of this Government.
     Whether consciously and of purpose or not, these helpless people,
     burdened and spurned by their native land, are forced by the
     sovereign power of Roumania upon the charity of the United States.
     This Government can not be a tacit party to such an international
     wrong. It is constrained to protest against the treatment to which
     the Jews of Roumania are subjected, not alone because it has
     unimpeachable ground to remonstrate against the resultant injury to
     itself, but in the name of humanity. The United States may not
     authoritatively appeal to the stipulations of the treaty of Berlin,
     to which it was not and can not become a signatory, but it does
     earnestly appeal to the principles consigned therein, because they
     are the principles of international law and eternal justice,
     advocating the broad toleration which that solemn compact enjoins
     and standing ready to lend its moral support to the fulfillment
     thereof by its cosignatories, for the act of Roumania itself has
     effectively joined the United States to them as an interested party
     in this regard.

One of the most valuable by-products of the Congress of Berlin was to
bring into closer relations the autocratic with the liberal governments
of Europe and cause the former to become more amenable to the
enlightened conscience of the world. Hay's dispatch, while not pleasing
to the Government of Roumania, yet, because of the world-wide publicity
it received, had a measure of influence in modifying Roumania's
indefensible proscriptions.

       *       *       *       *       *

Another need for humanitarian diplomacy arose the following year. The
attitude and proscriptions of the Roumanian authorities had doubtless
encouraged anti-Semitic activity in Russia, and the latter Government,
no longer contenting itself with the application of restrictions in the
book of laws which compelled Jews to live in the Pale settlements,
officially encouraged mobs to massacre and loot, culminating on April
19-20, 1903, with the outbreak in Kishineff, where forty-seven Jews were
killed, ninety-two severely wounded, and some five hundred more slightly
injured. In addition great material losses were inflicted: seven hundred
houses were destroyed, six hundred stores pillaged, and thousands of
families utterly ruined.

When these facts became known, they called forth an expression of
indignation throughout the civilized world. In New York a mass meeting
was called at Carnegie Hall by hundreds of the foremost New York
Christians, in protest against the outrages upon the Jews in Russia and
particularly against the Kishineff affair. The meeting was presided over
by Paul D. Cravath, eminent lawyer, and the speakers were ex-President
Cleveland, Mayor Seth Low, Jacob G. Schurman, president of Cornell, and
Edward M. Shepard, well known for his unselfish devotion to the
interests of the public. I have in my possession the manuscript of
Cleveland's address on this occasion, which concludes:

     In the meantime, let the people of the United States, gathered
     together in such assemblages as this in every part of the land,
     fearlessly speak to the civilized world--protesting against every
     pretence of civilization that permits mediæval persecution, against
     every bigoted creed that forbids religious toleration and freedom
     of conscience, against all false enlightenment that excuses hatred
     and cruelty towards any race of men, and against all spurious forms
     of government protection, that withhold from any human being the
     right to live in safety, and toil in peace.


I will also quote part of the resolutions adopted that evening:

     Resolved, that the people of the United States should exercise such
     influence with the Government of Russia as the ancient and unbroken
     friendship between the two nations may justify to stay the spirit
     of persecution, to redress the injuries inflicted upon the Jews of
     Kishineff, and to prevent the recurrence of outbreaks such as have
     amazed the civilized world.

A few weeks later a committee from the B'nai B'rith Order, consisting of
Simon Wolf, Adolf Moses, Julius Bien, Jacob Furth, Solomon Sulzberger,
and Joseph D. Coons, and headed by their president, Leo N. Levi, called
upon Secretary Hay and presented to him a statement regarding the
massacres in Russia together with a proposed petition which they wished
forwarded to the Government of the Czar. The Secretary expressed great
sympathy and the desire to do what might be possible in the matter. His
reply to the committee, taken down in shorthand at the time, was
published in full in the press, and from it I quote the concluding
sentence:

     All we know of the state of things in Russia tends to justify the
     hope that even out of the present terrible situation some good
     results may come; that He who watches over Israel does not slumber,
     and that the wrath of man now, as so often in the past, shall be
     made to praise Him.

The Secretary then accompanied the committee to the White House, where
they met the President and presented to him an outline of the oppression
of their co-religionists in Russia.

Early in July I received a telegram from the President's secretary to
the effect that the President would like to have me lunch with him the
day following at Oyster Bay, and that Simon Wolf of Washington, and Leo
N. Levi also had been invited. When I arrived at Sagamore Hill there
were present besides those named Dr. Albert Shaw of the "Review of
Reviews," and an English friend of his, Mr. Morris Sheldon Amos.

We discussed the Russian situation throughout lunch. The President
suggested that a note be sent by the Secretary of State to John W.
Riddle, our chargé at St. Petersburg, and that this note should embody
the entire petition which Mr. Levi and his committee had drafted. Dr.
Shaw observed that the embodying of the petition to the Czar and giving
publicity to the note would have all the effects of a presentation even
if the Czar should refuse to receive it, which was exactly what the
President had in mind.

After luncheon we adjourned to the study, and Roosevelt said: "Now let's
finish this thing up." Hay had been to see him the day before and had
left a memorandum. Roosevelt at once drafted the note with his own pen,
using part of Hay's memorandum. The note was to be sent as an open
cable. It read as follows:

     RIDDLE

     St. Petersburg

     You are instructed to ask an audience of the Minister of Foreign
     Affairs and to make to him the following communication:

     _Excellency_: The Secretary of State instructs me to inform you
     that the President has received from a large number of prominent
     citizens of the United States of all religious affiliations, and
     occupying the highest positions in both public and private life, a
     respectful petition addressed to his Majesty the Emperor relating
     to the condition of the Jews in Russia and running as follows:

     [Here is set out the petition.]

     I am instructed to ask whether the petition will be received by
     your Excellency to be submitted to the gracious consideration of
     his Majesty. In that case the petition will be at once forwarded to
     St. Petersburg.

Roosevelt wanted the cable to be sent at once and was in a hurry to get
it to Washington. One of his reasons was that the late Russian
ambassador, Cassini, had been dismissed and was on his way back to
Russia, and he wanted the note to reach the Russian Government before
Cassini arrived in St. Petersburg. Mr. Wolf, who lived in Washington,
was to take the drafted cable to Secretary Hay; but as he could not
return that night the President asked whether I could take it so that it
might be dispatched next morning. By ten o'clock the following morning I
placed the draft in the Secretary's hands and it was immediately put on
the wire.

In planning the cable as he did, the President was right in his
anticipation. Duly the American chargé at St. Petersburg informed the
State Department that the Russian Government, through its Minister of
Foreign Affairs, had declined to receive or consider the petition.
Nevertheless, its purpose was accomplished. Official Russia was made to
realize the aroused indignation and the public protests of the civilized
world. This in turn had a decided influence in checking, for the time
being at least, similar outbreaks threatened throughout the empire,
besides bringing to trial and punishment some of the leaders of the
massacres.

       *       *       *       *       *

That afternoon at Sagamore Hill, after the Russian matter had been
disposed of, the President was talking to Dr. Shaw and me about the
Alaskan boundary question. He pulled out a map showing the disputed
boundary, and explained that three commissioners from the United States
and three from Great Britain and Canada would take up the dispute for
investigation. He argued that they were not arbiters and he refused to
sign an arbitral agreement; if they did not agree, he would take the
matter into his own hands; that the whole trouble arose from the fact
that the Canadians had shoved down the boundary line after the discovery
of gold. "Suppose a man pitches a tent on my grounds and claims them,
and I want him to get off; and he says he won't get off, but will
arbitrate the matter!" Roosevelt exclaimed. Then, turning to me, he
added: "Straus, you are a member of the Hague Tribunal; don't you think
I'm right?"

I calmly replied that as a member of the Hague Tribunal I should first
have to hear what the other side had to say and therefore must reserve
my judgment. And we all had a good laugh.

       *       *       *       *       *

During the Venezuela controversy in 1902, Venezuela on the one side and
Great Britain and Germany on the other, Roosevelt was very much incensed
that Germany, with the feeble backing of England, should undertake a
blockade against Venezuela to make the latter carry out certain
agreements, and he promptly took steps to prevent it. Thereupon there
was a disposition on the part of Germany to ask Roosevelt to arbitrate.
Secretary Hay, it seems, favored such a course, but I strongly advised
against it.

At a luncheon to which I was invited by the President early in November,
1903, the conditions in Panama came up as the principal topic of
conversation. There were present on this occasion, besides Mr. and Mrs.
Roosevelt, Cornelius N. Bliss, former Secretary of the Interior; John
Clark Davis, of the "Philadelphia Ledger"; H. H. Kohlsaat, of Chicago;
Lawrence F. Abbott, of "The Outlook"; and the President's
brother-in-law, Lieutenant-Commander Cowles, of the Navy. News had been
received that Panama had separated from Colombia and we were about to
recognize Panama. In his informal way, as was his custom at luncheons,
the President began to discuss the situation, referring to the fact that
our treaty of 1846 was with New Granada, which afterwards became the
United States of Colombia and then the Republic of Colombia, and that in
that treaty we had guaranteed to protect the transit route. One of the
questions raised was whether the treaty still held us to that
obligation, notwithstanding these several changes of sovereignty.

The President was directing his remarks toward me, which was his way of
signifying the particular person from whom he wanted to draw comment. I
answered that it seemed to me, as I recollected the terms of the treaty,
which I had recently read, that the change of sovereignty did not affect
either our obligations or our rights; that I regarded them in the nature
of a "covenant running with the land."

"That's fine! Just the idea!" Roosevelt replied, and as soon as luncheon
was over, he requested me to express that idea to Hay. He scratched a
few lines on a correspondence card asking Secretary Hay to go over with
me the suggestion I had made and to work into the treaty the "covenant
running with the land" idea.

That evening I called on the Secretary. He seized the idea at once and
said he would make use of it in a statement he was just preparing for
the press detailing the whole situation. The following day there was
reported in the papers of the country the fact that the President,
following a meeting of the Cabinet, had decided to recognize the _de
facto_ government of Panama; and then the detailed statement by
Secretary Hay regarding the terms of the treaty, the history of the
negotiations, and the subsequent development, covered several newspaper
columns. It contained this paragraph:

     It must not be lost sight of that this treaty is not dependent for
     its efficacy on the personnel of the signers or the name of the
     territory it affects. It is a covenant, as lawyers say, that runs
     with the land. The name of New Granada has passed away; its
     territory has been divided. But as long as the isthmus endures, the
     great geographical fact keeps alive the solemn compact which binds
     the holders of the territory to grant us freedom of transit, and
     binds us in return to safeguard for the isthmus and the world the
     exercise of that inestimable privilege.

A few days thereafter I received a short note from the President
reading: "Your 'covenant running with the land' idea worked admirably. I
congratulate you on it." And from my friend John Bassett Moore I
received an amusing letter:

     So you had a finger in the pie! I find a good deal of amusement in
     reflecting on the end reached from the premise of my memorandum;
     and almost as much on the conclusion reached from your suggestion.
     Perhaps, however, it is only a question of words--that is to say,
     it is, indifferently, a question of the "covenant running with the
     land" or a question of the "covenant running (_away!_) with the
     land"!!

Those luncheons at the White House were always pleasant and interesting
occasions. One met there all kinds of people, of every station in life,
but always people who stood for something and who interested the
President. At the table Roosevelt would speak without apparent reserve
and free from all official restraint, and I doubt whether these
confidences were ever abused. By this means, too, he received the frank,
unreserved statements and criticisms of his guests.

As an illustration of the range of personalities one would meet at the
Roosevelt luncheons, I remember one day when Seth Bullock, a former
sheriff of the Black Hills district and an intimate friend of Roosevelt
during his cowboy days, sat next to Seth Low at the table. And in his
"Autobiography" Roosevelt himself says:

     No guests were ever more welcome at the White House than these old
     friends of the cattle ranches and the cow camps--the men with whom
     I had ridden the long circle and eaten at the tail-board of a
     chuck-wagon--whenever they turned up at Washington during my
     Presidency. I remember one of them who appeared at Washington one
     day just before lunch, a huge, powerful man who, when I knew him,
     had been distinctly a fighting character. It happened that on that
     day another old friend, the British Ambassador, Mr. Bryce, was
     among those coming to lunch. Just before we went in I turned to my
     cow-puncher friend and said to him with great solemnity, "Remember,
     Jim, that if you shot at the feet of the British Ambassador to make
     him dance, it would be likely to cause international
     complications"; to which Jim responded, with unaffected horror,
     "Why, Colonel, I shouldn't think of it, I shouldn't think of it!"

Mrs. Roosevelt is a most charming and cultured woman, typically the wife
and mother. Literary and intellectual matters appeal to her, though her
dominant note is the domestic one. I am sure she would have been just as
happy as the mistress of a private household as the leading lady of the
land in the White House, despite her great tact, sweetness, and simple
dignity in filling the latter position.

The President was an omnivorous reader. He could read faster and
remember better than any one I have ever known. On one occasion he
recommended to me Ferrero's "Greatness and Decline of Rome," which he
had just finished in the original Italian, and which had been brought
out in English by the Putnam house. Subsequently, too, I met this author
at the White House, where he and his wife were the guests of the
President for several days.

In January, 1904, a large conference was held in Washington of
representatives of the various peace societies and other persons
prominently interested in the calling of an international peace
congress. George F. Seward, of New York, was chairman, and others
connected with it were the Reverend Edward Everett Hale and Robert Treat
Paine, of Boston; Henry St. George Tucker, of Virginia, Andrew Carnegie,
and myself. Resolutions were adopted recommending the negotiation of a
treaty with Great Britain whereby all differences between us which might
fail of adjustment through diplomatic channels were to be submitted for
arbitration to the Permanent Court at The Hague. It was further
recommended that we enter into like treaties with other powers as soon
as practicable. We called on the President and the resolutions were
presented by Mr. Tucker; Mr. Carnegie and I each made a few remarks,
which the President in turn answered with a brief address. When he had
finished and we were all standing around him, Mr. Carnegie said to him,
"I have just been congratulating Mr. Straus on the compliments you paid
him, and suggested that he get a copy of that portion of your remarks to
preserve for his children and grandchildren." Roosevelt immediately
turned to Mr. Loeb, his secretary, and instructed him to send to me that
portion of his remarks, adding: "And I meant every word I said." I trust
I may be pardoned for the egotism which prompts me to incorporate it in
these memoirs:

     I have had from Mr. Straus aid that I can not over-estimate, for
     which I can not too much express my gratitude, in so much of the
     diplomatic work that has arisen in this administration--aid by
     suggestion, aid by actual work in helping me to carry out the
     suggestions; and Mr. Straus was one of the two or three men who
     first set my mind, after I came in as President, in the direction
     of doing everything that could be done for the Hague Tribunal, as
     that seemed to be the best way to turn for arbitration.

At another pleasant luncheon there was present Alice, now the wife of
Congressman Longworth, of Ohio, Roosevelt's daughter by his first wife.
In the course of our discussion about the reciprocity treaty with Cuba
and the making of more favorable tariff arrangements, I said: "We went
to war with Spain for the liberation of Cuba, and now if we treat her
step-motherly and starve her to death, what would the world say?" There
was hearty laughter all round the table, and Miss Alice turned to me and
said, in her naïve way and with a mischievous sparkle in her eyes: "Do I
look starved?" The President had fairly exploded with laughter, and when
I remarked that I had "put my foot into it," he added, amid another
outburst, "Yes, both of them!"

The President did not smoke, but always served cigars and cigarettes to
his guests. When I did not take one, he said, "Straus, you smoke."

"Yes," I answered, "but I certainly want to pay as much respect to you
as I always did to the Sultan of Turkey. He did not drink, and I never
took any when it was served."

"You go right ahead and smoke. If Root were here he would smoke and
always does," replied Roosevelt.

After lunch that day, when the other guests had gone, he and I went into
an adjoining room and had a general discussion--labor matters, the
National Civic Federation, the Republican Party, etc., etc. He said he
had received a number of requests to put into the Republican platform a
plank protesting against the discrimination made by Russia against
Americans of the Jewish faith. "You know," he said, "I am prepared to do
anything that I can for all of our citizens regardless of race or
creed, but unless we mean to do something further than simply protest it
would look like an effort to catch votes, for such statements in the
platform could not be regarded for any other purpose." He added he had
in mind a different and more effective way of handling the subject when
the time came. He said he remembered that I had never asked him to take
action in this or any other question that was not justified on broad
American principles, but that if anything arose which specially
reflected upon the Jews he looked to me to bring it to his attention,
and I was to regard that just as much my duty as the protection of
American Christian interests in Turkey.

We spoke about the Russo-Japanese War, and I told him that some one had
said that the Japs were yellow-skinned, but the Russians were yellow all
the way through. This called forth a hearty laugh. Humor of any kind,
provided it was clean, he always appreciated, and his own sense of it
continually served, as it did for Lincoln, to lighten the seriousness of
his duties.

       *       *       *       *       *

Like Lincoln, too, Roosevelt combined with that balancing sense of humor
an innate and always active sense of justice. Time and again in my
relationship with him I have observed and admired it. I recall in this
regard the case of an employee named Miller in the Government Printing
Office, who was discharged because he did not belong to the union, and
Roosevelt reinstated him. Mr. Gompers and several members of the
Executive Committee of the American Federation of Labor thereupon called
upon the President to protest against this reinstatement. They said his
discharge was based on two points: that he was a non-union man, and also
that he was an incapable worker. Roosevelt's answer was: "The question
of his personal fitness is one to be settled in the routine of
administrative detail, and cannot be allowed to conflict with or to
complicate the larger question of governmental discrimination for or
against him or any other man because he is or is not a member of a
union. This is the only question now before me for decision; and as to
this my decision is final."

As I was in constant touch with the President by correspondence and
conferences, I wrote him telling of my gratification to find in his
decision anent the Miller case such consonance in principle with his
position regarding the anthracite coal strike, to which I received the
following reply that brings out the point I have just made about his
sense of justice:


                                             WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON
                                                _October 1, 1903_

     MY DEAR MR. STRAUS:

     I thank you heartily for your letter. When you can get on here I
     should like to tell you for your own information some of my
     experiences in connection with this Miller case. I feel exactly as
     you do--that my action was a complement to my action, for instance,
     in the anthracite coal strike, and that I could no more hesitate in
     the teeth of opposition from the labor unions in one case, than I
     could when the opposition came from the big monied men in the other
     case.

                                        Sincerely yours
                                                     THEODORE ROOSEVELT


Perhaps no President has had a policy, with regard to labor, so wise and
far-seeing as that of Roosevelt. Invariably he sought the counsel of
labor leaders in matters affecting their interests, and always they were
made to feel that redress for their just grievances, and their rights
generally, were as much a concern of his and of his administration as
any rights of the rich. In this connection I recall a remark of P. H.
Morrissey, then head of the railroad train-men. We were seated in the
Red Room of the White House for conference after dinner. There were
present some thirty or more men prominently identified with labor, whom
the President had invited to discuss labor legislation. Morrissey
recalled one time several years before when he sat in front of the great
fireplace in the Red Room waiting for the President; and he said he
could not help reflecting what a long way it was from the cab of the
locomotive engine to this stately room in the official residence of the
President of the United States, an honor and a privilege that Roosevelt
was the first President to give to men of labor.

On the same evening I saw in clear relief Roosevelt's wonderful tact,
judgment, and understanding of men as I had never seen it displayed
before. One or two of the labor leaders showed some bitterness in their
criticism of certain legislation. Roosevelt showed frank approval of
just complaints and allayed irritation in a most tactful way where the
demand was unjust or unreasonable.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the election of 1904 I took an active part and kept in close touch
with Roosevelt. An unusual amount of bitterness characterized this
campaign, though it was foreseen that Roosevelt would win by a large
majority. In this connection I received a characteristic letter from
him, dated at the White House October 15th:

     I notice that various Democratic papers, including the Evening
     Post, have endeavored to show that I have appealed to the Jew vote,
     the Catholic vote, etc. Now the fact is that I have not appealed to
     any man as Jew, as Protestant, or as Catholic, but that I have as
     strongly as in me lies endeavored to make it evident that each is
     to have a square deal, no more and no less, without regard to his
     creed. I hope that this country will continue in substantially its
     present form of government for many centuries. If this is so it is
     reasonable to suppose that during that time there will be
     Presidents of Jewish faith, Presidents of Catholic faith. Now, my
     aim as President is to behave toward the Jew and the Catholic just
     as I should wish a Jewish or Catholic President to behave towards
     Protestants--in other words, to behave as a good American should
     behave toward all his fellow Americans, without regard to the
     several creeds they profess or the several lands from which their
     ancestors have sprung. Moreover, I am pleased at what Lebowich says
     at my not having a spirit of condescension or patronizing. I have
     enough of the old Adam in me to object almost as strongly to being
     patronized as to being wronged; and I do not intend knowingly to
     behave toward others in a manner which I should resent if it were
     adopted toward me.

These sentences bring to mind another and public statement of
Roosevelt's in which he characterized Americanism; the occasion was an
address at the unveiling of the Sheridan equestrian statue in
Washington:

     We should keep steadily before our minds the fact that Americanism
     is a question of principle, of purpose, of idealism, of character;
     that it is not a matter of birthplace, or creed, or line of
     descent.

     Here in this country the representatives of many old-world races
     are being fused together into a new type, a type the main features
     of which are already determined, and were determined at the time of
     the Revolutionary War; for the crucible in which all the new types
     are melted into one was shaped from 1776 to 1789, and our
     nationality was definitely fixed in all its essentials by the men
     of Washington's day.

Soon after the election he invited me to come to the White House for
dinner one evening and to spend the night; there were a number of things
he wanted to talk over with me. When I arrived I found Dr. Lyman Abbott
and his son Ernest had been similarly invited, and there were additional
guests for dinner: Attorney-General Moody, Senator Knox, Secretary of
War Taft, and James R. Garfield, chief of the Bureau of Corporations in
the Department of Commerce and Labor.

At dinner the President announced that we had come together to do some
business, and he produced from his pocket a slip of paper on which were
noted the several subjects he wished to consider with us, mainly things
to be incorporated in his forthcoming Message to Congress. First there
was the negro question. The South had vilified him because he
entertained Booker Washington and appointed Crum Collector of the Port
at Charleston. When Congress assembled, one of the things he intended
doing was to send in again the name of Crum for confirmation. "The
Southerners either do not or do not wish to understand it," he said;
adding that his position plainly was that he would do everything in his
power for the white man South without, however, doing a wrong or an
injustice to the colored man. He was sympathetic with the South, for he
was half Southerner himself, his mother having come from Roswell,
Georgia. His remarks on this topic were directed mainly to Dr. Abbott.

The conversation then turned to the recent election and became very
general, every one joining and relating instances or experiences in
connection with it. Mr. Taft, who had waged a vigorous campaign for the
Administration, told a joke on himself: he had received a letter from
Wayne MacVeagh saying that so far as he (MacVeagh) could see, Taft's
speeches did not do any harm.

When the talk had gone along these general lines for a while, Roosevelt
interjected with "Now we must get back to business," and proceeded to
discuss the diplomatic service in relation to his Message. He thought
civil service too strictly applied would be detrimental, as we had a
great deal of old timber there that should be gotten rid of.

Next he took up a discussion of Panama. Mr. Taft with several others was
to leave next day on a mission there to look into the difficulties
between the native army and the President of Panama, and some one
humorously suggested that he had better go down and take away the
weapons from the army and let them muster as much as they wanted to
without weapons.

After dinner we adjourned to the President's study on the floor above.
He sat down at his desk and pulled open a drawer as he said: "I want to
read to you incomplete drafts of portions of my Message which I should
like to have you criticize, as on some of the subjects I have not yet
fully made up my mind." The Message was in separate parts, each dealing
with an important subject. He took up the part dealing with our foreign
relations, in regard to Russia and Roumania, and addressed me, saying he
would like me to pay special attention to that as he had consulted me
all along concerning the action to be taken. He said our Government had
been criticized as interfering with the internal affairs of other
nations, and the statement had been repeatedly made that we should not
like it if other nations took us to task for our negro lynchings in the
South; but he argued that the lynchings were comparatively few, and,
though bad enough, were nothing compared to the wholesale murder in cold
blood under official sanction and perhaps instigation, as in Kishineff.
"My answer to all these criticisms is this," he said; "only a short time
ago I received a remonstrance or petition from a society in Great
Britain regarding the lynchings in this country. I did not reject it; on
the contrary, I answered it most politely and expressed my great regret
for these unlawful, unjustifiable acts, with which neither I nor the
Government had any sympathy. On the contrary the Government does
everything in its power to prevent these outrages and unlawful acts.
And I authorize any one to make use of this information whenever the
occasion presents itself."

To the labor question also he wanted me to pay special attention because
of my experience with such matters and in the arbitration of labor
disputes. He began with the statement that he was in favor of organized
capital and organized labor. I asked him whether right at that point I
might make a suggestion, which was that he begin with the general
subject of capital and labor, because organized labor did not comprise
more than fifteen per cent of the wage-earners of the country. This
suggestion he accepted.

Roosevelt then expressed himself in favor of the eight-hour law. Messrs.
Moody, Knox, Taft, and myself did not agree with his statement in the
form he had it. We explained that there were several bills before
Congress on the subject, some of which had passed the lower house, but
were defeated in the Senate; that it was all right for the Government in
its own yards to adopt an eight-hour day, but when it gave out contracts
to other shops, while it had a right to say that the work upon that
contract should be done by eight-hour days, it had no right to require
work on other contracts to be done in eight-hour days. When we had
discussed the subject quite thoroughly, it was agreed to omit it from
the Message.

Next he took up the trust question. He said Mr. Garfield had several
suggestions to offer for making the interstate commerce law effective.
It was generally agreed that the law as originally passed fully provided
the remedy that was intended, but it had been emasculated by the
decisions of the Supreme Court. Messrs. Knox, Taft, and Moody referred
to several of these decisions and pointed out that the railroads, under
subterfuge of switches and free cars--cars that were furnished by such
shippers as the beef trust--got completely around the law. They allowed
a mileage charge for the supply of these cars in excess of what should
be allowed, and under such cover it amounted to a rebate to those
shippers and was a complete circumvention of the law. Garfield's
suggestion was that the interstate commerce corporations be compelled to
obtain a license or charter from the National Government to do business.
We thoroughly discussed this, but it was disapproved as being an
interference with the legal rights of States, and that therefore no such
law could be passed by Congress. The President then turned to the legal
members of our group and said, "Now here is a great wrong and you
lawyers have always got a way of preventing us from reaching a remedy."

Knox created a laugh by replying, "The President wants us as usual to
jump over the Supreme Court."

The work on the Message done, Roosevelt said it was his intention to go
South and make a few speeches. He would begin at San Antonio and would
visit Tuskegee and Sewanee Colleges, for he wanted his views in regard
to the South and the negro question fully understood. He read us a draft
along the lines of thought he wanted to present, quoting much from
Lincoln, which seemed highly to the point. When some one mentioned the
curtailing of suffrage so as to have it based upon educational
qualifications and property ownership, the President said it would not
be wise to agitate that subject, and that herein Booker Washington
agreed with him; but, he added, "There is something inherently wrong
about a Southern member representing in some instances only a quarter of
the number of votes that an Eastern member represents, and having an
equal vote with him in Congress."

It was half after midnight when our little company separated. The
President then suggested to Dr. Abbott and me that we meet at 8.15
breakfast, if we did not object to having this meal with him and the
children. In the absence of Mrs. Roosevelt, who had gone to New York,
the President next morning took the head of the table, and with the
coffee urn before him served us each with our coffee, cream, and sugar.
There were Teddy, Ethel, Kermit, Archie, and Quentin, the governess, the
tutor, besides Dr. Abbott, his son, and myself. After the meal we
strolled in the park back of the White House until 9.30, when the
President left for his work-room in the new office building west of the
White House.

       *       *       *       *       *

I did not see Roosevelt again for several months. One day in May I took
lunch with him upon his return from Chicago where he had had a
conference with the representatives of the labor unions who were
carrying on the teamster's strike that paralyzed the commerce of the
city. He said he had received through his secretary my memorandum
regarding an adjustment of the trouble, and that it was of great
assistance to him in discussing the situation and coming to some
equitable arrangement. He was preparing a Message for an extra session
of Congress in October, and said he would send me parts of it,
especially those referring to immigration and the Far East, for my
advice and suggestion.

       *       *       *       *       *

In 1905, when Roosevelt was busy with negotiations to bring peace
between Russia and Japan, I received a letter from him stating that he
had endeavored to get these two nations to go to The Hague, but Russia
was most reluctant and Japan positively refused; nor would they go to
either Paris or Chefoo, but they were both willing to come to
Washington. In his own "Autobiography," which I never tire of reading,
Roosevelt gives an interesting sketch of his mediation between these two
countries which finally brought about the conference and treaty at
Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

Count Sergius Witte, head of the Russian mission to Portsmouth, was
desirous of meeting some of the representative Jews of our country with
a view to seeking what might practicably be done to improve the
condition of the Jews in the Russian Empire. While it was said that his
wife was a Jewess, his interest in the Jewish question was perhaps
primarily to improve the relations between Russia and the United States.
The Russian massacres, with the resultant enforced emigration, the
public meetings of protest in this country and the press comments, had
seriously prejudiced public opinion here against Russia.

The Count therefore invited a committee to confer with him and Baron
Rosen at Portsmouth. There were Jacob H. Schiff, Isaac N. Seligman,
Adolph Kraus, Adolf Lewisohn, and myself. The Count admitted with much
frankness the condition of the Jewish population of Russia, and that it
was an injustice. He expressed his purpose to exert his best influence
to remedy the just grievances of the oppressed Jews. We assured him that
we asked for no special privileges for our co-religionists, but the
same, and no greater, rights for them than were accorded other Russian
subjects; that the granting of such rights would relieve Russia of the
Jewish question and of the international ill-will to which this question
naturally and rightly gave rise. Both the Count and Baron Rosen agreed
with us, but argued that it was not practicable to grant such complete
emancipation, but that it should come about gradually. We told them, of
course, that with that premise we could not and would not agree.

The Count was very much impressed with our presentation of the subject,
and our statements were corroborated by his own observations later when
he made a visit to the lower East Side of New York where he spoke with a
number of the Russian-Jewish immigrants. He said that upon his return to
Russia he would at once take up the problem with a view ultimately to
secure equal rights for the Jewish subjects, that he realized the
necessity for this not only from a humanitarian standpoint, but from the
standpoint of Russia's best interests and of her relations with the
leading nations of the world, particularly with the United States.

Before going to Portsmouth on Count Witte's invitation, I conferred with
Roosevelt. He wanted me in an unofficial capacity to observe carefully
the progress of the negotiations and keep him advised. Just at that time
it looked as if the conference might break up, and before that stage was
actually reached he wanted to be notified, for he would probably have a
communication to make to the commissioners. On arriving at Portsmouth I
had a confidential talk with Fedor Fedorovich Martens, the great Russian
international jurist, who was one of my fellow members at the Hague
Tribunal, and with whom I had been in personal touch on several previous
occasions. He was legal adviser to the Russian delegation. I apprised
him of what I knew to be the desire of the President, and he agreed that
if a break became imminent, a communication such as the President would
send would be likely to have the right influence, and he would see to it
that, should the necessity arise for such a message, Roosevelt should be
promptly informed. I advised the President of my understanding with
Martens, but fortunately no rupture occurred and the terms of peace were
agreed upon.

In his "Autobiography" Roosevelt says, with regard to these Portsmouth
negotiations: "I had certainly tried my best to be the friend not only
of the Japanese people but of the Russian people, and I believe that
what I did was for the best interests of both and of the world at
large." He refers with characteristic generosity to the help given him
at St. Petersburg by our ambassador, George von Lengerke Meyer, who
"rendered literally invaluable aid by insisting upon himself seeing the
Czar at critical periods of the transaction, when it was no longer
possible for me to act successfully through the representatives of the
Czar, who were often at cross-purposes with one another."

And when the Portsmouth Conference was over, the President further took
a deep interest in bringing about amelioration of the condition of the
Jews in Russia. When Count Witte came to New York, Roosevelt wrote him
the following letter, of which he sent me a copy:


                                                    OYSTER BAY, N.Y.
                                                     _September 10, 1905_

     MY DEAR MR. WITTE:

     ... In furtherance of our conversation of last evening I beg you to
     consider the question of granting passports to reputable American
     citizens of Jewish faith. I feel that if this could be done it
     would remove the last cause of irritation between the two nations
     whose historic friendship for one another I wish to do my best to
     maintain. You could always refuse to give a passport to any
     American citizen, Jew or Gentile, unless you were thoroughly
     satisfied that no detriment would come to Russia in granting it.
     But if your Government could only see its way clear to allowing
     reputable American citizens of Jewish faith, as to whose intentions
     they are satisfied, to come to Russia, just as you do reputable
     American Christians, I feel it would be from every standpoint most
     fortunate.

     Again assuring you of my high regard, and renewing my
     congratulations to you and to your country upon the peace that has
     been obtained, believe me,

                            Sincerely yours
                                           THEODORE ROOSEVELT


Early in 1906, when the Algeciras Conference regarding Morocco was in
session, and the press reported that it was likely to break up without
an agreement on account of Germany's attitude, Carl Schurz, knowing of
my close relationship with Roosevelt, wrote to me that the President
could probably prevail upon the Powers concerned to refer the question
to the Hague Tribunal. This letter I forwarded to Roosevelt; but
although he was ever ready to vitalize the machinery of the Hague
Tribunal, advice coming from Mr. Schurz at this time was not regarded
with favor, possibly because of their previous differences. In his reply
to me, however, the President showed what a clear and prophetic insight
he had into Germany's attitude and purposes:

     Modern Germany is alert, aggressive, military and industrial. It
     thinks it is a match for England and France combined in war, and
     would probably be less reluctant to fight both those powers
     together than they would be together to fight it. It despises the
     Hague Conference and the whole Hague idea. It respects the United
     States only in so far as it believes that our navy is efficient and
     that if sufficiently wronged or insulted we would fight. Now I like
     and respect Germany, but I am not blind to the fact that Germany
     does not reciprocate the feeling. I want us to do everything we can
     to stay on good terms with Germany, but I would be a fool if I were
     blind to the fact that Germany will not stay in with us if we
     betray weakness. As for this particular case, when I see you next I
     shall tell you all that I have done and you will see that I have
     been using my very best efforts for peace.

In all my relations with Roosevelt, even before I became a member of his
Cabinet, I was more and more convinced that no consideration of
political self-interest or partisan advantage ever entered his mind in
determining his attitude or action in upholding the right or dethroning
a wrong. He resented nothing more than when some politician or
inconsiderate person made an appeal to him for action on the plea that
it would be good politics. He was visioned, but not visionary; and
withal highly practical, in that he understood the workings and
tendencies of human forces. Just as he would read a book by absorbing a
page at a glance, so he would instinctively appraise his fellow men;
their qualities would impress him just as a brilliant paragraph in a
book would arrest his instant attention.

Roosevelt would not make an idle gesture or even imply a threat which he
did not purpose to carry into action. He was more abused by those whom
he designated as "the interests," and better understood and trusted by
the masses, than any President in our history with the exception of
Lincoln. So it is always with real leaders, who seek to guide rather
than pander to public opinion. The latter course appeals to weak though
well-intentioned public men; the former requires not only clear vision
but high courage, and these qualities Roosevelt possessed to an
extraordinary degree.




CHAPTER VIII

INDUSTRIAL DIPLOMACY

     Trade unions and federated unions--Formation of the National Civic
     Federation--Notable industrial disputes are settled--Andrew
     Carnegie dines with fighting labor leaders--Marcus Hanna, general
     of industry--My chairmanship of the Board of Railway Labor
     Arbitration--Our findings and recommendations--My chairmanship of
     the New York Public Service Commission--Military necessities
     impinge upon industrial relations--The President's Industrial
     Conference of 1919-20.


When our industries were small, a strong human tie bound together
employer and worker. Following the expansion which began after the Civil
War, our industries resolved themselves into vast organizations and
corporations, and the relations between employer and worker became more
and more impersonal. The workers first organized into trade unions,
which presently expanded into federated unions similar to those which a
generation before had begun to be formed in Great Britain.

The rapid growth of our industries and the impersonal relations between
employer and employed made it apparent that social justice required that
reciprocal rights be recognized in order to bring about a better
understanding of a relationship which had already become increasingly
strained and often embittered, resulting in serious strikes and
lock-outs. One of the first organizations to meet this need was formed
in Chicago in 1894, following the Pullman strike. It was called the
Civic Federation of Chicago and was under the leadership of a number of
prominent men of that city, directed by Ralph M. Easley.

Six years later the scope of this organization was enlarged, and in the
name of the National Civic Federation a conference was called in
Chicago, in December, 1900, and the debate centered round the
proposition that in American industries voluntary conciliation was
preferable to compulsory arbitration. At that conference a committee was
selected whose duty it was to collect information at home and abroad
regarding measures of arbitration, and to advise with employers and
workmen in this country whenever and wherever possible.

In the following December, 1901, the National Civic Federation held a
conference in New York in the rooms of the New York Board of Trade and
Transportation. I was then president of that Board and was asked to
preside at the conference. After adjourning the sessions, we organized
the industrial department of the Federation, with a committee of twelve
men representing the public, twelve men representing employers, and
twelve men representing wage-earners. These three groups were headed,
respectively, by Grover Cleveland, Marcus A. Hanna, and Samuel Gompers.
All of their colleagues were men of national distinction and were
recognized leaders in their fields. From this larger committee of
thirty-six, an executive committee of five was selected, whose members
were as follows: Marcus A. Hanna, chairman; Samuel Gompers, first
vice-president; I, second vice-president; Charles A. Moore, treasurer;
and Ralph M. Easley, secretary.

The scope and plan of the industrial department was to promote
industrial peace in whatever way might seem best. We planned for a large
meeting in May, when two public sessions were to be held, one at Cooper
Union and one in the rooms of the New York Chamber of Commerce. We
issued a statement of our plan and scope and inaugurated a broad
educational campaign.

Meanwhile our department proved itself most practical. It actively
helped settle several disputes, notably the Albany street-car strike,
the disagreement between the National Metal Trades Association and the
International Association of Machinists, and the United States steel
strike. And it was instrumental in averting the threatened anthracite
coal strike.

The identical ideal that I held up in my opening address at the meeting
in January, 1901, I should hold up to-day: namely, that industrial
peace, to be permanent, cannot rest upon force, but must rest upon
justice, and in essential industries especially, upon a high sense of
responsibility to the public by both employer and employed. In no other
country are conditions, by nature and by principles of government,
better adapted to the equitable adjustment of the reciprocal rights,
duties, and privileges of labor and capital than in our own, because we
are a democratic people with no fixed class distinctions to separate us.
The laborer of to-day may be the capitalist of to-morrow, and vice
versa. Capital and labor are interdependent, not opponents; and it is on
the basis of that dependency that adjustments in the relationship
between them must be made. This ideal is, happily, more widely
recognized to-day than it was when the National Civic Federation was
organized.

I gave considerable attention to the work of the Federation for a number
of years. As the offices were in New York and the president and first
vice-president were both resident in other cities, the direction of the
organization between conferences largely fell upon me as second
vice-president, with the important assistance of the secretary, Mr.
Easley.

The Federation afforded a neutral forum where, under the chairmanship of
one of its officers, the disputants could discuss their grievances and
arrive at an understanding. Many times the growing bitterness between
them was checked and a strike or lock-out averted. The fact was often
borne in upon me how many of these industrial disputes grew out of
misunderstandings which were cleared away when men assembled around a
table and frankly discussed their differences.

To further the work and interests of the Federation I brought together
in social relationship, at several dinners at my home, the
representatives of all three groups; namely, the public, the
wage-earner, and the employer. One day Andrew Carnegie expressed the
desire to meet the labor leaders who had instigated the strike in the
Carnegie works which resulted in the Homestead riots. Accordingly I
arranged a dinner, to which I invited a number of the men of the labor
wing of the Federation, as well as some others of the committee,
together with Messrs. Wighe and Schaeffer, of Pittsburgh, officers of
the Amalgamated Union, who had led the Homestead strike.

Carnegie knew these leaders well, and they knew him. He called them by
their Christian names and they called him "Andy." They said that night
that they and their colleagues in the union had always believed that
that strike and riot would never have taken place had "Andy" been
present. As a matter of fact, Carnegie's relations with his men had
always been very friendly. He was unjustly accused of the responsibility
for the Homestead riots, which might not have occurred had he, instead
of Mr. Frick, been in charge of the employers' side. Mr. Carnegie at the
time was in Scotland.

Only a short while before this Carnegie dinner, Marcus Hanna had died,
and our executive committee offered to Mr. Carnegie the presidency of
the Federation, to succeed Mr. Hanna. Mr. Carnegie was gratified and
very much touched, especially by the implied confidence on the part of
the twelve labor men of the Federation; but on account of his advanced
years he felt that he could not give the position the attention it
deserved. He was, however, glad to become a member of the executive
committee, and as such revealed himself in a most favorable light.
Beneath his Scotch nimbleness of mind there was a broad, tolerant, and
lovable heart. He met the laboring men, not as their superior, but as
one having a genuine brotherly interest in their welfare. It became very
evident to us all why he was so highly regarded by his workmen, and why
he had so much influence with them: they trusted to his fairness and had
a real affection for him personally. In his Autobiography he makes
feeling reference to his connection with the Federation.

Marcus Hanna, who was known to the country chiefly through his political
activities, was looked upon as the leader of a group of rich men who had
won political power by commercializing our political system; and was
regarded by many as an evil influence. But in connection with the great
industrial interests that he had built up in Ohio and elsewhere--coal
mines, iron works, shipping, street railways--little was known of him.
He had shown great capacity as an industrial general in the management
of his men, winning their good-will by fair and equitable treatment; and
it is said he never had a strike in the industries he administered. He
was highly regarded by the labor leaders, who had confidence in his
fairness to the wage-earners. He did not oppose, as did so many of the
employers of his time, the organization of labor unions. On the
contrary, he believed that such organizations were necessary adequately
to protect the rights of the workers.

As chairman of the executive committee of the Civic Federation, Hanna
displayed this better side of his character and his great ability as an
organizer and a leader. Here he was not the cunning politician, but the
genial head of an industry who recognized the just demands of the
wage-earners and was always generous with them in regard to compensation
and labor conditions.

The work we did and the experiences we encountered as officers of the
Federation, each group coming into close contact with the others and
adjusting with them industrial differences, had a decided educational
value for us all. For myself, the study I gave during these years to the
relations between capital and labor, and my active part in the
conciliation and arbitration of labor disputes, provided me with an
intensely practical background and preparation for the secretaryship of
the Department of Commerce and Labor, which later fell to my lot. It was
this experience and my personal acquaintance with the representatives of
capital and labor all over the country that induced me, as head of that
Department, to organize the Council of Commerce and to plan the Council
of Labor, to both of which I shall refer more specifically later.

The Board of Railway Labor Arbitration of 1912 was perhaps the most
important labor arbitration body brought into existence up to that time.
Its decisions affected the whole Eastern district: that is, that section
of our country lying east of Chicago and East St. Louis, and north of
the Ohio River to Parkersburg, West Virginia, and of the Potomac River
to its mouth. Fifty-two railroad lines and over thirty-one thousand
engineers were involved. The latter negotiated through the Brotherhood
of Locomotive Engineers.

The representatives of the Brotherhood and the members of the Conference
Committee of Managers of the railroads held several conferences in
March, 1912, at which the Brotherhood made certain requests. The
conferences ended with the refusal of the roads to grant these requests
or any part of them, whereupon ninety-three per cent of the members
voted for a strike. Charles P. Neill, United States Commissioner of
Labor, and Judge Martin A. Knapp, of the United States Commerce Court,
tendered their friendly offices under the Erdman Act, but were unable to
mediate, and the contending parties would not agree to arbitrate under
the provisions of the Erdman Act. It was then decided to submit the
dispute to a board of arbitration composed of seven members, one to be
chosen by each side, and those two to agree on the other five within
fifteen days of their own appointment.

The roads chose Daniel Willard, president of the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad, and the Brotherhood chose P. H. Morrissey, former grand master
of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. At the end of fifteen days,
these two had not succeeded in agreeing upon the other five members of
the board, though they had agreed upon a list from which the five might
be chosen. A committee consisting of Mr. Neill, Judge Knapp, and Chief
Justice White, of the Supreme Court of the United States, then chose
five names from that list, and the final personnel of the board was as
follows: Dr. Charles R. Van Hise, of Madison, Wisconsin; Frederick N.
Judson, of St. Louis; Dr. Albert Shaw, Otto M. Eidlitz, and myself, of
New York, in addition to Mr. Morrissey and Mr. Willard.

[Illustration: _Copyright by American Press Association_

MEMBERS OF THE RAILWAY BOARD OF ARBITRATION

From left to right: Standing: Daniel Willard, Otto M. Eidlitz, Albert
Shaw, P.H. Morrissey Sitting: Charles R. Van Hise, Oscar S. Straus,
Frederick N. Judson]

On July 12th the board met and organized, electing me as chairman. The
decisions of the board were to be binding for one year and thereafter
could be terminated by either side upon a thirty days' notice. For two
weeks we held hearings, morning and afternoon, at the Oriental Hotel,
Manhattan Beach, New York. When the hearings were over, the board
adjourned until early September, when the work of making the awards was
begun. Because of my nomination for Governor by the Progressive Party at
the time, I found it advisable to relinquish the chairmanship of the
board to Dr. Van Hise, although I continued my membership and active
interest to the end.

The hearings were reported and consisted of 1250 pages of testimony. The
questions that confronted the board were not alone whether or not the
wages in a given case should be raised, but, if it was found that the
rate was inadequate, by what margin should it be increased? It was
fairly difficult to arrive at principles of standardization applicable
to so many roads, and to fix a basis of differentiation for the many and
complicated branches of employment. The whole subject, however, had our
most careful and painstaking consideration. We took up the whole
intricate problem of the running of railroads, with relation to the
several kinds of work performed by the engineers, in passenger service,
freight service, in switching, and in yard work, bearing in mind always
that railways were public utilities and that the necessities and comfort
of the whole people depended upon their functioning; and that therefore
the necessity for uninterrupted service far transcended the interests of
either the roads on the one side or the employees on the other.

Our decisions as finally printed made a book of one hundred and
twenty-three pages. One of our chief recommendations was that National
and State wage commissions be created which should function in relation
to labor engaged in public utilities as the public service commissions
functioned toward capital. I quote from the report:

     Especially for the public utilities is it important that labor
     should have a just wage, and if the existing wages are not
     adequate, they should be increased. If a just increase in wages
     places the public utilities in a position that does not enable them
     to secure a fair return upon capital invested and maintain a proper
     reserve, they should be allowed to increase their rates until they
     are in that position.

Another point upon which we laid stress was the limitation of the right
to strike:

     While it is clear from the public point of view that a concerted
     strike of railway employees for a great region would be as
     intolerable as a strike of the postal clerks; on the other hand,
     the position of the employees is a very natural one. They feel
     under existing conditions that the power to strike is their only
     weapon of defense against employers and the only means by which
     they can enforce a betterment of their conditions of service. They
     realize, too, that the principle of concerted action, for all the
     railroads in a great section of the country, gives them a most
     effective weapon, and they are naturally loath to relinquish or
     impair it.

     While this is the situation under the present conditions, and the
     railway employees feel that they cannot surrender their right to
     strike, the necessity would no longer exist for the exercise of
     this power, if there were a wage commission which would secure them
     just wages.

     Finally, it is the belief of the Board that in the last analysis
     the only solution--unless we are to rely solely upon the
     restraining power of public opinion--is to qualify the principle of
     free contract in the railroad service. A strike in the army or navy
     is mutiny and universally punished as such. The same principle is
     applied to seamen because of the public necessity involved. A
     strike among postal clerks, as among the teachers of our public
     schools, would be unthinkable. In all these cases, the employment,
     to borrow a legal phrase, is affected with a public use; and this
     of necessity qualifies the right of free concerted action which
     exists in private employments.

     However, if the principle be accepted that there are certain
     classes of service thus affected with a public interest and men who
     enter them are not free concertedly to quit the service, then these
     men must be guarded in the matter of wages and conditions by public
     protection; and this it is believed can best be done through an
     interstate wage commission.

The report was signed by six members of the board, Mr. Willard adding an
explanatory statement. Mr. Morrissey wrote a dissenting opinion. For a
number of years the findings of this board, with slight alterations,
continued to be effective in adjusting wages for the different kinds of
service among the engineers, and in governing conditions and number of
working hours of the employees.

       *       *       *       *       *

The President's Industrial Conference of 1919-20, of which I was a
member, was of value chiefly in that it correlated the best ideas in
practice throughout the country with regard to the prevention and relief
of industrial unrest and the betterment in general of the relationship
between employer and employee, and that it published suggestions based
on these ideas, of which the main points were the following:

     1. The parties to the dispute may voluntarily submit their
     differences for settlement to a board, known as a Regional
     Adjustment Conference. This board consists of four representatives
     selected by the parties, and four others in their industry chosen
     by them and familiar with their problems. The board is presided
     over by a trained government official, the regional chairman, who
     acts as a conciliator. If a unanimous agreement is reached, it
     results in a collective bargain having the same effect as if
     reached by joint organization in the shop.

     2. If the Regional Conference fails to agree unanimously, the
     matter, with certain restrictions, goes, under the agreement of
     submission, to the National Industrial Board, unless the parties
     prefer the decision of an umpire selected by them.

     3. The voluntary submission to a Regional Adjustment Conference
     carries with it an agreement by both parties that there shall be no
     interference with production pending the processes of adjustment.

     4. If the parties, or either of them, refuse voluntarily to submit
     the dispute to the processes of the plan of adjustment, a Regional
     Board of Inquiry is formed by the regional chairman, of two
     employers and two employees from the industry, and not parties to
     the dispute. This Board has the right, under proper safeguards, to
     subpoena witnesses and records, and the duty to publish its
     findings as a guide to public opinion.

     5. The National Industrial Board in Washington has general
     oversight of the working of the plan.

     6. The plan is applicable also to public utilities, but in such
     cases, the government agency, having power to regulate the service,
     has two representatives in the Adjustment Conference. Provision is
     made for prompt report of its findings to the rate regulating body.
     The Conference makes no recommendation of a plan to cover steam
     railroads and other carriers, for which legislation has recently
     been enacted by Congress. (Esch-Cummins Bill.)

     7. The plan provides machinery for prompt and fair adjustment of
     wages and working conditions of government employees. It is
     especially necessary for this class of employees, who should not be
     permitted to strike.

     8. The plan involves no penalties other than those imposed by
     public opinion. It does not impose compulsory arbitration. It does
     not deny the right to strike. It does not submit to arbitration the
     policy of the "closed" or "open" shop.

     9. The plan is national in scope and operation, yet it is
     decentralized. It is different from anything in operation
     elsewhere. It is based upon American experience and is designed to
     meet American conditions. It employs no legal authority except the
     right of inquiry. Its basic idea is stimulation to settlement of
     differences by the parties in conflict, and the enlistment of
     public opinion toward enforcing that method of settlement.

Unfortunately nothing came of the painstaking work of this conference
beyond the publishing of its final report of March 6, 1920.

       *       *       *       *       *

The chairmanship of the New York Public Service Commission did not at
all appeal to me when first Governor Whitman offered it to me. The
commission as it then existed had unfortunately lost public confidence
to a large extent, and I felt that it was not the kind of service for
which I was especially qualified. However, it was pointed out to me that
there was constant danger of strikes on the part of the thousands of
workmen engaged in the construction of subway and elevated extensions,
and an added appeal was made to me in view of the considerable
experience I had had in adjusting labor difficulties. And so, after
declining, I was finally prevailed upon by the Governor and the late
George W. Perkins, in December, 1915, to accept this arduous duty.

As soon as it became known that I had accepted the chairmanship, the
Governor received a communication from William Henry Hodge, the
distinguished engineer, announcing his willingness to serve on the
commission, although before my selection he had refused such
appointment. The other members of the commission were: Charles E.
Hervey, William Hayward, and Traverse H. Whitney. Messrs. Hayward and
Hodge left the commission, when we entered the war, to join the army.
Mr. Hayward was commissioned Colonel, having organized the 15th New
York, afterward the 369th United States Infantry, a regiment of colored
men who performed gallant service in France. Mr. Hodge was commissioned
Major and was promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel, and gave his splendid
talents to the services of his country in building roads to the battle
fronts of France. Due to his strenuous labors over there, this gifted
engineer and exemplary patriot died shortly after the armistice.

The commission had charge of the building of the subways and elevated
lines then in process, as well as the regulation of traffic and all
public utilities. As the war progressed, it became clearer that our
country would inevitably be drawn in, and therefore increasingly
important that nothing should prevent the functioning of our public
utilities. And accordingly it was not long before my services as
adjuster and arbitrator of labor difficulties were needed. The cost of
living was rapidly rising, and there was great unrest among laborers;
and the demand for skilled and unskilled labor grew day by day. When our
country entered the war, it was highly important for the moral effect
upon our own people, as well as to avoid giving encouragement to our
enemies, that the transportation system of our greatest metropolis
should operate without interruption. During the following year and a
half I was able to adjust a dozen or more important labor disputes and
to prevent a number of strikes. The situation was complicated by the
fact that the laborers were not employees of the commission, but of the
several contractors to whom contracts had been awarded under conditions
of fierce competition, so that every increase in wages materially
affected their profits and in the end caused many of them to suffer
considerable loss. I had to appeal to the patriotism of both sides, and
it is a pleasure to be able to state that in every instance the response
was most gratifying.




CHAPTER IX

IN THE CABINET

     Roosevelt offers me a place in his Cabinet--I retire permanently
     from private business--I become Secretary of the Department of
     Commerce and Labor---The scope of the department--My bureau
     chiefs--At home in the Venetian Palace--Cabinet dinners--What
     Roosevelt drank--Roosevelt's fondness for terrapin--South Carolina
     labor immigration--The Japanese question; the "Gentlemen's
     Agreement"; General Kuroki's visit; the courts and Japanese
     naturalization--My trip to Hawaii; Viscount Ishii--Japanese
     transits between Canada and Mexico; Japanese immigration
     statistics; I suggest a naturalization treaty with
     Japan--Anti-Japanese agitation renewed in California--The Four
     Power Treaty of the Washington Conference--Immigration head tax
     immunity for diplomats--Revision of naturalization laws; prevention
     of fraudulent naturalization--More frequent steamboat inspection
     --The Alaskan salmon fisheries--Organization of the Council of
     Commerce, predecessor to the Chamber of Commerce of the United
     States--The Council of Labor--Roosevelt's Nobel Peace Prize
     Foundation--A visit to Georgia; my old homes at Columbus and
     Talbotton--Quentin Roosevelt--Social life in Washington; Christmas
     celebration in the White House; the President's New Year's
     reception; I give the last Cabinet dinner.


Before I became a member of President Roosevelt's official family, I was
in what he termed his "kitchen cabinet." My experiences in both cabinets
are among the treasured recollections of my life.

We were the unofficial advisers who met round the luncheon and dinner
table and afterwards in the White House study, where the President spoke
without reserve of his executive problems and read for our criticism and
counsel his rough drafts of congressional messages, speeches, and notes
to foreign governments.

Holding no portfolios of state, these "kitchen cabinet ministers" yet
gave of their best; were always prepared to toil to any extent to be of
assistance to the President. He had the quality of vitalizing things--a
situation or condition coming within his executive ken became so
charged with life and imagination that men wanted to put their hands and
minds to it. They served Roosevelt as energetically and loyally as if
the grave responsibilities of state were upon their own shoulders.

International relations and labor arbitration were the public activities
which interested me most. The President had appointed me a member of the
permanent board of arbitration at The Hague to succeed the late Benjamin
Harrison, and shortly thereafter in his charming manner had designated
me as a member of his "kitchen cabinet." Thus there had commenced for me
a memorable series of conferences.

There is much misapprehension regarding Roosevelt's so-called
impulsiveness. This was evident to those who had an intimate view of the
man at work. He was quick. He was a prodigious worker. He was so
constituted and so self-trained that he had to do things immediately,
get them out of the way. What people called his impulsiveness might have
been more aptly termed his preparedness.

I had hundreds of opportunities to observe his methods. When he accepted
an invitation to deliver an address or write an article, he would
prepare it immediately, even if the occasion were two, three, or six
months off. He revised considerably, showed his work freely to friends
and associates for criticisms, but completed it at the earliest
opportunity. He never waited. This method served to perfect his thought
and expression on a given subject. His promptness left him free for
other things.

The President never seemed to be hurried, though he always worked with a
wonderful driving force. He seemed never to waste any time. It was play
or work, and both with his whole heart.

His public addresses were almost invariably the result of preparation.
It was seldom that he spoke extemporaneously. The fire and animation
which he imparted in the delivery of his speeches certainly conveyed no
impression that they might have been carefully prepared and considered
at a desk in a study. The pages of his manuscript were so small and
inconspicuous that they did not interfere with his natural gestures. The
effect was almost as if he spoke extemporaneously. The written address,
printed on sheets about 3 × 6 inches, and held in one hand, was
completely lost sight of by the audience in those moments when Colonel
Roosevelt became emphatic. In those moments he also interspersed
extemporaneous remarks which brought out his arguments more vividly and
forcefully.

       *       *       *       *       *

I stopped in Washington and called on President Roosevelt, early in
January of 1906, on my return from a short vacation in the South. He
took me into his private room, where we found his personal and political
friend, James H. Sheffield, and Senator Spooner. He spoke about the
political changes in New York, the defeat of the machine in that State,
the election of Herbert Parsons as chairman of the County Committee, and
of young Wadsworth (now United States Senator), son-in-law of John Hay,
as Speaker of the House. He took a special delight in the election of
both of these men; he had a high regard for them personally and for what
they stood. He said he had written a letter to Parsons which he hoped
would be helpful to him.

The President asked me to come to lunch with him, which was another of
those delightful, informal meetings. Besides Mrs. Roosevelt, his
daughter Alice, and her fiancé, there were William Dudley Foulke, a
former colleague of the President on the Civil Service Commission and
friend of mine from my college days; Robert Hitt son of Congressman
Hitt; and Lieutenant Fortesque, an officer of the Rough Riders.

After luncheon, the President asked me to wait for him in the Red Room,
as he wanted to have a talk with me. When the other guests had departed,
he came back to me and with his face beaming with geniality he said: "I
don't know whether you know it or not, but I want you to become a member
of my Cabinet. I have a very high estimate of your character, your
judgment, and your ability, and I want you for personal reasons. There
is still a further reason: I want to show Russia and some other
countries what we think of the Jews in this country."

Of course I was gratified, very much gratified. I told him I had heard
from several persons that he had spoken of this intention, but that I
had meant to take no notice of it until he should speak to me about it;
that I should certainly esteem it the very highest honor to become a
member of the Cabinet, and especially to have the privilege of working
alongside of him.

"I knew you would feel just that way; therefore I was anxious to let you
know of my intention as long in advance as possible," replied the
President. He said all this in such a cordial and affectionate manner
that I was profoundly touched with this manifestation of close
friendship for me.

He then added that he could not see that it would do any good, and might
do harm, to make further protests or utterances regarding the massacres
in Russia under the disorganized conditions there; and he did not want
to do anything that might sound well here and have just the opposite
effect there. He thought it would be much more pointed evidence of our
Government's interest if he put a man like me into his Cabinet, and that
such a course would doubtless have a greater influence than any words
with the countries in which unreasonable discrimination and prejudice
prevailed.

He told me that it might be July or even later before he could carry out
his purpose. He would prefer to put me at the head of the Department of
Commerce and Labor, because of my knowledge in that field, but he could
not determine the specific position until later. But at any rate, I was
to regard my appointment to one of the Cabinet positions as certain.

He asked whether I knew Senator Platt, and indicated that it might be
well for several of my friends to have a talk with the Senator. But he
quickly added that it would make no difference to him whether it suited
the New York Senator or not, though it might perhaps be a little more
agreeable if I did not have the latter's opposition. I preferred to feel
that my selection was personal, which it really was, and without even
the semblance of political influence; so I did not ask any of my friends
to speak to Senator Platt, nor did I think he would oppose me.

My wife and the rest of my family were of course elated at hearing the
news, particularly my brother Isidor, whose attitude toward me, his
youngest brother, was always more like that of an affectionate father
than a brother. I felt no trepidation, especially should I be selected
for the Department of Commerce and Labor. My past training and interest
in many of the subjects that came up under that department made me
conversant with the main questions it had to administer.

Upon my return to New York I began to make arrangements for severing all
business connections. This I thought wise, particularly if I became head
of the Department of Commerce and Labor. It was not a necessary step,
but I wanted it never to be said that I advocated any measure or made
any decision that might in the remotest way be of advantage to my
private interests. I spoke to Roosevelt about my intention, and he said
that while it was not essential, if I could do so it would on the whole
be advisable; that situated similarly he would do the same thing
himself. Before assuming office, therefore, I had retired from business
for good, and I have not since that time been connected with any
business for personal profit.

My nomination was officially made in September, but it was not until
early December, 1906, that I received a letter from William Loeb, Jr.,
the President's secretary, notifying me that the President desired me to
assume office on December 17th. On that day, accordingly, I appeared at
9 A.M. at the Department of Commerce and Labor, then located in the
Willard Building across the street from the Hotel Willard on Fourteenth
Street. There I met my predecessor, Victor H. Metcalf, who had been
appointed Secretary of the Navy. Mr. Metcalf welcomed me in a brief
address and introduced me to the twelve bureau and five division chiefs
of the department.

The Department of Commerce and Labor was the youngest of the nine
departments of the Government, the bill creating it having been approved
by President Roosevelt on February 14, 1903. Roosevelt had done much to
establish the department and took great pride in it. The first Secretary
of Commerce and Labor was George B. Cortelyou, who had been secretary to
the President, and by reason of his intimate relations with the
officials of the Government was admirably equipped to organize this
department, which he did with great skill and administrative ability.
After holding the office for about a year and a half, Secretary
Cortelyou became Postmaster-General, and Victor H. Metcalf, Congressman
from California, was appointed, thereby becoming the next Secretary of
the Department on July 1, 1904; I was therefore the third.

The scope of the Department as constituted then was probably the largest
of the nine branches of the Government. It was charged with the work of
promoting the commerce, mining, manufacturing, shipping, and fishery
industries of the country, as well as its transportation facilities and
its labor interests; in addition it had jurisdiction over the entire
subject of immigration. It had twelve bureaus: corporations;
manufactures; labor; lighthouses; census; coast and geodetic survey;
statistics, including foreign commerce; steamboat inspection;
immigration and naturalization; and standards.

In order to coördinate the work of these various bureaus I instituted
the simple method employed by large business administrators of having
the several bureau chiefs come together with me twice a month to discuss
and confer regarding the more important administrative subjects. This
enabled me to keep better informed and served to make the various heads
of bureaus conversant with the whole scope of the Department, preventing
overlapping and duplication of functions. I learned that this simple
administrative method had never been made use of before in federal
departments, but thereafter it was adopted by several of the other
department heads.

Thanks to Mr. Cortelyou's admirable organization of the department, I
found, almost without exception, a fine and competent set of men in
charge of its several branches. Some of them were friends of Roosevelt,
members of his "tennis cabinet," and were thoroughly imbued with his
spirit and ideals. The assistant secretary was Lawrence O. Murray, a
capable and conscientious official. James R. Garfield, chief of the
Bureau of Corporations, devoted himself to the difficult task of
exposing the abuses and legal infractions of some of the great
corporations, and did it with judgment and ability, and with conspicuous
courage. Charles P. Neill, chief of the Bureau of Labor, a laboring man
in his early days, and afterwards an instructor at Notre Dame, and
professor of economics at the Catholic University, in Washington, D.C.,
was eminently qualified for his duties and had the confidence alike of
labor leaders and employers. Dr. Samuel W. Stratton, a scientist of
distinction and a fine administrator, was then chief of the Bureau of
Standards, a veritable institution of science.

Fortunately, when the Department of Commerce and Labor was organized,
the civil service law applied to all appointments excepting bureau
chiefs, so that I was able to devote my time to the duties of my office,
free from claims of patronage, which had been the bane of the older
departments of the Government before the civil service law became so
generally operative.

My wife had so promptly put our household in order that in a week after
our arrival, we were comfortably installed in our Washington home, No.
2600 Sixteenth Street, a house known as the "Venetian Palace" from the
style of its architecture. It was a new house, built by Mrs. John B.
Henderson, and well suited to our needs and for entertaining. The social
functions in Washington I found most agreeable. During the season we
either gave a dinner or attended a dinner on an average of five evenings
a week, but these occasions were not burdensome because they usually
ended by ten-thirty o'clock.

According to custom, President Roosevelt at the beginning of the season
designated the date on which each Cabinet member was to give a dinner to
the President, and the date assigned to me was February 19th. It had
been usual for each host to invite to this dinner all the other Cabinet
members and their wives, which left little opportunity to invite others.
Roosevelt changed this custom so that other friends of the host were
invited rather than one's fellow members in the Cabinet. Foreign
diplomats also were not invited, the entire purpose being to give these
occasions the character of intimate gatherings, not large, usually from
eighteen to twenty-five guests.

Our dinner went pleasantly. The President was in his usual good humor.
Wines were served liberally, but it was Roosevelt's habit to drink very
little. This I had observed on several previous occasions, both at the
White House and elsewhere. Roosevelt usually took some white wine with
apollinaris, and perhaps a glass of champagne. For this dinner my wife
had secured the additional services of a certain colored cook in
Washington, a woman famous for preparing terrapin, which was one of
Roosevelt's favorite dishes.

       *       *       *       *       *

Tuesday and Friday mornings, beginning at eleven o'clock, were the
regular days for the meetings of the Cabinet, then as now. The day after
taking office, therefore, I attended my first meeting, taking the chair
assigned to me. It was labeled on the back "Secretary of Commerce and
Labor, December 17, 1906."

The Cabinet table is oblong, the President seated at the head, and to
his right and his left the secretaries in the order in which their
departments were created--Secretary of State first to the President's
right, Secretary of the Treasury first to the left, and so on. Being
head of the ninth and youngest Department, my seat was at the foot of
the table, opposite the President.

The meetings were informal and no minutes were taken or other record
made. After some brief preliminary talk, in which the President often
had some incident to relate or some amusing caricature or savage attack
upon himself to exhibit, the business of the day began. The President
calls on every secretary, but in no fixed order. He presents such
matters as he may deem important, and upon which he may want discussion
and advice.

At this meeting I intended not to bring up anything, preferring to wait,
as the saying is, until I got "warm in my seat." But an important matter
had come up that very morning upon which I had made a decision, based on
the carefully reasoned opinion by the solicitor of the department, Mr.
Charles Earl. The State of South Carolina, under one of its recent laws,
had authorized its State Commissioner of Immigration to go to Europe and
select a number of skilled factory hands for the industrial
establishments of the State. There were about four hundred and fifty of
these immigrants, and there was some question about admitting them. The
Immigration Law of 1903, as well as previous laws, excepted the State
from its contract labor clauses, and I therefore decided upon their
admission.

Indeed, no subject in the department occupied my daily attention to the
extent that immigration did. Fortunately, at the chief port of entry,
Ellis Island in the New York Bay, there was a capable, conscientious,
efficient commissioner, Robert Watchorn.

[Illustration: _Copyright by Clinedinst_

THE ROOSEVELT CABINET

Left to right: The President, Root, Straus, Garfield, Metcalf,
Cortelyou, Taft, Meyer, Wilson, Bonaparte]

The right of the immigrant to land, after his medical examination, was
based upon the decision of a board of inquiry. This board often made
hurried and ill-considered decisions, especially when the immigration
was large. In the case of exclusion, the immigrant has the right to
appeal to the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor. Of
course, cases coming under certain portions of the exclusion provisions,
such as contract labor, mental deficiency, affliction with loathsome and
contagious diseases, were easily enough disposed of; but under the
provision "Likely to become a public charge" there was room for the
personal attitude of the members of the board, and the fate of the
immigrant then depended on whether or not these men were
restrictionists. I felt that there was a domestic tragedy involved in
every one of these cases, and as the law placed the ultimate decision
upon the Secretary, I decided this responsibility was one that should
not be delegated; so day by day I took up these decisions myself,
frequently taking the papers home with me and carefully reviewing them
before retiring.

       *       *       *       *       *

Important among the immigration subjects were those which presented
phases of the Japanese question, the immigration _en masse_ of Japanese
to the Pacific Coast States, California in particular. The question was
brought up by Secretary Root at one of the Cabinet meetings. The city of
San Francisco had taken action excluding Japanese from the public
schools. It was deemed detrimental for the white children of tender ages
to be in the same classes with older and even adult Japanese who came to
these schools to learn English. My predecessor, who was a resident of
California, had investigated and was conversant with all aspects of the
case.

The President insisted that, as it directly affected the relations
between the two nations, it was a national concern. Several members of
the Cabinet also regarded the subject as one having serious
probabilities. Secretary Root asked me whether I could furnish some data
as to the use made of Hawaii by Japanese immigrants for circumventing
our contract labor law, as many of the Japanese immigrants were coming
to the mainland via Hawaii. Upon looking into this question I found
during the year previous fully two thirds of the Japanese came via
Hawaii. The President took the situation in hand and had the mayor of
San Francisco and other leaders of the Japanese agitation come to
Washington.

The obnoxious matter was finally adjusted with Japan in a manner to
allay irritation by a "Gentlemen's Agreement," by which that country
itself was to prevent the emigration of its laboring classes. It was, of
course, much better that the Japanese interdict emigration of their own
people than that we offend that nation's pride by preventing their
entrance, although it was made clear that we should pass an exclusion
law if they did not take prompt and effective action.

With some exceptions, this plan worked well. The whole Japanese
question, however, was still smouldering. A few months later, during a
call at the Department, the Japanese ambassador mentioned to me that in
some parts of the Pacific Coast the Japanese were being molested in the
streets and that, of course, such things made bad blood and stirred up
the people in Japan, with which I had to agree. I admitted that this was
an outrage, stating that I was sure our respective governments would do
all in their power to maintain good relations, to which he replied that
he did not see how those good relations could be disturbed.

Ambassador Aoki then referred to the naturalization of his countrymen in
the United States. I told him that on that question I agreed entirely
with the President, who in one of his recent speeches had dwelt
emphatically on it, advocating laws for the naturalization of Japanese
the same as accorded to other aliens. He then mentioned the Executive
Order of the President with reference to Japanese immigration and the
regulations for the enforcement of it. I told him I had these
regulations in hand and he could rely upon me to make them so as to
avoid every possible friction and reflect in every way the broad and
liberal spirit of the administration; also that under the immigration
act the matter was to a large extent in the control of Japan in issuing
limited passports to the special classes affected, namely, skilled and
unskilled labor.

After one of the Cabinet meetings I had a conversation with Secretary
Root and submitted to him redrafted regulations for any suggestion or
amendment that might appear to him desirable, for I was anxious that the
Secretary of State should give the regulations critical examination, in
view of their affecting our relations with Japan. He returned them to me
within a few days with one or two slight changes, which I adopted, and
out of them grew the "limited passports" provision of the Immigration
Act of 1907.

From time to time I brought up the Japanese situation and emphasized
that I regarded it in a most serious light. Meanwhile, whenever the
opportunity presented itself I did whatever was possible to promote
good-will between the two countries. Japan's great military chief,
General Tamemoto Kuroki, paid a visit to the United States, and was
given a gala dinner at the Hotel Astor in New York, following ovations
to him all the way across the continent from the time he landed at San
Francisco. There were over a thousand guests. Admiral Dewey was
presiding officer; John H. Finley was toastmaster, and it was felt he
was particularly chosen, being president of the College of the City of
New York, because of the protest this would imply against the exclusion
of Japanese children from the San Francisco public schools. I was
invited to deliver an address, in which I said:

     The Government and people of Japan, not unmindful of the good-will
     and early friendship of our country, are too wise to permit the San
     Francisco school incident, which was fostered by ignorance and
     propagated by injustice, to cloud their just appreciation of the
     enlightened spirit of American institutions.

Captain Tanaka, of General Kuroki's staff, had handed me in translation
a message that the General had prepared for the American people, which I
read in the course of my address. It was as follows:

     The Japanese people love peace. They fought for peace. My nation
     wants peace in which to develop the opportunities that are hers. We
     have no other desire.

     The profession which I have the misfortune to follow is noble only
     because sometimes it is necessary to establish conditions in which
     peace may be maintained and in which the arts of peace may
     flourish.

To this I added that nobler sentiments never fell from the lips of a
conquering hero, and they would stand beside those uttered by our hero
of the Appomattox: "Let us have peace." This was received with much
enthusiasm.

Early in June, 1907, there was another outbreak in San Francisco against
the restaurant keepers, and telegrams from Tokyo told of the irritation
this caused among the people in Japan. At the Cabinet meeting I took the
subject up again with considerable emphasis. I pointed out that these
incidents were accumulating and were bristling with grave consequences;
that Japan had come into the front rank among nations and could not
afford to permit us or any other nation to slap her, as it were, in the
face, or to treat her even in small things as a nation of inferior race.
I brought up the subject of Japanese naturalization. As the law stood,
a Japanese could not be naturalized, according to the rulings of one or
two judges of the United States courts; but the subject had never been
finally decided. A short time previous to this a Japanese seaman in
Florida had filed a petition for naturalization which was granted, and I
referred the matter to the Attorney-General to see whether that would
not afford an incident wherewith to test the law. But no action was
taken.

At first the President did not seem to attach to the subject the
importance that I did, but Secretary Root immediately spoke up that he
agreed with my view of it, and as the discussion went along, the rest of
the Cabinet, as well as the President, gradually came over to my view.
At the end the President remarked: "I am very glad you brought up that
subject."

During the discussion I reviewed the whole legal aspect of the matter,
and referred to the fact that the several decisions made had been based
on Chinese precedents. I also touched on the ethnological aspect, that
it was doubtful whether the Japanese could be classed as Mongolians.
This phase appealed to Roosevelt, who seemed well informed in
ethnological studies. I felt rather gratified with this thorough
discussion of the subject. It had interested me for years, and I had
been ruminating on it for several weeks.

       *       *       *       *       *

At the last Cabinet meeting before the vacation season, each member
referred to his plans for the summer. I had decided to combine business
with pleasure by taking a trip along the Canadian border from Montreal
to Vancouver to inspect the lighthouse and immigration services, then
down the Pacific Coast and to Hawaii, where I might acquaint myself with
regard to immigration as it affected the Japanese question. The
President thought this would be a useful trip and urged me to take it.

In the administration of a department such as that of Commerce and
Labor, it was important to familiarize one's self as much as possible
with its outlying branches, to become personally acquainted with the
various officers and the details of their work and surroundings, thereby
to enable one better to do the administrative work than by remaining at
one's desk.

After leaving Vancouver we stopped a few days each at Seattle, Portland,
and San Francisco, where I conferred with the officials of the
Department. From San Francisco we took a steamer to Hawaii, on board
which we met George R. Carter, Governor of Hawaii, returning from a
vacation in the United States, and Congressman and Mrs. Nicholas
Longworth. It made a very pleasant party.

The authorities and the population gave us a rousing welcome, cannons
saluted, and the militia was out to escort us. Only once before since
the island became United States territory had a Cabinet official paid a
visit, and that was two years before when Secretary of War Taft stopped
there for a few days _en route_ to Japan. We were comfortably installed
in the Hotel Moana, in the suburb of Waikiki.

The islanders showered upon us bounteous hospitality in every
conceivable form. We participated in rounds of dinners and receptions.
Governor and Mrs. Carter entertained the Longworths and us in the
official residence, the former palace of the Hawaiian rulers, in the
throne room of which hung the portraits of those rulers from earliest
times to the deposed Queen Liliuokalani. The reception was a brilliant
occasion. The leading officials and the _élite_ of the population were
there; the grounds were beautifully illuminated; and the Royal Hawaiian
Band played the soft, plaintive music so typical of the mild
temperament of the people and the luxuriant foliage of the island. My
time was much taken up with official and semi-official duties. The
island residents impressed me with the great need for better shipping
facilities between the mainland and the islands. The coastwise shipping
laws applying to them since annexation penalized the carrying of
passengers or freight in other than American bottoms. Foreign ships
accepting either passengers or freight to American ports on the coast
were heavily fined. The result was, not only inconvenience to residents
who for one reason or another needed to leave the islands, but the loss
of much perishable freight, principally fruit, which rotted on the
wharves waiting for American ships. I promised them that I would do
everything in my power to help them get the shipping facilities they
needed.

A delegation of Japanese editors, representing the four Japanese
newspapers of Honolulu, called to ascertain my views regarding Japanese
matters in the islands, what my policy was with regard to Japanese
immigration, and whether I believed that the preponderance of Japanese
people in Hawaii was inimical to the interests of the territory. I
answered them:

     An ideal condition for the future welfare of these islands would be
     that there should not be too great a preponderance of any one race,
     but that an equilibrium be maintained.

     I would impress upon you, and upon each of the several races here,
     to have a care not to exploit these islands and their resources for
     the benefit of the country from which they come, but to act in the
     spirit of loyalty to the government under which they live; of
     loyalty to the interests of the islands which afford such happy and
     ideal homes for them and their children. I am gratified that the
     public school system has such a great influence upon the young, who
     grow up with the American ideals and respect for the liberty of the
     individual. I would like to see an increasing number of Americans
     from the mainland come and settle in these islands, if for no other
     reason than to guarantee for all time to come the continuance of
     the American spirit for the benefit and welfare of all peoples who
     have made and will make their homes here.

Unfortunately the time at my disposal did not permit my visiting the
various islands. We did, however, see everything to be seen at Oahu, the
island upon which Honolulu is situated. Rear-Admiral Very took us on the
U.S.S. Iroquois to visit Pearl Harbor, the famous landlocked bay large
enough to shelter the battle fleets of several nations. We also visited
the Waialua pineapple plantation and cannery, where twenty thousand cans
of the large, luscious fruit were put up daily. The processes of paring,
coring, slicing, and canning were done by machinery with great speed,
and we enjoyed tasting the fruit as much as any school children might.

In Honolulu I met Viscount Ishii, who was then Japanese under-Secretary
of State. He has since been ambassador at Washington and at this writing
is ambassador at Paris. We had frequent conferences and went over the
whole Japanese question. He had fully informed himself upon all phases
of the subject, as well as regarding the idiosyncrasies of the Pacific
Coast States in opposing the immigration of Japanese laborers. Ishii's
thorough understanding of the situation at that time did much to smooth
ruffled feelings in Japan. The Viscount returned to the States on the
steamer with us.

As we sailed out of the harbor on the Asia, bedecked with Hawaiian
flowers, the Royal Hawaiian Band played its farewell music. The last
words we heard from the Hawaiian shore were "Aloha Nui," the Hawaiian
farewell.

I had satisfied myself that, so far as concerned the carrying out of
the President's Executive Order of March 14, 1907, the Japanese
officials in both Hawaii and Japan were doing everything in their power.
Hawaii at the time had a population of about 160,000, in round figures,
of which about 80,000 were Japanese, 20,000 Chinese, and 25,000 native
Hawaiians. Of the white element the biggest percentage were Portuguese,
who numbered about 22,000, while all other Caucasians together,
principally American, British, and German, numbered 14,000. It therefore
behooved our officials on the islands, in the Pacific ports, and along
the Mexican border, to be especially watchful to carry out the
regulations which the Department had formulated with regard to the
admission of Japanese or Korean skilled and unskilled labor.

       *       *       *       *       *

Soon after my return I had a conference with the President at Oyster
Bay. The President informed me that Secretary Taft was about to leave
for Japan, to go from there to Russia by the Siberian Railroad. He said
he had authorized him to see what could be done toward overcoming the
difficulties in our relations, and what might be the effect in Japan if
we were to endeavor to pass a law giving naturalization to Japanese
exclusive of the laboring classes and the small traders who practically
belonged to the same class. This subject the President had urged in his
last Message to Congress.

On October 25th I brought up in the Cabinet meeting, for the information
of the President, statistics regarding Japanese immigration up to
October 1, 1907, which showed that the immigration for the twelve months
then ended was almost double that of the preceding twelve months, and
also that there had been an appreciable increase since April 1, when the
President's Executive Order went into effect, compared with the
previous months. The statistics regarding the transit of Japanese
between Mexico and Canada showed that something like six hundred and
seventy registered from April to September, but only about one third
that number actually made the transits. It was presumed, therefore, that
the rest got off within United States territory.

The President seemed very much annoyed with this condition of things. I
recalled to his mind that when the regulations under his Executive Order
were originally presented by me, they contained a clause, along the
lines of the Chinese regulation on the subject, to prevent the abuse of
transit privileges, but that he and the Cabinet had decided it to be
unwise to put in that clause. A few months thereafter, when we first
suspected the abuse of transit privileges, I directed an accurate
account to be taken of these transits, the result of which I now
presented.

The first impulse of the President was to direct that all transit be
denied, but I pointed out that that would raise considerable objection,
as it would place the Japanese in a special class in that respect. He
insisted that something must be done. I suggested that the problem
needed careful thought and I would take it up and prepare regulations
similar to those for the Chinese. This I did, and the Japanese
regulations differ only in that we do not require the photographing of
the person to make the transit.

I did not propose to drop the matter of Japanese immigration and
naturalization. Again and again I brought it up in Cabinet meetings. I
believed the best way of adjusting the difficulties was to try to
negotiate a treaty with Japan permitting the naturalization of Japanese
other than laboring classes, and in return excluding all who came within
the category of skilled or unskilled labor. The belief that such a
treaty could be negotiated was confirmed by my talks with Ishii both at
Honolulu and later when he visited Washington. The right to
naturalization would be taken advantage of by only five or six thousand
and would not, of course, be granted to the laborers then resident in
the United States.

There were about seventy-three thousand Japanese in the United States,
and it was fair to assume that two thirds of these were of the laboring
class. Of the remainder there was a small percentage of women and
children, and then there were those born in America. Japanese eligible
for citizenship would therefore not exceed ten or twelve thousand, and
it was reasonable to assume that not more than half of them would be
willing to throw off their native allegiance. My belief was that such an
adjustment of the problem would leave no irritation behind it.

The President did not think such a treaty would be confirmed by the
Senate, and to have it rejected would make matters worse. Secretary
Metcalf thought the California members would not agree to such an
arrangement. Notwithstanding these objections I was of the opinion that
such force of argument could be found in favor of the arrangement that
even representatives from California would not fail to see its
advantage.

The whole question simmered along for a year or more, during which our
understanding with Japan in regard to the "Gentlemen's Agreement" and
the regulations under it were put into concrete and final shape; that
is, a letter was written by the Japanese ambassador to our Secretary of
State setting forth the understanding of Japan, to which the Secretary
replied accepting that understanding and setting forth the amicable
relations existing between the two countries.

In late January, 1909, there was a recrudescence of anti-Japanese
legislation in California. There were introduced in the State
legislature three bills: (a) to exclude Japanese from ownership of land;
(b) to segregate the Japanese in special districts of the city; (c) to
prohibit Japanese from attending the public schools. With his usual good
judgment the President telegraphed the Governor of California saying he
was writing him and asking that he withhold any legislation affecting
the Japanese until the receipt of that letter. For the time being this
action had the desired effect.

The legislature of California was somewhat under the influence of
agitators, like the Japanese and Korean Restriction League and some
labor bodies. It was believed that the general sentiment of California
was against such legislation, but either to avoid conflict, or from
indifference or lack of public spirit, such sentiment did not make its
influence felt. I had given out figures from month to month showing the
number of immigrants from Japan as compared with previous figures. I
then made public statistics which showed that for the calendar year 1907
the number of immigrants was 12,400, whereas for the calendar year 1908,
after the Japanese Government had taken the matter in hand in accordance
with the "Gentlemen's Agreement," the number of immigrants was 4400.
Deducting the figure for the emigration from that 4400 left a total
increase of Japanese population of only 185 for the year. The California
agitators claimed my figures were erroneous, and that hordes of Japanese
were surreptitiously coming from the Canadian and Mexican borders. I
gave out several interviews to the press to the effect that the figures
were absolutely correct; that it was absurd to deny their correctness as
I had proofs in my hands; and that if the Californians still doubted
them a committee might call on me and I should gladly lay my proofs
before them. I had sent a copy of these figures, certified by me, to the
California authorities.

       *       *       *       *       *

Happily our relations with Japan are now more peaceful than they have
been for some time, and to a large degree this has been accomplished by
the Four Power Treaty negotiated at the Washington Conference on the
Limitation of Armaments in December, 1921. The various vexatious
instances that I have referred to were stimulated by German officers
stationed in the Far East and fostered by the sensational press in both
Japan and our own country. By this means these happenings were
exaggerated far beyond their significance. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance
of 1911 came into being because of the aggression of Germany and Russia
in the Far East. After the World War, of course, this condition no
longer obtained, and as the _raison d'être_ of the alliance had
therefore vanished, there was a justified feeling in America that the
continuance of the treaty was a menace to our country. This fact was not
unrecognized in Great Britain itself. As Mr. Balfour stated at the
Washington Conference, it was necessary to "annul, merge, destroy, as it
were, this ancient and outward and unnecessary agreement, and replace it
by something new, something effective, which should embrace all the
powers concerned in the vast area of the Pacific." By the Four Power
Treaty the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was automatically discontinued, and
Great Britain, the United States, France, and Japan became associated in
friendly partnership as guardians of the peace in the Far East.

So far as concerns the relationship between our country and Japan, the
transcendent importance of this treaty has been to supersede and
overshadow all these minor matters that before were continually
menacing our good relations. By the reservations prepared by the
American delegates, and accepted by the other powers, it is provided
that the treaty "shall not be taken to embrace questions which according
to principles of international law lie exclusively within the domestic
jurisdiction of the respective powers." Verily this treaty stands out as
one of the great achievements of the Washington Conference.

       *       *       *       *       *

To return to immigration problems during my incumbency as Secretary of
the Department of Commerce and Labor, a minor though nevertheless
annoying matter needing adjustment was the regulation with regard to the
head tax. After the passage of the Immigration Law of 1903 a head tax of
two dollars was levied upon all alien passengers, including even
officials of foreign governments. In 1905 Attorney-General Moody had
given an opinion to the effect that the tax applied to all alien
passengers, whether officers of foreign governments or not. I thought
this contrary to the law of nations and to well-established diplomatic
usages recognized throughout the world.

As the subject also came within the province of another department,
namely, the Department of State, I naturally brought it up at a Cabinet
meeting. The President recommended that I issue orders in accordance
with my suggestion, and Secretary Root agreed that it was an outrage to
levy such a tax upon the representatives of foreign governments.
Informally I took the matter up with Attorney-General Bonaparte, but as
the decision against this immunity had been made by his Department he
felt himself bound by the decision of his predecessor. He suggested that
I issue the order on my own responsibility, but I decided for the time
being not to do so. At a later Cabinet meeting I again brought up the
matter, this time reading the order as I proposed it. The President and
Secretary Root, also Secretary Taft, agreed that it should be issued,
and this I did.

At the same time I discussed a provision of the Immigration Act of 1906
requiring masters of all vessels bringing in aliens, without exception,
to fill out a blank or manifest giving the age, sex, calling,
nationality, race, of each alien, and whether able to read or write, and
whether anarchist or not. These blanks then had to be signed by the
aliens. I prepared two circulars, one ordering the discontinuance of the
head tax and the other discontinuing the filling out of these blanks so
far as concerned diplomatic or consular officials and other persons duly
accredited from foreign governments to the United States, in service or
in transit.

At dinner at the British ambassador's home some weeks thereafter Lady
Bryce mentioned having to sign a blank asking whether she believed in
the practice of polygamy. Of course, she brought it up in a humorous
way, but it was apparent that she had felt humiliated at such
questioning. I told her I fully appreciated her feelings and was happy
to be able to say that that stupid practice had been discontinued.

       *       *       *       *       *

The subject of naturalization had occupied my attention for years past.
Under the law then existing, as well as under older laws, a person could
be naturalized not only in the United States courts, but in any State
court having a seal. And the naturalization laws prior to the Act of
1906 were most carelessly administered. In the larger cities of many of
the States naturalization applications were hurried through in bunches
at the direction of some political boss. In that way many persons were
naturalized who would have been found, had time been taken to sift the
applications, not entitled to citizenship. The effects of so careless a
method I saw in Turkey, and in my dispatches to the State Department I
repeatedly pointed out the evil.

Largely growing out of my presentation of the subject, Mr. Gaillard
Hunt, chief of the passport division of the State Department, had taken
it up in his thorough manner and made a report to President McKinley,
upon which the President appointed a commission to study the subject.
The commission was renewed by President Roosevelt. Its report, known as
House Document 326, 59th Congress, 2d Session, and entitled "Citizenship
of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad," was the
basis of the Act of 1906. This act went far in preventing fraudulent
naturalization as well as in withdrawing protection from those who were
using United States citizenship not with the intention of becoming part
of the new country in which they had chosen to reside, but as a means to
escape their duties as subjects of the country of their origin upon
returning there to live, as had happened so often in Turkey.

For the proper carrying out of this law additional examiners were
needed, and also about eleven additional assistant district attorneys. I
therefore arranged with Attorney-General Bonaparte to appear with him
before the Appropriations Committee of the House to explain the
necessity of an appropriation to cover the enlargement of the corps for
the enforcement and administration of the new law. During my experience
abroad much of the time of our diplomatic representatives was taken up
with questions relating to the protection of our citizens, and often
this protection was invoked by persons who should never have been
naturalized.

The exclusion and deportation of criminals and anarchists was another
phase of the immigration service to which I had given considerable
study. I found the law provided for arrest and deportation of criminal
aliens only up to three years of the time of their landing, and that
there was gross misconception regarding the scope of the law. There was
no coöperation between our immigration officials and the local police
departments for the detection of such persons. The police departments of
most of our cities were disposed to assume that by virtue of the
immigration law the whole subject was under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Government; and on the other hand our officials did not confer
with municipal officials to make use of the immigration law. It is one
thing to provide for the exclusion of criminals and anarchists, but it
is quite another to discover, on entry, whether a person belongs to
either class. They are usually neither illiterate nor lacking in cunning
and deception, but within three years they may be detected, as "birds of
a feather flock together."

I decided to issue a circular to all commissioners of immigration and
immigration inspectors, with a view to bringing about coöperation with
the local officials. I took the subject up in the Cabinet and the
President approved. It so happened that while this circular was being
prepared, an Italian immigrant, recently arrived, killed a Catholic
priest in Denver while the latter was officiating at a mass in his
church, and a day or two thereafter another recently arrived immigrant,
a Russian, attacked the chief of police of Chicago and his family with a
dagger. Both of these men would have come under the deportation
provisions of the immigration law had the police been aware of these
provisions, as in both instances they had been suspected, by their
affiliations and their talk, of being anarchists, as that term is
defined in the Immigration Act of February 20, 1907. Under the local
criminal laws this suspicion was not enough to justify arrest.

Appearing as it did immediately after these two incidents my circular
had much publicity and brought about the deportation of a number of
undesirables upon evidence supplied by the police and detective
officers.

       *       *       *       *       *

In a Department which covered so many and such varied subjects, the
conflict between human and property interests was often apparent. I
recall a remark by the President, as we were speaking about this, that
whenever within my jurisdiction there occurred this conflict he was sure
I would lean on the human side, and I could always count on his support.

A striking example of this conflict grew out of an order I issued for
the inspection of excursion and ferry boats at least three times a year
instead of once. The summer before I took office the boiler of the
General Slocum, a large excursion boat on the Long Island Sound, blew up
and caused the death of over a hundred women and children. As spring
approached and the excursion season drew near, I made up my mind that I
should make all possible provision to prevent the recurrence of any such
disaster.

I accompanied the supervising inspector-general, George Uhler, to
witness the inspection of some passenger boats plying between Washington
and Norfolk, to get personal knowledge of the details of inspection. I
carefully studied a report made to me by Mr. Murray, the assistant
secretary of my Department, who had been a member of the board of
inquiry into the Slocum disaster and later the Valencia wreck. I called
a meeting of the board of supervising inspectors of steamboats and
impressed upon them the importance of great care in inspection. I urged
that no man be retained in the inspection service who was not thoroughly
competent and efficient, since they had to deal with the protection of
human life.

My order for more frequent inspection brought forth many objections from
the steamboat owners, and, as is usual in such cases, a committee came
to Washington and presented their grievances and objections direct to
the President, in the hope of inducing him to overrule my instructions.
They were patiently heard, but their main objection was that it would
cost a little more and be a little more inconvenient to have three
inspections instead of one, and the President gave them little more
comfort than to make it quite clear that he was thoroughly in accord
with my action for the provision of greater safety to human life. He
told them he felt he was fortunate in having at the head of the
Department of Commerce and Labor a man who was a humanitarian besides
having large business experience, for while it was his purpose to
harmonize human and business interests, always when they conflicted he
would lean toward the human side, as I had done in issuing that order.

       *       *       *       *       *

The President was deeply interested always in the natural resources of
the country and their preservation, and asked me to take up the question
of the Alaska salmon fisheries. It was certain that unless some drastic
action was taken, the salmon would be destroyed in the Alaskan waters
just as they had been in the Columbia River. Roosevelt was familiar with
the problem and believed that Wood River ought to be closed. I devoted
parts of two days to a hearing on the subject. The cannery interests
were represented by their counsel and the Fishermen's Union by several
of its officers. Senator Fulton, of Oregon, as well as the two Alaskan
delegates in Congress, pleaded for the closing of the rivers.

After hearing all sides and studying the question I signed an order
directing the closing of both the Wood and Nushagak Rivers to trap and
net fishing, and if the law had permitted, I should have directed the
closing also of Nushagak Bay, where extensive trap fishing was carried
on.

       *       *       *       *       *

When I was president of the New York Board of Trade and Transportation I
was impressed with the importance of establishing a closer relationship
between the commercial bodies of the country and the Government. Shortly
after I became Secretary of Commerce and Labor, therefore, I sought to
accomplish that end. I had a study made by Nahum I. Stone, tariff expert
of the Bureau of Manufactures, of the relations between the European
governments and their commercial bodies, especially in such countries as
Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium. I sent invitations
to about forty of the leading chambers of commerce, boards of trade, and
other commercial organizations throughout the country to send delegates
to Washington for a two days' conference, with a view to bringing about
an organization of these bodies for the purpose of coöperation between
them and the departments of the Government having to do with commerce
and manufactures.

Accordingly on December 5th a representative gathering of over one
hundred delegates met in my Department, and I put before them a plan for
organization. I invited Secretary Root, who took a deep interest in the
scheme, and he made a thoughtful address, in which he impressed upon the
gathering the things that ought to be done, and could be done only
through organization and the power of concerted effort. Andrew D. White,
our experienced ambassador at Berlin, had sent to the President a letter
containing the proposal that a method of instruction in commerce be
applied at the instance of our Government as had been done in
agriculture; this interesting proposal I read to the meeting.

I then went with the delegates in a body to the White House where the
President addressed them. In the afternoon Gustav H. Schwab, of the New
York Chamber of Commerce, was elected temporary chairman and the
organization of the council proceeded. A committee on organization and a
committee on rules were appointed, and it was decided that an advisory
committee of fifteen members was to have headquarters in Washington. The
number of meetings to be held per year was fixed, as well as the annual
dues. On December 5, 1907, the National Council of Commerce came into
being.

A year later the first annual meeting was held in my Department. The
Council now had permanent offices in the Adams Building, with William R.
Corwine in charge. In my address to the delegates I stressed the
importance of the development of our commercial relations with the South
American republics, particularly in view of the rapidly approaching
completion of the Panama Canal. At that time we had only twenty-three
per cent of the foreign trade of South America, and one of the main
requirements for increasing our share was the establishment of better
shipping and postal facilities. To that end I recommended in my annual
report that the Postal Subsidy Act of 1891 be extended to include ships
of sixteen knots and over, and my colleagues, the Secretary of State and
the Attorney-General, made similar recommendations.

A month after the change of Administration the executive committee of
the Council held a meeting, again in the Department of Commerce and
Labor, at which they passed the following resolution:

     Resolved, by the members of the Executive Committee of the National
     Council of Commerce in meeting assembled in the office of the Hon.
     Charles Nagel, the present Secretary of Commerce and Labor, That
     they tender their heartiest thanks to the Hon. Oscar S. Straus, the
     former Secretary of Commerce and Labor, for his constant and
     well-directed efforts in forming and promoting the National Council
     of Commerce, expressing their appreciation of his far-sightedness,
     his patriotism, his energy, his fairness, and his friendship,
     assuring him of the high personal esteem in which he is held by all
     of them, and asserting that in their judgment he has laid the
     foundation for a movement which will redound not only to his credit
     as a Cabinet officer, but one which will ultimately be productive
     of incalculable benefit to the business interests of our country,
     the development of which he has so deeply at heart.

Later that year the Council was reorganized and called the Chamber of
Commerce of the United States, which to-day is an important institution
in the commercial life of our country.

       *       *       *       *       *

To bring about a similar relationship between the Department and the
labor bodies, I called another conference in February, 1909, to which I
invited the leading labor representatives throughout the country, and
about fifty attended. Unfortunately my term of office was drawing to an
end and there was not time to organize this wing, but I urged the men to
insist upon the continuance of the conferences and the coöperation with
the Department thus established.

The matters discussed at this meeting were mainly how best to lessen
unemployment, how the Division of Information under the Bureau of
Immigration might be administered for the greater benefit of labor in
general, and how the Nobel Peace Prize, which President Roosevelt had
set aside for a foundation for the promotion of industrial peace, could
be made most effective. There were addresses by Samuel Gompers,
president of the American Federation of Labor; Warren S. Stone, grand
chief of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; William F. Yates,
president of the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association; and Terence
V. Powderly, chief of the Division of Information in the Bureau of
Immigration. The presiding officer was Daniel J. Keefe,
Commissioner-General of Immigration and Naturalization.

During my term of office repeated efforts were made in Congress, backed
by organized labor, to divide my Department and make two of it--the
Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor. I successfully
opposed this plan, my idea being that labor and capital were the two
arms of industry, the proper functioning of which could best be secured
by coöperation, which in turn could best be promoted by administering
their interests together. In this I had the support of President
Roosevelt. During the Taft Administration, however, the bill was passed
creating the Department of Labor.

       *       *       *       *       *

I have mentioned Roosevelt's Nobel Peace Prize. As received by the
President, it consisted of a medal and diploma, and a draft for
$36,734.79. He decided not to keep the money, but to turn it over in
trust for a foundation for the promotion of industrial peace. In
January, 1907, he called me to the White House and told me that he would
forward the draft and the papers to Chief Justice Fuller, with the
request that he communicate with the other trustees, of whom there were
four: James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture; John Mitchell, president
of the Anthracite Coal Operators; ex-Mayor Seth Low, of New York, and
myself.

Later the Chief Justice came to my Department with the papers to go over
them with me and to arrange for their safe-keeping until we could have a
meeting and formulate a plan of action. Subsequently he informed me that
before preparing the draft of the act granting the foundation it was
necessary to write a preamble setting forth its objects and purposes,
and this he found it difficult to do. I relieved his mind by offering to
prepare the bill with the preamble. I consulted with Dr. Cyrus Adler, of
the Smithsonian Institution, who had had considerable experience in
drafting documents for the creation of trusts of this nature. With his
assistance I prepared the draft of the preamble and the bill, which the
Chief Justice approved. I then took them to the President, who also
approved them and requested me to call a meeting of the trustees, of
whom there were to be nine instead of five as originally.

At the meeting of January 27, 1907, a few slight changes were made and
adopted in the bill. Thus redrafted, with a report attached giving a
history of the award, it was introduced in the House by Congressman
Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri, member of the Committee on Labor; and in
the Senate by John W. Daniel, of Virginia. It was promptly passed. The
board of trustees as finally constituted included: Archbishop Ireland,
Samuel Gompers, Daniel J. Keefe, Seth Low, Marcus M. Marks, Dr. Neill,
Warren S. Stone, James Wilson, and myself.

The foundation was in existence for about ten years, and in that time
the interest on the money merely accumulated, because the trustees were
unable to find a proper means for employing it. In July, 1917, Mr.
Roosevelt requested Congress to repeal the bill and return the money to
him, that he might distribute it among the different charitable
societies in the United States and in Europe which were affording relief
to the sufferers from the war. The request was granted, and the sum with
its accrued interest, amounting to $45,482.83, was thus distributed by
him.

Roosevelt always encouraged the members of his Cabinet to make speeches
in various parts of the country on subjects uppermost in the mind of the
public, with due regard, of course, to the duties of office. I accepted
a number of the many such invitations that came to me. At the banquet of
the National Association of Manufacturers, held in the Waldorf Hotel,
New York, in May, 1907, I was asked to be the principal speaker. I made
careful preparation of an address, part of which I devoted to advocating
a moderate tariff reform, with a view to providing a maximum and minimum
tariff to meet discrimination against us by some European nations. I
consulted with the President about it. While he agreed with my premises,
he thought the time not ripe to project that issue, so I redrafted my
speech and devoted it to such topics as the development of our
manufactures, the work of the Bureau of Corporations, and the relations
of employers and workers.

On April 3, 1908, the Savannah Board of Trade celebrated its
twenty-fifth anniversary, and I was asked to be one of the speakers. Two
others were Governor Hoke Smith and Representative J. Hampton Moore,
president of the Atlantic Deep Waterways Commission. It was a special
occasion and was widely advertised for several weeks. I prepared an
address in which I outlined also some of the activities carried on by my
Department for the benefit of the commercial interests of the country.
On this trip my wife and younger daughter accompanied me. During our
stay at Savannah we were the guests of the Board of Trade, who showed us
every possible attention, in true Southern fashion, and we thoroughly
enjoyed our stay.

The Mayor and prominent citizens of my former home, Columbus, upon
learning of our presence in the South, sent us a pressing invitation to
visit that city. A committee met us at the station, and in the evening a
dinner was given at the Opera House, at which about a hundred of the
leading citizens were present. The dinner was served on the stage, and
while the toasts were being responded to, the curtain was raised,
disclosing an auditorium crowded with people. I was quite touched by
this fine attention by the citizens of my former home, who took great
pride in the fact that one of their former townsmen was a member of the
Cabinet. In the audience were several of my schoolboy friends and those
of my brothers, and I found several friends and companions of my parents
still among the living.

In the South at that time it was still rare for a person to change his
politics, and one of the questions that was put to me was why had I, a
member of a Democratic family, once a Democrat myself, and even having
held office under a Democratic President, changed over to the Republican
side. In other words, why had I been on both sides of the political
fence, though they were too polite to ask the question in that direct
form. I told them that perhaps no one had a better right than they to
ask the reason for my political affiliations. It was true, I said, that
I had been, as it were, on both sides of the fence, but that was not my
fault; the fence had been moved. This produced great merriment and
applause.

Talbotton, the first American home of my family, also extended an
invitation to us, which I accepted with pleasure. A dinner and reception
were given in my honor at the public hall known as the Opera House, at
which the Mayor of the town made an address, as well as several other
prominent citizens. While in Talbotton we were the guests of the
Honorable Henry Persons, former member of Congress and an old friend of
our family. He gave me my first rubber ball, when I was six years old. I
visited all the scenes of my boyhood; it was forty-five years since I
had lived there. The population of the town was about the same, equally
divided between the whites and the blacks. The little Baptist church
where I went to Sunday school was much smaller than it had loomed up in
my imagination. Collinsworth Institute was abandoned, and only the
recitation hall was left standing. The several houses wherein my family
had lived brought back vivid memories of the toils and pleasures of my
parents. The little frame cottage with the green blinds especially
impressed upon me how little is required for happiness where there is
the love and contentment which always blessed our family. All who
remembered my father and mother spoke of them in the highest terms. I
met a number of my boyhood friends, grown gray and old. On the whole the
little town had not changed much, though it had fewer signs of
prosperity. Before the Civil War it was the center of a rich
slave-holding county. The people, however, seemed contented and happy.

From Talbotton we went to Atlanta, and then made one or two more stops
on the way home. At each place we met friends of former years and were
given a thoroughly royal welcome. In fact, the reception given us
throughout the whole tour was in the nature of an ovation. Wherever we
stopped our rooms were decorated with an abundance of the most
beautiful flowers. The Southerners have ever been known for their
hospitality, and in this respect the New South has lost nothing.

Later in the year the Southern Commercial Congress, representing ten
States, assembled in Washington, and I was asked to preside at the
opening session in the large ballroom of the New Willard Hotel. There
were three or four hundred people present. I devoted my address to a
comparison between the old agricultural South and the new industrial
South, pointing out that as the economic interests of the South were no
longer sectional but national, it must follow that politically there is
no longer a reason for "the solid South."

       *       *       *       *       *

On leaving the Cabinet one day at about this time the President's
youngest son, Quentin, came up to me. I had a great affection for this
bright, attractive boy. He was eleven years old, and he informed me he
weighed one hundred and fourteen pounds. He was full of animal spirits,
frank, charming. "You gave my brother Kermit some coins," he said to me.

"Yes; are you interested in them?" I asked.

"I am making a little collection," was his answer.

I invited him into my carriage and to come to lunch with me. He accepted
readily, and I reminded him that he had better let his mother know. He
did so by hurriedly running into the White House and returning in a very
few minutes saying his mother said he might go. He behaved like a
perfect little gentleman and showed that under his sparkling vivacity
there was serious, intelligent hunger for knowledge. After lunch I took
him into my library and showed him my collection of Greek and Roman
coins. I told him he might pick out what he liked. To the several he
chose I added a gold stater of Philip. He was overjoyed. From that time
onward we became still greater friends, and he came to see me whenever
he got a new coin for his collection.

In 1909, when I was going through Paris, I met him there with his
mother. During this visit he and I were quite steadily together. We
visited the museums and other places of interest. I found him a most
sympathetic and delightful companion, notwithstanding the immense
difference in our ages. What a record of glory and patriotism this
lovable boy has left to his country! And with what fortitude his parents
bore their most painful loss! Their example strengthened the anguished
hearts of many patriotic fathers and mothers of the land who suffered
like affliction.

       *       *       *       *       *

On Christmas Day Mrs. Straus and I received an invitation by telephone
to come to the White House between three and four o'clock to see the
Christmas tree. Some thirty or forty guests were there, mainly friends
of the family. In one of the side rooms in the basement of the house was
assembled a large company of children. The room was darkened, that the
lighted tree might stand out. There were presents for all the children,
and Mrs. Roosevelt played Lady Bountiful to see that each child got its
gift. Upstairs in the Red Room the gentlemen sat smoking. It was a
genuinely joyful and memorable day.

The social season in Washington is usually begun with the President's
New Year's reception, which lasts from eleven o'clock until half-past
two on New Year's Day. At a few minutes before eleven o'clock the
officials and their wives assembled upstairs, and promptly at eleven the
President and Mrs. Roosevelt led the march to the Blue Room. The
procession advanced toward the main stairway, where the line divided,
the ladies going to the left and the gentlemen to the right, reuniting
at the first landing; then through the main hall where the passageway
was roped off through a crowd of specially invited guests.

The order following the President was: the Cabinet officers; the doyen
of the diplomatic corps, the Italian ambassador and his staff; the
ambassadors and ministers of the other nations, according to rank. After
them, grouped in more or less regular order, the justices of the Supreme
Court, headed by the Chief Justice; Senators; Representatives; Army and
Navy officials; the officers of the Government.

On New Year's Day every one is accorded the right to pay his or her
respects to the President. The officials come straight to the White
House and the uninvited guests form a line on the grounds. On the
particular day of which I speak the line stretched through the grounds,
along Pennsylvania Avenue and down by the State Department Building,
probably more than half a mile long, and the President received about
sixty-five hundred people in all. At two o'clock the iron gates of the
White House grounds were closed, and those who had not reached that
point by that time were barred out. The reception had to end promptly,
as the Cabinet ladies who assisted had to be present at the receptions
at their own homes from half-past two until six, in accordance with a
custom that has been in vogue probably since the days of Washington. Our
buffet in the dining-room was kept well replenished, and there were
champagne and punch served. We had in all about four hundred guests.

The official functions at the White House during the Roosevelt
Administration were agreeable and in stately form. They were usually
followed by an informal supper to which were invited personal friends
and visitors.

[Illustration: MRS. OSCAR S. STRAUS]

Our series of official dinners began with the one to the
Vice-President and Mrs. Fairbanks and ended with the dinner to the
President and Mrs. Roosevelt. In addition we followed the pleasant
custom of the President and had guests to informal luncheons three or
four times a week. These luncheons we gave in the sun parlor back of our
dining-room, which was one of the attractive features of our Venetian
palace.

It was my privilege to give the last Cabinet dinner to the President, on
March 2d, two days before the close of the Administration. The event had
been postponed for a week on account of the death of the President's
nephew, Stewart Robinson, whose mother was the President's sister.
Governor and Mrs. Hughes, who were among our invited guests, stayed over
when it was found that the dinner had to be postponed. Mrs. Roosevelt
later informed me that she planned that our dinner be the last, knowing
that I had some sentiment about it which she and the President shared.

I have made several references to the wonderfully human touch
characteristic of Roosevelt. On February 5th, the day beginning the last
month of his Administration, a messenger from the White House brought me
a package containing a large folio, a handsomely illustrated memorial
volume describing the Castle of Wartburg in Saxony, in which Luther was
confined and where he worked on his translation of the Bible. The book
had been prepared by official direction, and Roosevelt had received two
copies of the royal edition, one from the Kaiser personally and one from
the Chancellor, which latter he sent to me with this inscription:

"To Mr. and Mrs. Oscar S. Straus, in memory of our days together in the
Administration; days which I have so much enjoyed and appreciated.
Theodore Roosevelt. February 5, 1909."




CHAPTER X

THE TAFT CAMPAIGN OF 1908

     Roosevelt favors Taft to succeed him--I visit Taft at
     Cincinnati--Roosevelt plans for his African trip--I take part in
     the Taft campaign--Roosevelt's method of preparedness--Election
     evening at the White House--Roosevelt rebukes a bigot; his letter
     on religious liberty--Taft tells Roosevelt he will retain Wright,
     Garfield, and me in his Cabinet--Roosevelt's speech at the dinner
     to Vice-President-elect Sherman--Looking toward the end of my term;
     the last Cabinet meeting--Closing the administration of Roosevelt
     and ushering in that of Taft.


Early in September, 1907, in a conversation with Roosevelt at Oyster
Bay, we touched on matters political and the forthcoming national
convention of the Republican Party for the nomination of a President.
Roosevelt had again publicly made the statement he gave out at the time
of his election, that he would not accept a renomination, and had made
known his desire that the party nominate Taft.

I had just returned from Hawaii, and told him that throughout my trip to
and from the Pacific Coast I observed an almost universal determination
to force the nomination upon him. I had met many people and addressed
several merchants' organizations and other bodies, and again and again
the sentiment of prominent Republicans was: "We know Roosevelt is
sincere in his statement that he would decline the nomination, but what
can he do if he is renominated? He is a patriotic man, and how can he
refuse to obey the unanimous wish of his party and the people at large?"
The President knew of this strong sentiment for him, and that was one of
the main reasons why he made the public and definite statement that he
favored the nomination of Taft, whom he regarded as best qualified to
carry forward the measures and policies of his Administration.

Some of Roosevelt's closest friends counseled him not in any way to
interfere with the selection of his successor. He practically agreed to
that, but in order to escape the nomination himself he felt compelled to
throw his influence toward Taft. I think it was Secretary Root at the
time who remarked that it would be impossible for Roosevelt to let the
tail of the tiger go without some such plan. Notwithstanding his
positive statements that he would not accept a renomination at the end
of his term, and his constant reiteration of this determination, the
pressure throughout the country was overwhelming.

The people naturally resent the selection of a candidate for them by the
President in office, and in the past have shown their resentment by the
defeat of such candidates. But the conditions surrounding the Taft
campaign were somewhat different. Roosevelt was committed heart and soul
to the moral principles for which his Administration had stood in face
of the mighty opposition of the "interests." How the force and might of
this opposition had grown until Roosevelt took up the "big stick" can
perhaps hardly be measured except by those who were with him in the
bitter fight. No one was more conversant with the principles and
policies of the Administration than Taft, and, all things considered,
perhaps none better qualified than he to carry them forward in a firm
and constructive way.

The logic of the situation was, of course, that Roosevelt stand again
for the Presidency, especially as that would not in reality have been a
third term. But he would not under any circumstances recede from the
decision announced on the night of his election. It required great
firmness not to be swept off his feet by the tremendous pressure to
induce him to consent to be renominated. In the face of these facts the
people were less inclined to resent his indicating his preference for
the successor whom he regarded as best qualified to carry forward the
policies he had inaugurated by such reforms as the rebate law against
railroads, the anti-trust laws, and child labor legislation, and other
progressive measures.

At the Cabinet meeting just before the summer vacation Taft came in
radiantly happy. He had been nominated the day before; it had been
understood for some time that he would be nominated on the first ballot.
Reflecting at the time upon the qualifications of Mr. Taft as a
successor to Roosevelt, I put down among my random notes that I thought
he possessed the very qualifications for constructively carrying forward
the principles Roosevelt had stood for, and which only Roosevelt could
have so courageously vitalized. Taft always appeared to be jovial and
kept, at least outwardly, a genially good-natured equilibrium. He
possessed to a marked degree a fund of spontaneous laughter--a valuable
asset in the armor of a public man. The power to create a good laugh has
at times not only the elements of argument, but of avoiding argument;
with it a man can either accede to a proposition or avoid acceding; it
can be committal or non-committal; it conceals as well as expresses
feelings, and acts as a wonderful charm in avoiding sharp and rugged
corners, in postponing issues and getting time for reflection. In the
practice of the law I was once associated with a very able man who had
the ability to laugh his opponent out of court. And his was a jeering
laugh where Taft's laugh was contagious and good-natured. Not that he
lacked the ability at times to be fearless and outspoken; he had shown
himself to be that in a number of speeches prior to his nomination.

Withal I could not help feeling sad that Roosevelt's plan had so well
succeeded, and in an intimate chat with the President after the Cabinet
meeting I told him so. He would not have been human if, amid the
satisfaction he felt in having his choice for the Presidency respected,
there was not some feeling of regret in stepping down from the greatest
office in the world, which he had administered with so much satisfaction
and success, and the duties and responsibilities of which he had enjoyed
more than perhaps any one of his predecessors. To use his own words as I
so frequently heard them: "I have had a bully time and enjoyed every
hour of my Presidency." Another four years in office would doubtless
have prolonged that enjoyment.

       *       *       *       *       *

Early in September I went to Cincinnati to meet Taft at his headquarters
in the Hotel Sinton, and Terence V. Powderly, head of the Information
Division of the Bureau of Immigration, formerly president of the Knights
of Labor, accompanied me. I brought to Taft's attention some
correspondence that had been conducted by Louis Marshall, of New York,
with Charles P. Taft, his brother, and with the candidate for
Vice-President on his ticket, Sherman, regarding some narrow and
prejudiced editorials on Russian immigration appearing in the Cincinnati
"Times-Star," owned by Charles P. Taft. I pointed out that not only were
these editorials untrue and unjust, but they did not reflect his policy
and yet were so interpreted. Secretary Taft then asked the editor of the
paper, Mr. Joseph Garretson, and his nephew, Hulbert Taft, to call on
me. With them I went over the whole subject, and upon my return to
Washington young Mr. Taft sent me a double-column article from the front
page of the "Times-Star," together with a double-column editorial,
forcefully and clearly written, embracing the whole matter as we had
covered it during my visit to Cincinnati.

Samuel Gompers had come out strongly in favor of Bryan, and no one could
tell what effect that might have on the great labor element of the
country. Mr. Powderly, who was very broad-minded and independent in his
politics, said it would have little if any effect on the labor vote, as
it is not a group vote, and no leader, however powerful, can make it so.
This statement later proved to be entirely correct. The Democrats among
the labor men went their way, and the Republicans went theirs.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Cabinet met again after the summer vacation on September 25th. The
President wanted to talk with me afterward about several matters, so I
waited and sat with him while he was being shaved. He spoke about the
arrangements he had made for his African trip, and said several
taxidermists of the Smithsonian Institution were to accompany him. I
told him that Dr. Adler of the Institution had spoken to me of the
matter, and my particular concern was that one of the men in his party
on this African expedition should be a physician. He assented, saying
that after all he was fifty years old and ought to be more careful about
his health than when he was younger. He seemed to know that I had had
something to do with enabling the Smithsonian Institution to supply
these men, but I did not let it appear that I knew much about it. When
his book "African Game Trails" appeared he sent me a copy with the
inscription:

                      To Oscar Straus
                      from his friend

                          THEODORE ROOSEVELT

                Nov. 1^{st} 1910.

In the Appendix he makes acknowledgment to several of his friends
including myself, "to all of whom lovers of natural history are
therefore deeply indebted."

He mentioned that he had had an invitation to give a lecture at Oxford
University upon his return, which he felt like accepting because it was
a course in which some of the most prominent men of the past, including
Gladstone, had lectured, and it appealed to him to speak at this ancient
university. I encouraged him to do so. He said he did not intend,
however, to accept invitations to other European countries, because he
did not wish to be fêted. This lecture would be more in line with his
work.

       *       *       *       *       *

At the request of Roosevelt and the urgent solicitation of Taft, I took
an active part in the campaign, making scores of speeches in the leading
cities of the East and Middle West. I made the first on September 26th,
the day after the first Cabinet meeting of the season, under the
auspices of the Interstate Republican League, in Washington. It was one
of the largest political meetings ever held there. I addressed myself to
a recent speech by ex-Secretary of State Olney, in which he had endorsed
Bryan. I pointed out how much more had been done under the Roosevelt
Administration than by the Democratic Administration with which Mr.
Olney was connected, in bringing suits against the trusts under the
Sherman law; that in Mr. Olney's time nearly all such suits were brought
against labor combinations, while in Roosevelt's time they were brought
against the offending corporations.

I had been in close touch with Roosevelt during his own campaign four
years before, but I must say he threw himself with greater energy into
Taft's campaign, watching every phase of it with great care and
circumspection to counteract every unfavorable tendency and to push
promptly every tactical advantage. On Sunday afternoon, September 27th,
I received a telephone message to come to the White House. When I
arrived I found present Secretaries Cortelyou and Meyer, Lawrence F.
Abbott, of "The Outlook," and William Loeb. Roosevelt was dictating a
letter to Bryan, in answer to the latter's attack upon the
Administration's policies, and invited each of us to make suggestions.
Those that seemed good he immediately incorporated. I had brought with
me some facts and figures that I prepared for campaign use, and all of
this material he embodied. When the dictation was finished, he asked us
to return at nine o'clock in the evening to go over the finished
product, as it was important that the letter be given to the press for
next morning's papers.

When we arrived in the evening, the President was already at his desk
correcting the typewritten pages, of which there were about twenty. The
duplicates were handed to us, and we passed them from one to another for
reading and suggestions. At one point I suggested changing an expression
to a more dignified form, which the President vetoed with the
characteristic remark: "You must remember this letter is not an etching,
but a poster." That was an apt illustration of his purpose, namely, to
attract and fix popular attention; and I withdrew my suggestion.

The published letter occupied three and a half newspaper columns. It was
powerful and effective and nailed some of the main fallacies that Bryan
had been expounding. This was the third such letter by Roosevelt, and
some people were inclined to criticize them as having the appearance of
overshadowing Taft and other campaign orators. This might have been true
to an extent, but it was of little consequence in comparison with the
tremendous effect of the letters in enlightening the people with regard
to the greater national principles for which Taft stood.

The following week I started on a campaign tour. I made speeches at
Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago. In accepting the pressing
invitation of the National Republican Committee to make a series of
speeches, I made one condition, which was that I would not speak at any
meeting gotten up on sectarian or hyphenated political lines. It was,
and I regret to say still is, customary, in political campaigns,
especially among local managers in smaller cities with large
foreign-born populations, to appeal to their former national sympathies.
I regarded this method as un-American and inimical to the solidarity of
our Americanism. My letter to the chairman of the speakers' bureau,
Senator Joseph M. Dixon, was by him given to the press and widely
published. It had a very good effect, and through that campaign at least
put an end to advertising and meetings based on race or creed appeal.
Upon my return to New York I spoke at a number of meetings in Brooklyn
and New York with Mr. Taft, the last and largest of these being the one
at Madison Square Garden, at which General Horace Porter presided.
Charles E. Hughes, who was candidate for Governor, also spoke on that
occasion.

       *       *       *       *       *

The President and Mrs. Roosevelt invited Mrs. Straus and me to return to
Washington with them in their private car on election day, after we had
voted in our respective districts. _En route_ the President again
mentioned the arrangements for his African trip and told me he had also
accepted an invitation to speak at the Sorbonne, Paris. He was already
preparing his Oxford address, the draft of which when ready he wanted
me to read. It is generally believed that Roosevelt did things hurriedly
and impulsively. But those of us who were acquainted with his methods
knew the contrary to be true. Preparedness was one of his outstanding
characteristics. He was a most industrious worker, and as soon as he
made up his mind to do something, whether it was to deliver an address
or to bring forward some reform, he set to work at once making
preparations, so as not to leave it until the time for the event was at
hand. In the case of his Oxford and Sorbonne addresses, for instance, he
prepared them long in advance and gave himself plenty of time to correct
and polish them. He told me he pursued this method because it freed his
mind and enabled him to be ready for the next thing to come before him.
That is certainly not the way an impulsive man works.

       *       *       *       *       *

Election evening in Washington we were invited to the White House to
receive the returns. The twenty-five or thirty other officials who were
in the city were also there with their wives. The returns began to come
in shortly after eight o'clock and were being tabulated by Secretary
Loeb and his assistants. It was soon evident that Taft was elected, so
that by eleven-thirty we were able to send congratulations to the
successful candidate and Frank H. Hitchcock, chairman of the National
Committee.

The greatest strength of Taft proved to be what many supposed would be
his weakness, namely, that he was the choice of Roosevelt and stood for
his principles. The masses had understood the President and appreciated
his policies, though the big interests, the "ledger patriots," had been
too blinded by their selfish objects to recognize the permanent value of
the principles and policies of America's greatest reformer.

I felt convinced then, as I do now, that the Roosevelt Administration
will go down in history as marking the beginning of a new era in our
history--an era marking the end of aggression upon our political
structure by corporate greed and the beginning of larger opportunities
for the individual, in which the moral principles of our public life
were rescued from the danger of domination by an unprecedented onrush of
commercial power.

       *       *       *       *       *

At the first Cabinet meeting after the election Roosevelt was buoyant as
usual. He made a few preliminary remarks about the approaching end of
the Administration: he and his Cabinet, especially the last one, had
worked in perfect harmony, and he felt sure we had all had a "bully"
time of it; he would retire at the end of his term without any regrets,
for he had the satisfaction of knowing that he and his Cabinet had done
all in their power for the greatest good of the Nation. I think it is
safe to say we all felt a little sad, I know I did, to think that in
four months we should separate, and that we should lose the inspiring
companionship and guidance of our leader, to whom each of us felt tied
by bonds of warm friendship and a sense of profound esteem and highest
respect, personally as well as officially.

It seemed to me then that it required no prophet's vision to see that,
if Roosevelt kept his health, in four or eight years the people of the
country would again demand, with unmistakable and overwhelming voice,
that he become President. At the end of eight years, even, he would be
only fifty-eight, younger than most Presidents at the time of assuming
office.

The President now brought up a question that he had been carrying over
from the campaign period. He had received several letters regarding the
religion of Mr. Taft. Some orthodox ministerial organizations had
endeavored to use the fact that Mr. Taft was a Unitarian as a reason for
prejudicing people against him. Roosevelt had been tempted to answer
these letters, but when he presented the matter to the Cabinet it was
the general consensus of opinion that he should not do so, that the
issue intimately concerned Taft, and information regarding it had better
be given out or withheld at Taft's discretion. To this the President
agreed, but he was incensed at this un-American attempt to bring
religion into politics, especially as Taft was every bit as good a
Christian as Washington, and a better one than either Jefferson or
Franklin; and his church was the same as that of Adams and Webster.

The election being over, Roosevelt was still desirous of expressing his
views in this matter, and he brought with him to the Cabinet meeting the
draft of a letter to be sent to one J. C. Martin, of Dayton, Ohio, who
had asked for a public statement concerning the faith of Mr. Taft. As
usual, he invited criticism and discussion. Several of us made
suggestions, and Secretary Root made one which the President asked him
to write out so that he might incorporate it. When the corrected version
of the letter was read, we all agreed that it was a remarkable document
for effectively rebuking the spirit of bigotry and upholding the basic
principles of the American Government, and that it should therefore be
published. It appeared in the papers of the country three days later.

I made bold to ask the President for the draft of this letter, which he
gladly signed and gave to me, and Secretary Root also signed his
penciled insert. As I consider this document worthy of a permanent place
among American annals, I herewith set it forth from the original in my
possession:


                                                THE WHITE HOUSE
                                        WASHINGTON, _November 4, 1908_

     MY DEAR SIR:

     I have received your letter running in part as follows:

     "While it is claimed almost universally that religion should not
     enter into politics, yet there is no denying that it does, and the
     mass of the voters that are not Catholics will not support a man
     for any office, especially for President of the United States, who
     is a Roman Catholic.

     "Since Taft has been nominated for President by the Republican
     party, it is being circulated and is constantly urged as a reason
     for not voting for Taft that he is an infidel (Unitarian) and his
     wife and brother Roman Catholics.... If his feelings are in
     sympathy with the Roman Catholic church on account of his wife and
     brother being Catholics, that would be objectionable to a
     sufficient number of voters to defeat him. On the other hand if he
     is an infidel, that would be sure to mean defeat.... I am writing
     this letter for the sole purpose of giving Mr. Taft an opportunity
     to let the world know what his religious belief is."

       *       *       *       *       *

     I received many such letters as yours during the campaign,
     expressing dissatisfaction with Mr. Taft on religious grounds; some
     of them on the ground that he was a Unitarian, and others on the
     ground that he was suspected to be in sympathy with Catholics. I
     did not answer any of these letters during the campaign because I
     regarded it as an outrage even to agitate such a question as a
     man's religious convictions, with the purpose of influencing a
     political election. But now that the campaign is over, when there
     is opportunity for men calmly to consider whither such propositions
     as those you make in your letter would lead, I wish to invite them
     to consider them, and I have selected your letter to answer because
     you advance both the objections commonly urged against Mr. Taft,
     namely: that he is a Unitarian, and also that he is suspected of
     improper sympathy with the Catholics.

     You ask that Mr. Taft shall "let the world know what his religious
     belief is." This is purely his own private concern; it is a matter
     between him and his Maker, a matter for his own conscience; and to
     require it to be made public under penalty of political
     discrimination is to negative the first principles of our
     Government, which guarantee complete religious liberty, and the
     right to each man to act in religious [affairs] as his own
     conscience dictates. Mr. Taft never asked my advice in the matter,
     but if he had asked it, I should have emphatically advised him
     against thus stating publicly his religious belief. The demand for
     a statement of a candidate's religious belief can have no meaning
     except that there may be discrimination for or against him because
     of that belief. Discrimination against the holder of one faith
     means retaliatory discrimination against men of other faiths. The
     inevitable result of entering upon such a practice would be an
     abandonment of our real freedom of conscience and a reversion to
     the dreadful conditions of religious dissensions which in so many
     lands have proved fatal to true liberty, to true religion, and to
     all advance in civilization.

     To discriminate against a thoroly upright citizen because he
     belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham
     Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an
     outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the
     foundations of American life. You are entitled to know whether a
     man seeking your suffrages is a man of clean and upright life,
     honorable in all his dealings with his fellows, and fit by
     qualification and purpose to do well in the great office for which
     he is a candidate; but you are not entitled to know matters which
     lie purely between himself and his Maker. If it is proper or
     legitimate to oppose a man for being a Unitarian, as was John
     Quincy Adams, for instance, as is the Rev. Edward Everett Hale, at
     the present moment Chaplain of the Senate, and an American of whose
     life all good Americans are proud--then it would be equally proper
     to support or oppose a man because of his views on justification by
     faith, or the method of administering the sacrament, or the gospel
     of salvation by works. If you once enter on such a career there is
     absolutely no limit at which you can legitimately stop.

     So much for your objections to Mr. Taft because he is a Unitarian.
     Now, for your objections to him because you think his wife and
     brother to be Roman Catholics. As it happens they are not; but if
     they were, or if he were a Roman Catholic himself, it ought not to
     affect in the slightest degree any man's supporting him for the
     position of President. You say that "the mass of the voters that
     are not Catholics will not support a man for any office, especially
     for President of the United States, who is a Roman Catholic." I
     believe that when you say this you foully slander your fellow
     countrymen. I do not for one moment believe that the mass of our
     fellow citizens or that any considerable number of our fellow
     citizens can be influenced by such narrow bigotry as to refuse to
     vote for any thoroly upright and fit man because he happens to have
     a particular religious creed. Such a consideration should never be
     treated as a reason for either supporting or opposing a candidate
     for political office. Are you aware that there are several States
     in this Union where the majority of the people are now Catholics? I
     should reprobate in the severest terms the Catholics who in those
     States (or in any other States) refused to vote for the most fit
     man because he happened to be a Protestant; and my condemnation
     would be exactly as severe for Protestants who, under reversed
     circumstances, refused to vote for a Catholic. In public life I am
     happy to say that I have known many men who were elected, and
     constantly reëlected, to office in districts where the great
     majority of their constituents were of a different religious
     belief. I know Catholics who have for many years represented
     constituencies mainly Protestant, and Protestants who have for many
     years represented constituencies mainly Catholic; and among the
     Congressmen whom I knew particularly well was one man of Jewish
     faith who represented a district in which there were hardly any
     Jews at all. All of these men by their very existence in political
     life refute the slander you have uttered against your fellow
     Americans.

     I believe that this Republic will endure for many centuries. If so
     there will doubtless be among its Presidents Protestants and
     Catholics, and very probably at some time Jews. I have consistently
     tried while President to act in relation to my fellow Americans of
     Catholic faith as I hope that any future President who happens to
     be a Catholic will act towards his fellow Americans of Protestant
     faith. Had I followed any other course I should have felt that I
     was unfit to represent the American people.

     In my Cabinet at the present moment there sit side by side
     Catholic and Protestant, Christian and Jew, each man chosen because
     in my belief he is peculiarly fit to exercise on behalf of all our
     people the duties of the office to wich [_sic_] I have appointed
     him. In no case does the man's religious belief in any way
     influence his discharge of his duties, save as it makes him more
     eager to act justly and uprightly in his relations to all men. The
     same principles that have obtained in appointing the members of my
     Cabinet, the highest officials under me, the officials to whom is
     entrusted the work of carrying out all the important policies of my
     administration, are the principles upon which all good Americans
     should act in choosing, whether by election or appointment, the man
     to fill any office from the highest to the lowest in the land.

                                       Yours truly
                                           THEODORE ROOSEVELT

It is amusing sometimes to contemplate the matters that occupy the
attention of certain zealously inclined religious persons or groups. I
recall the flurry caused the year previous by the appearance of the new
five, ten, and twenty-dollar gold pieces without the legend, "In God We
Trust," which by Roosevelt's direction had been omitted. As a matter of
fact that legend was not used on our coins prior to 1866, when a law was
passed permitting it subject to the approval of the Secretary of the
Treasury. The issuance of these coins, artistically designed by
Saint-Gaudens, without the legend was merely a return to the precedents
of the fathers of the Republic. I had a small collection of early coins
at the time, none of which bore the legend. However, when these new
coins appeared several religious bodies passed resolutions disapproving
of the President's action. Roosevelt gave out a statement to the effect
that he had always regarded that legend as connecting God and mammon,
and therefore not as religious, but as sacrilegious. But the opinion
against the omission was so strong that in subsequent coinage it was
restored. The agitation had been somewhat anticipated by the President,
and he was not the least perturbed by it. At a dinner one evening he
remarked to me, concerning it, that it was sometimes a good thing to
give people some unimportant subject to discuss, for it helped put
through more important things.

       *       *       *       *       *

After a Cabinet meeting toward the end of November, 1908, I was talking
with the President regarding various phases of the administration of my
Department, and I mentioned one or two matters that I hoped my successor
would carry to completion. Roosevelt said to me: "Well, I can tell you
one thing that Taft told me; you will be head of the Department under
the next Administration, if you will accept, and I want you to accept."
He had indicated this once or twice before, but had never stated it so
definitely. I had been perfectly content to finish my term of office
with the close of the Administration, but I felt if it was the wish of
both Roosevelt and Taft that I continue I should be happy to remain.

Taft had evidently intended retaining several of the Cabinet officials,
but subsequently changed his mind, which was one of the things that
caused the break between Roosevelt and him. Mr. Lawrence F. Abbott has
embodied in his excellent book, "Impressions of Theodore Roosevelt," an
article he contributed in January, 1912, to the Cornwall, New York,
local press, covering the Roosevelt-Taft relations. Before publication
this article was sent to Roosevelt, and by him annotated and returned to
Mr. Abbott. The part regarding the retention of Cabinet members reads as
follows:

     Mr. Taft on his election no doubt wished to carry on the work of
     his predecessor, and, if not publicly, often privately said that it
     was his desire and intention to retain those Cabinet colleagues of
     Mr. Roosevelt who had contributed so much to the re-creation of
     the Republican Party. [Note by Mr. Roosevelt: "_He told me so, and
     authorized me to tell the Cabinet, specifically Garfield, Straus
     and Luke Wright._"] But this intention became gradually modified
     during the winter of 1908-09.

On December 16th I attended the dinner of the Ohio Society in New York,
at which President-elect Taft made his first public address. There was a
notable gathering of the leaders of finance and commerce and of the
Republican Party, and great expectancy was evident as to what Mr. Taft
would say. Ex-Senator Spooner, a brilliant speaker, also made an
address, which contained some pointed criticisms of Roosevelt policies.
He extolled the Constitution and in a veiled way indicated a deviation
from it on the part of Roosevelt. Spooner had made other speeches along
these lines, and I confess to some exasperation that this occasion
should have been used to attack Roosevelt and his policies.

Taft was the last speaker, and I hoped that when he arose he would
resent these attacks, or at any rate uphold the policies of the
Administration of which he had been an important member. But I was
disappointed. He took no notice of what Spooner or one or two of the
other speakers had said. To some of us this was the first evidence that
there was a rift in the relationship between Roosevelt and Taft.

Mr. Taft invited me to return to Washington on the train with him next
morning. _En route_ I spoke of Spooner's speech, and said it appeared to
me as an attempt to drive a wedge between him (Taft) and the Roosevelt
policies, and that the attack was received by the great financiers who
were present, Harriman, Ryan, and others, with great favor. Taft said he
had observed it and did not like it. He thought first that he might say
something in reply, but on second consideration he decided to let it
pass. I told him that usually I enjoyed such an occasion more when I did
not have to speak, but on that evening I very much regretted not having
the opportunity to answer that attack.

We talked of a number of things, but he said nothing about desiring to
have me continue in the Cabinet, though Roosevelt had mentioned the
subject to me several times. I then concluded that while in New York a
change of mind had come to him in this matter, and what occurred at the
dinner seemed to emphasize this conclusion. He was going down to
Augusta, Georgia, for a short vacation and asked me to come and see him;
but when I reached Washington there was much to be done in my
Department, and, as he was besieged by politicians and I had nothing
special to bring to his attention, I thought the more considerate thing
was not to take up his time needlessly.

       *       *       *       *       *

In January the New York delegation in Congress gave a dinner to
Vice-President-elect Sherman at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington. There
were present all the New York Congressmen, Speaker Cannon, the junior
Senator from New York, Depew, and Senator-elect Root. Along about ten
o'clock the President arrived. As usual on such occasions, there was
informal speaking, and of course the President was called upon. His
offhand remarks that evening were so inspiring that I regretted they
were not taken down that they might have been preserved. In my random
notes I have incorporated the substance of some of them; to the effect
that our highest purpose should be to perform the duties before us. He
said he had been in public life twenty-six years (as I understood), and
nearly eight years of that as President, and he had enjoyed it all;
adding, humorously, "even the scraps I have had."

Referring to the presidential duties, it was not always possible to
spell out from the words of the Constitution what those duties imposed
upon the occupant of the office. He instanced the anti-Japanese outbreak
in California. There was nothing in the Constitution that either
permitted or conflicted with his taking the position he had in his
communications to the Governor of California. It was his purpose to call
the attention of the people at large in that State and throughout the
country to the dangers of the situation if the contemplated legislation
were put through. He referred to the impractical attitude of the peace
societies and other peace advocates in objecting to all appropriations
for naval expenditures. They could render a better service by agitating
to prevent a condition of international irritation that had all the
possibilities of war; the good effect of the well-considered
"Gentlemen's Agreement" with Japan had been negatived by the
unreasonable legislation proposed in California.

Making reference in a general way to the work of the Administration, he
said it was important to look to the future, but to fix one's eyes on
the future and neglect the present was as unwise as to limit one's view
entirely to the present. He hoped the people would not trouble
themselves as to what to do with the ex-President; so far as he was
concerned he was able to take care of himself; upon his return from
Africa they would find him working not as an ex-President, but as a
private citizen in the ranks, and coöperating with his party
representatives for the best interests of the country.

He closed by saying that what may become of one's personal reputation,
one's fame as an individual, is of no consequence. The individual
disappears. Oblivion will engulf us all. Only results count. In order to
achieve results there must be coöperation. He was always ready to
coöperate with men whose tendencies were forward, even if such
coöperation led only one step forward where he would have liked ten; but
he would refuse to coöperate with men whose tendencies were backward.

       *       *       *       *       *

In my Department I continued to push matters forward without allowing
the approaching close of the Administration to influence me. Under date
of January 22d I received a letter from President-elect Taft, in answer
to my inquiry, indicating that in all probability I should not be
retained in the Cabinet. He said he would have written sooner, but had
not decided in what capacity he wished me to serve his Administration,
though he thought perhaps I might be willing to accept an embassy.
However, he had not definitely decided not to retain me in the Cabinet.
He found Cabinet-making quite a difficult job.

Three days later I received another note from him mentioning the embassy
to Japan. He hoped to suit whatever preference I might have in the
matter after he had had a chance to talk it over with me in Washington.

At the last Cabinet meeting there was very little business transacted.
The President talked to us informally and very impressively, saying he
wished to repeat, what he had said before, that a President usually
receives credit for all the good work done in his Administration, but,
speaking for himself, his co-workers had an equal share in that credit;
no President, he said, had had a more effective, able, and coöperative
Cabinet than he. Then he added humorously that he wanted no response to
modify that statement. Some of us, however, could not resist expressing
in brief the sentiments we felt, and I answered him: If we have
performed our duties to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the
country, it is due in no small degree to the fact that around this table
we have caught the contagion of your fine spirit which has enabled each
of us to rise to our highest level of efficiency because we felt we were
coöperating in furthering those moral issues which you have vitalized in
our economic and national life, I wish to add that our President in his
boundless generosity has always given to each one of us not only the
fullest credit for what we have done, but a recognition far beyond our
individual merits.

       *       *       *       *       *

On March 4th, at nine-thirty in the morning, the members of the Cabinet
assembled in the White House and accompanied the President to the
Capitol. We went to the President's room on the Senate side and there
awaited the bills to be brought in for the signature of the President.
That is usual at the closing of a session, and many bills that had been
passed in the last few days came from the engrosser for the signature of
the President. Each bill was handed to the Secretary whose department it
affected, and upon reading it over the Secretary advised the President
whether or not to sign it. There were three bills affecting my
Department, two of which I approved, and those he signed. Of the third I
had no knowledge and so stated; that one the President passed to become
law without his signature.

At eleven o'clock President-elect Taft came into the room, and we all
extended our congratulations to him. Precisely at noon President
Roosevelt went into the Senate Chamber and we followed. Both he and the
President-elect took a seat before the Vice-President's desk, and we
were seated in the front row, where were also the ambassadors of the
foreign powers. Vice-President Fairbanks opened the proceedings with an
appropriate address, whereupon Vice-President-elect Sherman was sworn in
and made a brief address. The new Senators were then sworn in in groups
of four. President-elect Taft next took the oath of office, which was
administered by Chief Justice Fuller.

Roosevelt then left the Senate Chamber to go to the station. In our
carriages we followed him, and at either side marched over a thousand
Republican delegates from the City of New York. One could observe on all
sides evidence of a feeling of depression and regret at the departure of
the man who had endeared himself to the country at large as no President
had since the days of Lincoln. It was apparent then, as the years have
proven, that he had the largest personal following ever attained by any
man in this country. By personal following I mean one that is not
dependent on office, but persists out of office as well. People were
attracted to him because he appealed to their idealism. They had faith
in him; they had an affection for him. They believed he would lead them
where they ought to go and where, therefore, they wished to go. It was
the fact that the mass of the people throughout the land regarded him
with love and admiration as the embodiment of their ideals of
Americanism which enabled him to exercise such a tremendous power for
the welfare of the country and which is destined to enshrine his memory
among the greatest men in our history.

When we reached the station, the large room reserved on special
occasions for officials was closed, and only such persons admitted as
were identified by Secretary Loeb--members of the family, members of the
Cabinet, and a few intimate friends. When I bade the President, now
ex-President, good-bye, he said we should meet often and should still
work together.

Roosevelt at the age of fifty was once more a private citizen, having
been the youngest President in our history. I am sure I speak for my
colleagues as well as for myself when I say we felt we were parting not
only from our official chief, but from one of our nearest and dearest
friends.

We returned in our carriages to the White House where we took buffet
lunch with President and Mrs. Taft; then to the stand erected in front
of the White House to witness the review.




CHAPTER XI

MY THIRD MISSION TO TURKEY

     A surgical operation delays my departure--Roosevelt in Africa
     delighted with my return to Turkey under Taft
     Administration--Received by another Sultan--A royal weakling--The
     invisible power of the new régime--Foreign concessions and
     political intrigues--Turkish funeral customs--The Mohammedan
     indifference to death--Roosevelt urges me to meet him in Cairo--We
     visit Salonica and Athens--Received by King George of Greece
     --Roosevelt's arrival at Cairo--The Kaiser's invitation--Roosevelt
     condemns assassination of Premier despite warning to avoid subject
     in his address--Roosevelt declines an audience with the Pope--At
     tea with Prince and Princess Eitel Friedrich--A distinguished Arab
     on international relations--Rumblings in the Balkans--The brilliant
     Venizelos--My objections to "dollar diplomacy"--Former
     Vice-President and Mrs. Fairbanks visit us--Other distinguished
     Americans visit the Embassy--We visit the King and Queen of
     Roumania--How the Queen adopted the pen-name "Carmen Sylva"--The
     cell-like study of the Queen--Vienna and London--Two Rothschilds
     express their views of the Triple Entente--"The greatest pleasure
     of going abroad is returning home"--Reflections of the rift between
     the Roosevelt policies and the Taft Administration.


My return to private life in 1909 did not prove a disturbing transition
for me, notwithstanding the fact that, on entering the Cabinet in 1906,
I had terminated all of my professional and business interests, I had no
plans for the future. I had always entered public office not without
some trepidation, and had always retired from such an office with a
certain sense of relief and satisfaction. But my past training and
natural disposition had by no means prepared me to be content with a
life of "elegant leisure," I soon found much to occupy my energies, and
again took part in numerous semi-public activities, and my coöperation
seemed all the more welcome because of my experience in office both at
home and abroad.

Soon after my return to New York, I was formally welcomed at a banquet
at the Hotel Astor, under the auspices of a number of prominent
citizens, led by William McCarroll, who had succeeded me as president of
the New York Board of Trade when I had left for Washington. It was, of
course, gratifying to me to receive this attention from my fellow
citizens, irrespective of party, among whom I expected to pass my
remaining years. Among the speakers were John Mitchel, St. Clair
McKelway, Richard Watson Gilder, poet and editor of the "Century
Magazine"; the Reverend Leander Chamberlain, and Dr. Lyman Abbott. Dr.
Abbott, one of America's foremost intellectual and spiritual leaders, is
the only surviving member of this group, and I am happy to be able to
record that he is still in good health, with his pen, which has lost
nothing of its charm and vigor, ever inspiring.

I quite dismissed from my mind any idea of holding office in the Taft
Administration, especially after Taft had reconsidered his statement or
promise to Roosevelt to retain me in the Cabinet. Shortly after my
return from Washington, however, on March 13, 1909, President Taft wrote
me that he would be glad to have me accept the embassy at
Constantinople, and that in time he would transfer me to some other post
that might be more acceptable. He concluded: "I hope this will meet your
view, because I should like to have you in my administration."

My personal relations with Mr. Taft had of course always been most
cordial and agreeable. I wrote him that, naturally, I had no desire to
return to a post which I had occupied twice before, unless extraordinary
conditions developed which particularly required my past experience
there and made it imperative that I accept as a public duty, and even
then I should accept only for a short time.

The President wrote me that he would be glad to have me accept the post
at Constantinople (which had been raised to an embassy since my last
mission), and that in time he would transfer me either to Japan or to
some acceptable post in Europe, and I soon received the following letter
from the State Department:


                                                 _April 29, 1909_

     MY DEAR MR. STRAUS:

     The President now desires me to make to you the formal offer of the
     post of Ambassador to Turkey. The epoch-making events now occurring
     in the Turkish Empire bring with them difficulties and
     opportunities which make that post take on even greater importance,
     and the President feels that your past service and keen knowledge
     of the Near East make you peculiarly qualified to take charge at
     this time of the important Embassy at Constantinople.

     Adverting to your previous conversations with the President and
     with me, relative to your disinclination to accept a post which you
     have previously held, I would add that the President would be glad
     to consider your transfer from Constantinople to some other post if
     an opportune time should arrive when this was practicable and when
     you wished to relinquish the important mission which is now
     tendered to you.

         I am, my dear Mr. Straus,
                             Very sincerely yours
                                                  P. C. KNOX

In June, while I was getting ready for my departure, I was compelled to
undergo an operation for appendicitis. I therefore wrote the President
asking him to relieve me of my appointment, as my illness would delay me
for another month or more. The President promptly advised me not to be
disturbed by the delay, that he would be glad to wait until my health
was entirely restored before having me start, and that it was not
possible, because of the troubled conditions in Turkey, at that time to
find any one to replace me.

At this time I received a letter from Roosevelt, addressed from the
heart of British East Africa, expressing pleasure at my again going to
Turkey:


                                        SAIGO SOI, LAKE NAIVASHA
                                            _16th July, 1909_

     MY DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR:

     Your letter gave me real pleasure. Mrs. Roosevelt had written of
     you, and your dear wife, and two beautiful daughters, coming out to
     see her; and she told me how much she enjoyed your visit. As for
     the address at the dedication of the memorial window, my dear
     fellow, you said the very things that I would most like to have
     said about me, especially coming from a man whom I so much respect
     and who is my close personal friend.

     I am delighted that you have accepted the Turkish Embassy. The
     situation was wholly changed by the revolution, and at this moment
     I think that Constantinople is the most important and most
     interesting diplomatic post in the world.

     I shan't try to write to you at any length, for I find it simply
     impossible to keep up with correspondence here in camp, and am able
     to write my letters at all at the moment only because a friend has
     turned up with a typewriter.

     I can't say how I look forward to seeing you. I know nothing
     whatever of American politics at the present moment. We have had a
     very successful and enjoyable trip.

     With love to Mrs. Straus and with hearty congratulations not to you
     but to our country for your having gone to Turkey, I am

                          Faithfully yours
                                        THEODORE ROOSEVELT

The first paragraph refers to an address I had made in May. The Reverend
J. Wesley Hill, of the Metropolitan Temple, had one of the windows of
his church dedicated to the Roosevelt Administration and I was asked to
deliver the principal address. I took for my subject "The Spirit of the
Roosevelt Administration," and reviewed the leading progressive acts of
the Administration and pointed out how they were all aimed to secure
the rights and enlarge the opportunities of the plain people. I had in
mind counteracting the influence then current to belittle the work of
the Roosevelt Administration. For with the beginning of the Taft
Administration, the reactionaries in and out of Congress had become more
bitter and outspoken in their opposition to the Roosevelt policies; it
seems that they were encouraged by the report that a break had taken
place between Roosevelt and Taft, and by the fact that certain Senators
and members of the House who had fallen out with Roosevelt seemed to be
specially welcomed at the White House. My address was therefore widely
quoted in the press and subsequently circulated in pamphlet form. I
quote one of its salient paragraphs:

     All the Roosevelt measures and policies were based not only upon
     moral convictions, but upon a statesman's forethought for the
     welfare of the country. That he would encounter the powerful
     opposition of the offending corporate interests was to be foreseen
     and expected. All reforms and reformers no less in our country than
     in others have encountered the reactionaries of privilege and
     power, who persuaded themselves that their so-called vested
     interests, however acquired and however administered, were their
     vested rights. These trespassing reactionaries when not checked and
     made obedient to the legitimate needs and righteous demands of the
     many produced a spirit of revenge which broke out into revolution
     at the extreme opposite end of the social system.

On August 18th Mrs. Straus and I left New York on the S.S. Prinz
Friedrich Wilhelm for Cherbourg. A week later we were in Paris, where we
met Mrs. Roosevelt with three of her children, Ethel, Archie, and
Quentin. During the fortnight of our stay we saw a great deal of them
and several times we went to the theater or sight-seeing together. Mrs.
Roosevelt told me that her husband had solicitously inquired about us
in several of his letters and suggested that I write him.

When we reached Constantinople on September 18th, the month of Ramazan
had begun, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rifaat Pasha, informed
me that the Sultan, now Mohammed V, brother of Abdul Hamid, would
probably delay receiving me for a week or ten days, until the middle of
Ramazan, and not at the end, as was customary with the former Sultan.
Accordingly I was received on Monday, October 4th.

The residence of the new Sultan was in the Palace of Dolma Bagtché. As
my rank now was that of ambassador, this audience was a more ceremonious
one than those of my former missions. Eight royal carriages came from
the Palace to conduct me and my staff to the residence of His Royal
Majesty. The first of these, in which I rode, was a most gorgeous
affair, with outriders and two postilions in uniforms of brilliant
colors standing on a platform in the rear of the carriage. The streets
of Pera were crowded with spectators as these dazzling equipages went
by, in spite of a light rain that was falling. As we entered the Palace,
a large troop of soldiers arranged along each side of the main gate
presented arms. I was met by the Chief Introducer of Ambassadors and
several other officials, who conducted me to the audience chamber above.
With my dragoman, Mr. Gargiulo, I then proceeded with the Chief
Introducer of Ambassadors into the presence of the Sultan while the rest
of my staff were detained in an anteroom.

The Sultan was a man of about sixty-five, short and very thick-set. He
was dressed in military uniform, but appeared physically inert and
clumsy. During the whole thirty-three years' reign of his brother, Abdul
Hamid, he had been imprisoned in a palace on the Bosphorus and kept
under constant guard. He grew up in ignorance and his appearance clearly
indicated mental backwardness. His eyes were dull and his appearance
almost that of an imbecile, except when an occasional spark of animation
was noticeable. Withal he seemed kind and good-natured.

When I made my address, I felt as though I were speaking to an image
rather than a human being, and I went through it as quickly as possible,
omitting some parts for the sake of brevity, realizing that it was
simply a form and that the Introducer of Ambassadors would presently
read the whole of it in Turkish. The Sultan was then handed the Turkish
reply to read, which he did haltingly, even consulting the Introducer at
times to decipher a word. That being over, the doors to the anteroom
were thrown open and my staff entered, also the consul-general and his
staff, and each man was presented to the Sultan. We were then conducted
back to the anteroom and served with cigarettes and coffee, even though
it was Ramazan, when Mohammedans do not drink or smoke until after
sundown. In a few minutes more we were conducted back to our carriages.
The whole function was more in the nature of mimicry on the stage than a
serious diplomatic performance.

With my dragoman I paid my official calls upon the Grand Vizier and the
Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Porte, both of whom received me in
full-dress uniform and immediately returned the calls.

The Government of Turkey under the new régime, with a Sultan who was
merely a figurehead, was in the hands of the ministry, and the ministers
in turn were appointed and controlled by the Young Turks, or so-called
party of "Union and Progress" which had brought on the revolution of
1908 and deposed the late Sultan in April, 1909. It required no great
insight to see that a government thus controlled by an invisible power
without official responsibility could not be one of either liberty or
progress; yet the leading ministers were men of ability and some of them
men of considerable experience. Rifaat Pasha, for instance, was formerly
ambassador to London, an intelligent and thoroughly enlightened
statesman. Hussein Hilmi Pasha, the Grand Vizier, was the former member
of a joint committee charged with the government of Macedonia. Talaat
Bey, the Minister of the Interior, had previously held an inferior
position. He was one of the leading representatives of the Young Turk
Party and was believed to be the one mainly responsible for the terrible
slaughter and martyrdom of Armenians during the World War. After that
war he fled to Berlin, where, in 1920, he was assassinated by a young
Armenian. Djavid Bey, Minister of Finance, was a remarkably brilliant
young man, about thirty-four years old, from Salonica. It was said he
was a Donmeh; that is, a member of a sect of apostate Jews also known as
Sabbatians from the name of its Messiah or prophet, Sabbataï Zevi, who
gave the sect its romantic origin in the middle of the seventeenth
century. Professor Graetz gives a full and interesting description of
this whole movement in his "History of the Jews."

Among my colleagues were Gerard Lowther, who represented Great Britain;
Marquis Imperiali, Italy; and Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, Germany.
Because of the lack of general society in Constantinople, the members of
the diplomatic corps became very intimate with one another, and this was
so with my colleagues generally and especially between the German
ambassador and myself, for we were also fellow members of the Hague
Tribunal, and in 1907 he was chairman of the German delegation at the
Conferences. He was by far the ablest and most forceful diplomat in
Constantinople at this period. During his term of office there, German
influence in the Ottoman Empire entirely overshadowed the British. This
influence started its ascendancy following the visit of the Emperor in
1898, when he obtained the promise of the concession for the building of
the Bagdad Railway.

When first the Ottoman Government granted this concession, the
financiers of Great Britain, France, and Germany had come to a tentative
agreement for the joint construction of the road. The Germans then
wanted more than an equal control in the enterprise, and the
negotiations fell through. Had the interests of Great Britain and
Germany been united in the Near East, there probably would have been
quite a different alignment of Powers on the chessboard of Europe, and
perhaps the World War would have been prevented. The Bagdad Railway, if
jointly constructed, would have contributed to a better understanding
between Great Britain and Germany instead of accentuating more and more
their differences as the road proceeded toward the Persian Gulf.

I could plainly see evidences, both in social life in the Turkish
capital and in the unmistakable trend of diplomatic alignments, of a
rapidly developing entente between Great Britain, France, and Russia.
Since the Russo-Japanese War, and with the coming of the new régime in
Turkey, Russia had changed her attitude toward Turkey and had become
extremely friendly. Italy maintained a neutral attitude as between Great
Britain and Germany. Austria, as always, if not controlled by, was in
close sympathy with, Germany.

Abdul Hamid had developed into the most autocratic ruler of modern
times. With the overthrow of his régime and its colossal system of
secret agents, there was hope for a gradual development of a
parliamentary government, especially as some of the officials in the
Turkish ministry were forward-looking men, of considerable ability and
honesty of purpose. However, just as the jealousy between the Great
Powers had prevented the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire for a
hundred years or more, so the same jealousy prevented rehabilitation.
Great Britain favored the building up of Turkey; the policy of Russia,
Germany, and Austria was to keep Turkey weak and disorganized.

With the establishment of the new régime Germany, England, France, and
Italy sought concessions from the Government for the development of
mines and the building of railroads, docks, and other public utilities.
The country was rich and undeveloped, and the Turks themselves had
neither the capacity nor the money for such undertakings. But the effect
of these concessions was undermining the sovereignty and was
foreshadowing conflict.

With the passing of the old régime and the beginning of the new, an
appalling massacre of Armenians had taken place in Cilicia; and it was
believed that this massacre, which cost the lives of twenty thousand or
more victims, was engineered by the old régime to discredit the new.

The first fall of the new ministry was brought about by what was known
as the Lynch affair, which concerned a steamship monopoly of an English
company on the Tigris and Euphrates. The Lynch Company had a perpetual
concession to navigate two steamers from the Persian Gulf to Bassora,
and from there to Bagdad on the Tigris and as far as navigable on the
Euphrates. There was also a Turkish company with a similar concession,
and the English company undertook negotiations with the Grand Vizier for
the consolidation of the two companies, by which the Lynch Company was
to pay the Ottoman Government £160,000 in cash. The new company was to
have a grant for seventy-two years, with the right given to the Ottoman
Government to buy it all out at the end of thirty-six years on a basis
to be agreed upon. The new company was to have the monopoly of the
navigation, and it was to have an English president with a board of
directors composed half of Englishmen and half of Turkish subjects.

The arrangements were made on behalf of the ministry by the Grand
Vizier, Hilmi Pasha, and the matter was then brought up under
interpellation in the Parliament. The first vote taken was against
confirmation of the transaction. This amounted to an expression of lack
of confidence in the ministry, whereupon the Grand Vizier stated that
unless the transaction was confirmed, he and his colleagues would
resign. Two days later, on motion of Djavid Bey, the eloquent Minister
of Finance, the whole matter was reconsidered and an equally large vote
cast confirming the transaction. Aside from registering confidence or
the lack of it in the ministry, the vote against confirmation would also
have been interpreted as an act of hostility toward England. For the
time being the problem was settled.

Shortly thereafter, however, there arose in the Bagdad vilayet such
opposition to this transaction that the deputies from that province
threatened to withdraw from Parliament. The negotiations were regarded
as a victory for England in the strengthening of her influence along the
Persian Gulf, and a defeat for the Germans, whose railway terminus would
be at Bassora, at the junction of the two rivers. The Persian Gulf, on
the other hand, was of strategic interest to Great Britain because it is
the corridor to India. German influence proved the stronger with the
Young Turks, and the consolidation of the Lynch Company with the Turkish
company was not confirmed.

This vote resulted in the fall of the ministry, for a month later the
Young Turks forced the resignation of the Grand Vizier. In giving his
resignation to the Sultan, the Grand Vizier stated his reason as poor
health, but that was merely for public consumption. Talaat Bey and
Djavid Bey were known to be prominent members of the Young Turks, and
the Grand Vizier, who had been Minister of the Interior and then Grand
Vizier under the former Sultan, was not fully trusted as being in accord
with the régime of the Young Turks. To bridge over this ministerial
crisis the Young Turks offered to Hakki Pasha, ambassador at Rome, the
grand viziership, which he accepted.

       *       *       *       *       *

Early in the year 1910 the diplomatic circle in Constantinople was
thrown, if not into gloom, at least into official mourning. The Grand
Duke Nicolaiovich, uncle of Czar Nicholas of Russia, and King Leopold of
Belgium, died. At Constantinople, more than at any capital in the world,
ceremonies of any kind were exaggerated to make an impression upon the
Turkish mind. And so in both these instances elaborate funeral services
were held which the diplomatic representatives attended in full uniform,
loaded with all decorations. The service for the Grand Duke lasted about
two hours, although no one apparently listened to any part but the
singing, and there was a general sigh of relief when it was over. The
service for the Belgian king was of a similar nature, with the addition
of a huge catafalque, surmounted by a crown, erected in the center of
the church, which was so cold that most of us kept on our overcoats.

Shortly thereafter I attended a third funeral, this time a Turkish one.
Hamdy Bey, director and organizer of the Imperial Museum, had died on
February 24, 1910, at about sixty-eight years of age. I had known him
for twenty years; he had always been courteous and obliging to American
visitors, and had shown many special favors to me, notably in regard to
the permit for the Babylonian excavations. The services took place at
eleven in the morning in front of the entrance to the Sophia Mosque. The
funeral cortège consisted of about a dozen dervishes clad in long black
robes with high conical head-coverings made of rough yellowish-gray
woolen material, and about three times the height of an ordinary fez.
They chanted in plaintive tones, "Allah! Allah! Allah!" Next came the
coffin-bearers, six in number. As is the custom among the Mohammedans,
the coffin was of plain boards, covered with shawls, over which was
draped a black covering with some phrases from the Koran worked into it.
On top of the coffin was the red fez or head-covering of the deceased.
Behind the coffin walked many of the leading officials of the Government
and other prominent people. The entire ministry was present. I joined
the procession shortly before reaching the mosque and was asked to walk
beside Rifaat Pasha, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I was the only
representative of a foreign power present, and my attendance was warmly
appreciated by the Turkish officials and by the relatives of the
deceased.

When the procession reached the mosque, the coffin was placed upon the
pediment of a Greek column near the entrance, an appropriate place for
it to rest, I thought. All the mourners having gathered round, one of
the imans or priests standing by the coffin recited a prayer of about
six minutes' duration, in the midst of which he put the following
questions in Turkish to the bystanders:

"You all knew Hamdy Bey; what kind of a man was he?"

And the audience replied "Eyi," meaning "good."

"If he has done any wrong to you, do you forgive him?"

Their reply in Turkish signified, "We do."

The body was then borne on the shoulders of the carriers to the museum
enclosure which was near by, in front of the Chinili Kiosque. Djavid Bey
then mounted the marble portico and from there delivered a funeral
oration lasting about twelve minutes, in which he referred to the
excellent work accomplished by the deceased under the most trying
circumstances during the reign of corruption and oppression, and pointed
to the buildings surrounding the enclosure as the most fitting and
lasting memorial.

A funeral among the Mohammedans is not regarded as a cause for mourning.
Death is looked upon as a matter of course. Every respect is shown the
memory of the deceased, but there is neither sanctimony nor suppressed
sorrow at the funeral service. This is doubtless due to the spirit of
fatalism deeply embedded in their religion, and which colors so deeply
the life and philosophy of a Mohammedan.

The attitude of prayer on the part of the bystanders during this
ceremony was one I had never observed at the ordinary services in the
mosques. They all stood erect, arms horizontally extended forward from
the elbow, palms turned upward. The simplicity of the whole service
impressed me very much. The entire dramatic scene, in its picturesque
surroundings, was unforgettable. The day was bright and beautiful, and
the Bosphorus wore its most attractive coloring. Turkish functions,
whether official or ceremonial, are always arranged with quiet dignity
and precision.

Among the pleasant things during this sojourn in Constantinople was a
trip to Cairo to meet Roosevelt. On New Year's Day, 1910, I received a
note from him scribbled off in pencil, asking that I meet him if
possible about March 22d at Cairo; he would wire me later from the upper
Nile a more exact date. He could not come to Constantinople because he
had to include Christiania in his itinerary, which made it a little
difficult to carry out his plans.

In due time I received a telegram from him from Gondokoro, on the lower
Nile, to meet him on March 23d. Accordingly Mrs. Straus and I started
from Constantinople on March 7th in the embassy dispatch boat, Scorpion,
a ship of about seven hundred and fifty tons, manned by a crew of
seventy-five or eighty bluejackets. We left a little early in order to
be able to make stops at several ports on the way, notably Salonica,
which in many respects was the most advanced city of the empire. It had
about 135,000 inhabitants, of whom some 20,000 were Greek, 15,000
Bulgarian and other Balkan peoples, and the rest chiefly Jews. The
ancestors of many of the latter had settled there centuries before as
refugees from Spain at the time of the Inquisition. As was the case with
many of the other Jews of Turkey their language was Ladino, a Spanish
dialect.

We stayed at Salonica three days and visited the principal institutions
of the city, and the Jewish hospitals and schools, all of which I found
superior to any I had seen in Turkey proper. They were conducted on
modern scientific lines. The leaders of finance and industry were the
Jews and the Greeks, while at the same time the hewers of wood and the
drawers of water, those who loaded the ships and did the hauling, were
also principally Jews.

Next we stopped at Athens, where we met my brother Isidor and his wife,
who were making a tour of the Orient. Our six-days' stay in Athens was
made delightful for us by the courtesies of our minister, George H.
Moses, now and for some years past United States Senator from New
Hampshire. We visited the Boulé, or Greek Chamber, one afternoon. What
mainly impressed one was the lack of decorum and dignity. The Minister
of War, who also represented the military league, was the dominating
power. I thought then how unfortunate it was for a country to be ruled
by the sabered politician. Then truly does the army become a curse to
the Government, as well as inefficient for the protection it is supposed
to give. When the army enters politics, then politics also enters the
army, a double calamity for any state. But that seemed to be the
lamentable condition of Greece as I saw it at that time.

We were received in audience by King George, who spoke perfect English.
I had met him before, on my visit to Athens in 1888. He conversed freely
and with the objectiveness of an outsider about the disturbed political
conditions of Greece, which was at the time dominated by a military
league, a secret organization of army officers. Referring to this
league, the King said that outsiders probably regarded him as weak in
giving way to its demands, but that they did not appreciate conditions;
he did it to prevent a revolution, and he hoped that unity among the
people might be promoted by the approaching meeting of the Assembly for
the revision of the constitution.

He seemed remarkably well informed regarding our system of government
and American affairs generally. He said that Greece needed a council of
state with coördinate legislative power, rather than a senate. He
appeared to favor a small appointed body rather than an elective
senate. He said he had been in Greece for fifty years; he had come there
when he was eighteen and was educated for the navy. He added drily that
it might have been better if he had stuck to the profession of his
training.

He knew I was on my way to Egypt to meet Roosevelt for whom he expressed
the greatest admiration. He said he had read several of Roosevelt's
books and had always had a desire to meet him.

We went on to Alexandria by the Roumanian boat. The sea seemed rough, so
we thought best to send the Scorpion on ahead so that we might make the
trip leisurely, and on March 21st we arrived in Cairo, where
Consul-General Iddings had reserved rooms for us at the Shepheard Hotel,
adjoining the suite reserved for the Roosevelts.

The Roosevelt party arrived from Luxor at about nine o'clock on the
morning of March 24th. We went to the station to meet the train, and
there was quite a gathering, including the consul-general and his wife,
an aide of the Khedive, an aide of the Sirdar, a number of American
missionaries, and several others. Cairo was astir. American flags were
flying on many buildings, and at the hotel a great crowd cheered as
Roosevelt entered.

After breakfast the first morning, Roosevelt wanted me to read several
letters he had dictated, among others a reply to the invitation that had
been extended by the Kaiser asking Roosevelt to be his guest in the
palace in Berlin. The invitation did not include Mrs. Roosevelt, and
this he resented. He therefore dictated a letter to Ambassador David J.
Hill saying he would be pleased to call on the Emperor on the day
designated, but could not accept the invitation to be his guest, as he
did not purpose to separate from Mrs. Roosevelt. He asked Ambassador
Hill to be sure to submit the message to the Emperor's chamberlain in
such a way that it could not be construed as a hint for an invitation
for Mrs. Roosevelt. I advised against sending this letter and asked him
to let me handle the matter. This I did, and Ambassador Hill soon
discovered, what I had suspected, that the Emperor was not aware at the
time the invitation was sent that Mrs. Roosevelt was with her husband.
The omission was immediately corrected.

Roosevelt was, of course, anxious for news from home. He spoke again of
Taft's having told him he would retain Garfield and myself, and said
Taft was aware that he (Roosevelt) was specially attached to us both. I
showed him an article in a current "North American Review," entitled
"The First Year of Taft's Administration," which plainly showed that
much ground had been lost.

Roosevelt was to deliver an address before the Egyptian National
University. He handed me the draft of it and asked me to criticize it
freely. I suggested a number of changes, which he promptly adopted. He
had been asked not to refer to the recent assassination of the Premier
of Egypt, Budros Pasha--a deed that had probably been inspired by the
Nationalists, a party composed chiefly of young students, half-educated
theorists, and a few others whose shibboleth was "Egypt for the
Egyptians." Roosevelt considered that it would be cowardly and evasive
to avoid this subject, and that usually the subjects one is asked not to
refer to are the ones uppermost in the minds of the people. Besides, if
he did not openly condemn such an act, his silence might be interpreted
as an approval. In view of all the circumstances I fully agreed with
him. The speech was delivered in a large hall filled to capacity; the
consular body and many Egyptian ministers were present. About one third
of the audience understood English, and the address was
enthusiastically received, and had an excellent effect, as I afterward
learned, upon law and order in Egypt.

Roosevelt gave a luncheon at the hotel to Sir Gaston Maspero and
Professor Sayce, the eminent Egyptologists, which we attended. There
were about fifteen people present, among them Mr. Lawrence F. Abbott, of
"The Outlook," who had joined the Roosevelt party at Khartum. It was a
delightful occasion and reminded us of the old days at the White House.
Roosevelt always had the faculty of surrounding himself with people who,
whether from prominent or humble walks of life, were worth while. There
were so many facets to his nature that he could make interesting
contacts with all sorts of folk, those of the forest as well as those of
the closet.

From Gondokoro, Roosevelt had written Ambassador Leishman at Rome saying
he would be glad of the honor of presentation to His Holiness Pope Pius
X. At Cairo he received the following cable reply from Ambassador
Leishman:

     The Rector of the American Catholic College, Monsignor Kennedy, in
     reply to inquiry which I caused to be made, requests that the
     following communication be transmitted to you: "The Holy Father
     will be delighted to grant audience to Mr. Roosevelt on April 5,
     and hopes nothing will arise to prevent it, such as the
     much-regretted incident which made the reception of Mr. Fairbanks
     impossible."

     I merely transmit this communication without having committed you
     in any way to accept the conditions imposed, as the form appears
     objectionable, clearly indicating that an audience would be
     canceled in case you should take any action while here that might
     be construed as countenancing the Methodist mission work here....

Mr. Fairbanks, it may be remembered, was granted an audience with His
Holiness, but on the same day accepted an invitation to lecture before
the Methodist body in Rome whose propaganda was inimical to the Vatican.
This displeased His Holiness and the audience was thereupon canceled.

Roosevelt answered Leishman's cable to the effect that while he fully
recognized the right of the Holy Father to receive or not to receive
whomsoever he chose, he could not submit to conditions which would in
any way limit his freedom of conduct. But the Vatican stood firm on the
conditions set forth:

     His Holiness will be much pleased to grant an audience to Mr.
     Roosevelt, for whom he entertains great esteem, both personally and
     as President of the United States. His Holiness quite recognizes
     Mr. Roosevelt's entire right to freedom of conduct. On the other
     hand, in view of the circumstances, for which neither His Holiness
     nor Mr. Roosevelt is responsible, an audience could not occur
     except on the understanding expressed in the former message.

Consequently, while Roosevelt did not go to the Vatican, he was received
with great cordiality at the Quirinal by King Victor Emmanuel III. In
order not to have the Vatican incident misunderstood at home, Roosevelt
sent a message regarding it to the American people, through the pages of
"The Outlook" of April 9, 1910. Mr. Abbott makes detailed mention of the
episode in his "Impressions of Theodore Roosevelt."

       *       *       *       *       *

Mrs. Straus and I were invited to luncheon with Sir Eldon and Lady
Gorst, British consul-general at Cairo, where we met Professor Oscar
Browning, of Cambridge, among others. Sir Eldon was the successor of
Lord Cromer, and had had many years of experience in Egypt in official
capacities. He spoke of the unrest among the natives, especially those
who had lived abroad as university students. These were in fact the
leaders of the Nationalist Party, a movement stimulated by the
establishment of the new régime in Turkey and the parliamentary form of
government in Persia. Some of the Arabic papers were encouraging, if not
actually inciting, opposition to the British protectorate. He said the
British policy was to grant by degrees an always larger share of local
self-government, but it was feared that if the national spirit was too
much encouraged there would be a reversion to conditions that prevailed
prior to the British occupation of the country. He explained that Lord
Cromer's administration covered the period of national improvements,
such as the reform of taxes, and the building of railways and irrigation
works; and that now had come the desire for political changes.

I have referred to that part of Roosevelt's speech at the National
University in which he condemned the assassination of the premier. Sir
Eldon said he had been consulted in regard to the speech before its
delivery, and that if he had expressed any objection he was sure Mr.
Roosevelt would either have omitted that part of the address or declined
to speak altogether, for he knew Mr. Roosevelt would not do anything to
embarrass British interests. He had had no objection, and made this
clear to Mr. Iddings, who made the inquiry.

We were all invited to a tea at the German Diplomatic Agency, to meet
the Prince and Princess Eitel Friedrich, who were on a visit to Egypt.
Eitel Friedrich is the second son of William II of Germany. I had little
opportunity to speak with him because he and Roosevelt were engaged
almost the entire time in an animated conversation, during which both
remained standing. My impression of the Prince was that he seemed
tremendously impressed with his own importance. I had a pleasant chat
with the Princess, whom I found very charming. She seemed to me of a
type more Austrian than German.

On March 30th we left Cairo, going with the Roosevelt party as far as
Alexandria, where they boarded a ship for Naples, and we went aboard the
Scorpion. Our little ship was dressed in its complimentary flags, the
band was playing, and the commander had drawn up the bluejackets on the
main deck to present arms, so that the Roosevelt party was being saluted
with all the form, splendor, and dignity that our ship could muster. The
sea was much calmer than when we came, and we reached Constantinople in
a little less than three days. I had intended stopping at several other
ports to confer with our consuls, and to visit Jerusalem, Beirut, and
Smyrna; but as my instructions were to hasten my return I did so.

       *       *       *       *       *

During my third mission in Turkey I saw quite a good deal of Mahmoud
Chevket Pasha, the generalissimo of the Turkish army, who was at the
same time Minister of War. He was fifty-two years old, of spare frame,
medium height, with a full beard that was turning gray. He was an Arab,
born in Bagdad. He told me that, when he was a younger man and a major
in the army, he spent ten years in Germany studying the German military
system and training. It was evident to every observer that under his
generalship the Turkish army had vastly improved both in appearance and
in discipline.

I found him a well-educated, modern man. At that time he enjoyed a
world-wide reputation as the most important and dominating official in
the empire, because, as general of the Third Army Corps, stationed at
Salonica, he had marched his men to Constantinople, dethroned the late
Sultan, and established the new régime. Within a few months he had made
visits to Austria, France, and Germany, and was received with great
honors. In the leading cities of these countries he made addresses that
were statesmanlike and internationally tactful. Throughout he
represented his country with admirable tact and judgment.

During one of our conversations the generalissimo told me that the only
cloud on the horizon was the effort of the Greeks to make the Island of
Crete a part of their country. He thought the general conditions in
Turkey were good and that there was no danger of internal troubles,
because the Government had things well in hand. Should Greece make any
hostile move, he knew Turkey could easily defeat her. He did not think
that any of the Balkan Powers would join Greece, since they could not do
so without drawing in some of the big Powers, and the latter would not,
as a matter of self-interest, allow the Balkan States to join Greece in
a war.

We were speaking rather frankly, and I asked him whether he thought
Russia desired the advancement of Turkey and its steady growth under the
new régime. He realized that Russia was then entirely friendly, but said
it was not because she favored a progressive Turkey, but because since
her war with Japan she was in no position to take advantage of the
misfortunes of Turkey. I asked him what he thought of the real attitude
of Germany. He answered that he thought Germany entirely friendly; that
her desire was, of course, to advance her commercial interests in the
Ottoman Empire, but that in this respect she was perhaps not different
from other nations who regarded Turkey as a good field for commercial
operations.

Shortly thereafter the political atmosphere was considerably disturbed
by the Crete affair, just as Chevket Pasha had foreseen. The Greek army
had entered politics and dominated the Government. It caused several
changes of ministers and forced the King to consent to the summoning of
a National Assembly consisting of twice as many delegates as there were
members in Parliament. Crete also insisted upon sending delegates, which
would have been tantamount to incorporating itself as part of Greece
politically.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs frankly told the ambassadors of all the
leading Powers, as well as the Greek minister, that if the Greek
National Assembly admitted delegates from Crete, Turkey would regard
that as a _casus belli_. There was a rumor at the same time that
Bulgaria was preparing to take advantage of the crisis to make war on
Turkey, either by uniting with Greece or in conjunction with some of the
other Balkan States. The Minister of Foreign Affairs had managed well,
and the four big Powers, England, Russia, France, and Italy, bestirred
themselves and the situation was allayed for the time.

Greece had purchased from Italy a man-of-war of about ten thousand tons,
which was being fitted and armored for delivery within six months. To
offset this augmentation of the Greek navy, already stronger than the
Turkish, Turkey wanted to purchase a man-of-war of sufficient size to
outclass the one being fitted for Greece. The Minister of Foreign
Affairs called on me with a memorandum of the size of the ship and the
strength of the armament desired, together with a statement that the
object of the Ottoman Government in the purchase of it was not to make
war, but to safeguard the peace of Turkey and possibly of Europe. It was
thought that the moral effect upon Greece of such a purchase would
prevent her from taking any action that would cause war.

I cabled this proposal in detail to Secretary Knox, and requested a
reply by cable. I knew that we had several ships that would probably
answer the requirements of Turkey, and I thought that, aside from the
moral effect this might have in preventing a war between Turkey and
Greece, it would enable us to substitute a new ship of our own for an
old one. It was not a question of price, as Turkey had put aside
sufficient money to pay for such a ship.

A few days later Chevket Pasha also called on me, and again assured me
that the purchase was designed to have an immediate effect upon the
maintenance of peace, and that the people of Turkey would be forever
grateful to the United States if we should sell them the ship.

But after the lapse of a week or more, I finally received a negative
answer from the State Department, saying that such a sale could not be
made without the authority of Congress. This, of course, I knew; but
since the transaction would have given us the opportunity to add a new
ship to replace the other, I thought such legislation might readily have
been obtained. The Turkish Government then made application to Germany,
and that country seized the opportunity further to cement its friendly
relations with the Ottoman Empire, which later had such an important
bearing in the World War.

About a year after this Crete affair, Chevket Pasha was assassinated as
he was coming out of the Sublime Porte. No greater loss could have
befallen Turkey than the removal at that time of her greatest general
and most enlightened statesman. He was the best-informed Turkish
statesman I have ever known, with a clear and correct view of the entire
European situation. What the conspiracy was behind this shooting was
never brought to light.

The affairs of Crete at that time were in the hands of the energetic
and brilliant leader who has since come to be regarded as one of the
foremost statesmen of all Europe, Eleutherios Venizelos. At the Paris
Peace Conference his recognition was complete. The Greeks, however, have
always shown themselves to be a fickle and ungrateful people, and from
the time of Socrates have turned against their foremost philosophers and
statesmen, and their attitude toward Venizelos is the most recent
illustration of those traits. Venizelos is practically a refugee from
his own country and at this writing is visiting our country to study
American institutions.

       *       *       *       *       *

The main reason I accepted the post at Turkey for the third time was to
secure the legal status and rights of American institutions under
definite laws in the new régime. The Turks had promulgated a law, known
as the "Law of Associations," under the ingenious restrictions of which
they sought to place all foreign institutions. That would have given the
Ottoman authorities, both civil and judicial, the power so to impede the
work of these institutions as to prevent them from functioning. I
pointed out to the Grand Vizier that the Law of Associations was
contrary to the acquired rights of the institutions, which had been
legally recognized for many years, and taking section by section I
showed him the inapplicability of it to these institutions. After months
of negotiations, as usual in Turkey, I succeeded in getting a decision
from the Council of Ministers exempting foreign institutions of a
religious, educational, or benevolent character.

There were three or four other matters that I succeeded in bringing to a
successful close. Contrary to the real-property laws of 1868, our
institutions were being denied the right to hold in their names real
property necessary for their operation, and this right I was able to
secure for them. Among other things I obtained a charter for the Syrian
Protestant College at Beirut, and I got an iradé or permit for the
construction of new buildings for Robert College. The American College
for Girls, at Scutari on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, wanted to
transfer the institution over to Arnaoutkeui on the European side, its
present location, and I secured permission for this transfer and for the
construction of its buildings.

While these various negotiations were in progress, I received an
instruction from Secretary Knox at which I took umbrage. It contained
the following paragraph: "If I am correct in understanding that American
educational and missionary interests in Turkey are in fact receiving
treatment in substance entirely satisfactory, I conclude that the chief
influence should at present be centered upon a substantial advancement
of our prestige and commerce."

This had no other meaning than that instead of vigorous effort for the
protection of American colleges, schools, and hospitals, whose rights
under the new régime were being seriously threatened by new laws and
regulations, I was to transfer my efforts to securing shipbuilding and
railway concessions. I promptly advised the Department that this
understanding was not correct, that the interests of our institutions
were being seriously threatened, and that the proper protection of these
interests in no way conflicted with the advancement of our commercial
interests.

I continued to push the negotiations on behalf of our institutions, for
I knew that a let-up at that time would, instead of benefiting our
commercial interests, convey the impression of weakness on the part of
our Government in looking out for American interests. In several
dispatches I pointed out to the Department that to exert official
pressure for railway concessions in Turkey would likewise require the
protection of such concessions, when obtained, by strenuous official
action which might at some time even involve the use of force, and could
not fail to enmesh us in the intricate political problems of the Near
East. I asked the Department to weigh carefully the possible advantage
of concessions to a few American exploiters, against the serious
disadvantages that the protection of these concessions would impose. I
pointed out that invariably the Turkish Government, of its own accord or
through outside pressure, failed to live up to its contracts if not
compelled to do so, and that the situation would be further complicated
by the conflicting interests of the other Powers whose commercial
dealings were subordinate to their political strategy. To ordinary
commercial transactions, such as export and import, these risks did not,
of course, apply; but they were particularly troublesome with regard to
the building and running of railways on Turkish territory.

       *       *       *       *       *

Among our distinguished visitors during this mission were former
Vice-President and Mrs. Fairbanks, who were on their tour round the
world. They were our guests for a week, and we gave a series of dinners
to have them meet the leading diplomatic and Turkish officials. Among
the latter was Ahmed Riza Bey, president of the Chamber of Deputies, who
had for twenty years been a refugee in Paris, where he edited a Turkish
paper. He spoke French fluently. He was said to be practically the head
of the Young Turks Party. He was blue-eyed, handsome, and thoroughly
modern. His father was one of the chamberlains of Sultan Abdul Aziz, and
his mother, an Austrian, once told Mrs. Straus that she had almost
forgotten the German language because she had not used it in so long a
time, for she was only seventeen when she was married.

Riza Bey was very much interested to learn from Mr. Fairbanks the rules
of parliamentary procedure. The Chamber of Deputies had not as yet
adopted any such rules and its proceedings lacked system and order.

A few days later, while the president of the Chamber was calling on me,
the palace of the Chamber of Deputies, Tcheragan on the Bosphorus,
burned to the ground,--an unfortunate occurrence not only because of the
material loss, but because it was looked upon by the populace as a
visitation from God against the new régime.

Judge and Mrs. Alton B. Parker and the widow of Daniel Manning,
Secretary of the Treasury in Cleveland's second Cabinet, also gave us
the pleasure of a visit. And a little later Cleveland H. Dodge arrived
in his yacht. He was heartily welcomed by all the missionaries, for he
was prominently connected with Robert College and was chairman of the
board of trustees of the College at Beirut. In his party was Mrs. Grover
Cleveland.

After we had moved to our summer quarters at Yenikeui, Kermit Roosevelt
and his classmate, John Heard, came to spend about ten days with us. My
son Roger, then a student at Princeton, was spending his vacation with
us and was glad to have the company of two young men of about his own
age.

At this time we saw much of Sir William Willcocks, the eminent British
engineer, who had just returned from Bagdad where he was employed by the
Turkish Government in the construction and supervision of irrigation
works in Mesopotamia. It was he who projected and designed the Assuan
Dam across the Nile. He told me he was born to his work, as his father,
Captain W. Willcocks, was engaged in it in India.

In June I wrote the Department of State requesting a leave of absence
toward the end of September or beginning of October, with permission to
return home. In answer I received a cable from the assistant secretary
to the effect that the railway concessions of the Ottoman American
Development Company were to come up in Parliament in November, and
asking if it would be convenient for me to take my leave earlier so as
to be back in Turkey by November 1st. I replied in a confidential letter
that it was my intention, upon my return to America, to confer with the
President and the Secretary of State regarding my release from this
post, in accordance with my understanding when I accepted the
appointment. I decided to wait until the arrival of the new secretary of
the embassy, Mr. Hoffman Philip, and before leaving I took pains to make
him thoroughly familiar with the work of the embassy so that no ground
might be lost pending my resignation.

       *       *       *       *       *

On leaving Constantinople we desired a few days' rest in the mountains.
At the suggestion, therefore, of our minister to Roumania, J. Ridgely
Carter, we planned to go to Sinaia, the Roumanian summer capital, which
he thought we should find agreeable in every way, so on September 3d we
left Turkey for Roumania.

Sinaia we found not only very beautiful, but most enjoyable. We were
invited to the Palace a number of times. The Court being in mourning,
all entertaining was informal and more intimate. The King reminded me of
the late Edmund Clarence Stedman in general appearance. The Queen, known
to all the world as "Carmen Sylva," was a striking personality, tall,
rather heavily built, with silver gray hair and a high complexion,
strong, mobile features, and a very spiritual expression. She spoke
English, French, and German with equal fluency, so that it was difficult
to tell which was the most natural to her.

The Queen told me how she happened to choose Carmen Sylva for a
pen-name: The woods always appealed to her; their stillness and beauty
inspired her. When she began to publish her work, at the age of
thirty-five, she asked a certain German writer to tell her the Latin
word for "woods"; that gave her "sylva." Next she asked the Latin word
for "bird," but that did not suit her. Then the word for "song"
suggested itself, "carmen." The combination appealed to her poetic
sense, and she adopted it.

At luncheon one day our conversation drifted to poetry and American
poets. The Queen seemed to know all our bards, even the minor ones,
several of whom I had not heard of myself. I happened to quote, as near
as I could recall it, a couplet from a little poem that Joaquin Miller
wrote when Peter Cooper died:

              All one can hold in his cold right hand
                     Is what he has given away.

She was most enthusiastic about that sentiment and said she considered
it real poetry. She repeated it several times so as to remember it.

"Whenever any one gives me a beautiful thought, I never forget him," she
said, turning to me in her unaffected manner. I appreciated her delicate
compliment.

After luncheon she invited me to the floor above to see her study. She
explained that she did her best work in a little cell-like room in the
monastery below the hill near the Palace, which we had visited the day
before. There she was most free from disturbance of any kind. Her study
in the Palace was comfortable and attractively furnished; not large, but
cozy. Looking out of the windows, one saw the terraced Italian gardens
and the wooded peaks of the Carpathian Mountains beyond. The low
bookcases which lined the four walls contained English, French, and
German books in exquisite bindings. At her desk were three typewriters,
respectively from England, France, and Germany, for use in writing the
languages of those countries. She used them herself, according to the
language in which the inspiration of the moment had come. She presented
me with a volume of poems and one of essays, both in German, "Meine
Ruhe" and "Mein Penatenwinkel," which she inscribed for me.

We went through the Palace that afternoon. It is modern and very
beautiful, furnished in excellent taste, and not cold and uncomfortable,
sacrificed to grandeur, as most palaces seem to be. Then the King and
Queen invited us to return the next morning at eleven, to a musicale and
luncheon.

Next day after luncheon the King left the other guests and took me into
a small adjoining room where we smoked and had coffee. Knowing that I
had been Secretary of Commerce and Labor, he led the conversation to
economic questions, which he said interested him most. He expressed
surprise that we had not come to state ownership of railways, which he
believed was the only way to regulate them. I explained our method of
regulating them, but he thought that method more socialistic and
arbitrary than in his own country. We talked of the Roosevelt policies
and their general aim at social justice. He said he regretted very much
that Roosevelt had not visited Roumania, for he had the greatest
admiration for him, both as man and as statesman.

Our conversation ran on to the Jewish question, and the King spoke most
sympathetically of the Jews, saying that they were patriotic subjects
and good soldiers, that there was no religious prejudice against them,
and that the Jewish question in Roumania was purely economic. The Jews
who came in from Russia and Poland constituted separate communities in
the country, with foreign methods of living, foreign language, and
foreign views. I told him that in the most enlightened countries there
was an absence of the Jewish problem because no problem was created by
treating the Jews as separate groups with restricted rights. He saw that
point, but explained that Roumania was right next to Russia where the
Jews were most oppressed. If, therefore, Roumania accorded them full
rights, there would be a flood of immigration much larger than they were
then getting. I pointed out that it would be much better to restrict
immigration than to restrict the natural rights of the Jews of Roumania.
That thought impressed him, and he said he realized that, under the
system they then had, much injustice was done which brought disgrace to
the kingdom, but he hoped a remedy would be worked out.

We spoke of the United States Postal Savings legislation, of which he
requested an outline, and thought it could be adopted by Roumania with
advantage.

A few days later we again lunched with the King and Queen. The Queen
mentioned the bit of poetry I had given her a few days before and asked
whether I could give her another. Something had been said about Hay's
Roumanian note that brought to mind the last stanza of Hay's hymn:

  Wherever man oppresses man,
    Beneath the setting sun,
  O Lord, be there, thine arm make bare,
    Thy righteous will be done.

The Queen admired these lines and begged me to write them out, which I
did on the back of one of my visiting-cards. She put the card in her
reticule, saying that the lines would inspire a poem some day, and that
she would then send it to me.

Referring to her work generally, she spoke of her indebtedness to
Professor Michael Bernays, the distinguished Jewish scholar, who was a
frequent and welcome visitor at the home of her parents. She said he was
the most modest and intellectual person she had ever known, and his
conversations and teachings had greatly influenced her intellectual and
spiritual life. She asked me to read her estimate of this wonderful man
in her book of essays that she had given me. I have since read it
several times, and it would surprise many to read such a eulogy and
vindication of the Jews and Judaism by the Queen of a country where the
Jews were so sorely oppressed by drastic discrimination.

Before we left Sinaia, the Queen sent me a large photograph of herself,
inscribed: "Never mind deep waters, there are pearls to be found.
Elizabeth. Sinaia, September, 1910."

In Vienna, we were guests at a tea given by Dr. Sigmund Münz, of "Die
Neue Freie Presse." Among those present was Baroness Bertha von Suttner,
the great peace advocate and authoress of "Down With Your Arms," who had
received the Nobel Peace Prize the previous year. I had met her before
in the United States, where we spoke from the same platform during the
sessions of the Interparliamentary Union and the International Peace
Societies.

Next we went to London, where we enjoyed the pleasant hospitalities of
our ambassador, Whitelaw Reid. At one of the luncheons at the embassy I
was pleased to make the acquaintance of Dr. Luis M. Drago, the Argentine
international jurist and author of the Drago Doctrine, who had just
returned from the Anglo-American Fisheries Arbitration at The Hague.

We dined one evening with the Right Honorable Sir Ernest Cassel at his
charming home, Brooke House, and afterward went with him to the theater.
Sir Ernest, one of England's leading financiers, was constantly being
referred to in the press in connection with the negotiations pending in
Paris for a new loan to the Turks. He told us that these international
financial negotiations, because of their international importance, did
not appeal to him, for he had no ambition to be in the limelight or to
become a conspicuous international personage. He preferred quiet and
obscurity, for constant publicity disturbed his peace of mind. This
attitude was not one of assumed modesty; he really said what he meant
and felt.

On another evening we dined with Postmaster-General Herbert Samuel and
his wife. Mr. Samuel was only thirty-nine years old and gave every
promise of the distinction which he has since attained in the service of
his country. At this writing he is British High Commissioner in
Palestine.

Lord Rothschild had written me to call on him when in London; and I went
to the banking house to see him. In speaking of the Triple Entente of
Great Britain, France, and Russia, I told him I thought that, from a
British point of view, it was unwise. He, on the other hand, regarded it
as good because it offered the best security for peace. A few days
thereafter I mentioned the subject to his brother, Alfred. The latter
said that he and his brother usually agreed, but in this matter they
took opposite views. Alfred considered it a great mistake, from the
point of view of civilization, for England to be aligned with Russia,
and beyond that he considered it detrimental to the relationship between
England and Germany, which was none too friendly. In the light of all
that has since taken place, it is interesting to note how the
international alignment of 1910 was reflected in the minds of these big
international financiers.

On September 8th we boarded the Lusitania at Liverpool, reaching New
York on the 13th. My brother Isidor and our children met us, and we were
made to appreciate the real truth of the bull that "the greatest
pleasure in going abroad is returning home."

Soon afterward I went to Washington. First I called at the State
Department and had an informal talk with Secretary Knox. I told him I
did not wish to return to Turkey. The important negotiations had been
brought to a favorable conclusion, and I felt that I had spent enough of
my time there. He referred to the understanding with which I had
accepted the post, that when I desired to be relieved, another post that
might be available and acceptable to me would be tendered me. However, I
purposely did not comment on this understanding. I simply said that I
did not wish to cause the Administration any embarrassment, and was
content to stay at home. He said he would have a talk with the President
and confer with me later.

When I called on the President, I told him that since all the questions
for which I went to Turkey had been adjusted, I did not wish to return.
Subsequently I received a very cordial and complimentary letter from
him, but, as it contained no intimation of his earlier promise to
transfer me to a post more to my liking, I did not refer to it. The rift
between the Roosevelt policies and the Taft Administration had by this
time grown considerably, and I was known to be in thorough accord with
Roosevelt and his policies.




CHAPTER XII

THE PROGRESSIVES

     The Progressive spirit is kindled and shaped into a cause--My
     speech at the banquet of the New York Chamber of Commerce in
     1910--Roosevelt's hostility to boss rule--Liberals impatient with
     Taft Administration--Governors demand Roosevelt--He advocates
     recall of judicial decisions--This stand believed to have caused
     his defeat--New York State Progressive Convention is
     deadlocked--"Suspender Jack" nominates me for Governor and
     stampedes convention--I decline to consider Republican
     nomination--Sulzer's "non-Jewish but pro-Jewish" slogan--I stump
     the State--Bainbridge Colby "impersonates" me--Roosevelt, shot by a
     lunatic, heroically addresses Milwaukee mass meeting--I am needed
     in national campaign--The dramatic Roosevelt speech in Madison
     Square Garden--His tribute to me--Election returns--Progressives
     poorly organized--Their cause a crusade.


In the torrential flood of American politics, two main currents are
continuously perceptible. There are, of course, innumerable permanent
and temporary cross-currents, eddies, and other variations, but the two
main currents are ever present. One may be generally described as
professional, mechanical, and ruled by the accomplished and consummate
selfishness of invisible forces. The other, while more genuine in
spirit, is often amateurish in effort; it is more spontaneous; it is
kindled by emotions of revolt; it sees mankind not as masses to be
exploited, and profited by, but as individuals to be set freer to
express themselves socially and economically. It strives to restate the
better aspirations of men generally, and to mitigate some of the
pressure that civilization imposes upon them.

It is not the province of the historian to moralize. It is his business
to trace the changing currents of human thought and to produce accurate
pictures of men in action. And so, in touching on the Progressives, I
shall endeavor to give some indication of the mental processes that
shaped their cause, and to depict some of the dramatic scenes that
carried their cause into action. Many of these scenes I was able to
observe closely. In a sense, I may have figured more definitely than I
realized at the time, in kindling their cause into smoke and flame.

On November 17, 1910, the New York Chamber of Commerce held its one
hundred and forty-second annual banquet at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel.
The speakers were Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts; Governor
Horace White, of New York; Mayor William J. Gaynor, of New York City;
and myself. The president of the Chamber, the late A. Barton Hepburn,
presided. My subject was "American Prestige," and I could not refrain
from referring to the great extent to which American influence and
prestige had been advanced by Roosevelt, both as President and during
his tour through Europe. There was instant and prolonged applause at the
mention of Roosevelt's name, clearly showing that his political
influence was not dead, contrary to the ideas of many who thought so
because the election of a few days before had shown sweeping Democratic
gains and the defeat of Roosevelt's candidate for Governor, Henry L.
Stimson. When the banquet was over, Senator Lodge said to me that if the
political opponents of Roosevelt could have seen the enthusiasm with
which his name was applauded, they would realize that even in New York
he was as much alive as ever.

When I had met Roosevelt in Cairo on his way back from Africa, we had
talked frequently about politics at home. It was clear to me from his
conversation that he did not propose to be enticed or forced into
accepting any nomination, although there was talk, yes, I may say a
demand, that he reënter public life as either Governor of New York or
United States Senator.

Roosevelt was so loyal a Republican that his opponents constantly chided
him for going along with the bosses, like Senator Platt, for instance,
and at the same time advocating reforms. He used to reply that he did
and would continue to coöperate with the bosses so long as they went his
way. His aim from the time he entered public life as a member of the New
York State Assembly was to make the party always more responsive to its
highest ideals; and from the beginning he worked against the "invisible
powers" or boss rule. By word and deed all through his life he showed an
independence and moral courage that careless observers might often have
mistaken for headlong impetuosity. No one could know him without
recognizing that he was broad-minded, liberal, and inherently
progressive.

When he arrived home from abroad in June, 1910, he found the Republican
Party disrupted. The dissatisfaction and impatience of the liberals was
distinctly evident. By 1912 Taft had allowed himself to become so
thoroughly identified with the reactionaries that the large independent
element had not only become unenthusiastic, but decidedly hostile to the
Administration. In his Winona speech President Taft had ranked himself
on the side of those leaders in the party who opposed real tariff
reform. In his famous Norton letter he had even gone so far as to imply,
if not to expressly admit, that federal Patronage had been used against
the Progressives in Congress.

The Progressive element both in and out of Congress was therefore
casting about for a candidate who represented the liberal wing of the
party, for nomination at the National Republican Convention at Chicago
in June. Roosevelt's office at "The Outlook" was daily crowded with
liberal leaders who had come to consult with him and to urge him to
"throw his hat in the ring," to use one of Roosevelt's own picturesque
expressions. This demand grew and spread until finally came the
following appeal from the Governors of the States of Kansas, Michigan,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Wyoming:

     We feel that you will be unresponsive to a plain public duty if you
     decline to accept the nomination coming as the voluntary expression
     of the wishes of a majority of the Republican voters of the United
     States through the action of their delegates in the next National
     Convention.

To this message Roosevelt replied:

     One of the chief principles for which I have stood and for which I
     now stand, and which I have always endeavoured and always shall
     endeavour to reduce to action, is the genuine rule of the people;
     and, therefore, I hope that so far as possible the people may be
     given the chance, through direct primaries, to express their
     preference as to who shall be the nominee of the Republican
     Presidential Convention.

During this period I called on Roosevelt one day at the offices of "The
Outlook," and he handed me the galley-proof of a speech he was to make
before the Constitutional Convention at Columbus, Ohio. He called it
"The Charter of Democracy." His room was full of callers, so I went into
Dr. Abbott's office and there carefully read the speech. In it Roosevelt
advocated, among other reforms such as the short ballot and the
initiative and referendum, the recall of judicial decisions. When I came
to that subject I confess I was shocked, and so expressed myself to one
of the editors of "The Outlook"; as I remember it, it was Dr. Abbott
himself. Compelled to keep another appointment, I left the office when I
had finished reading the speech, saying that I should return later.

Upon my return I met Roosevelt just as he was going out to keep an
engagement.

"I hear you don't like my speech," he said to me.

"I like your speech; I think it is fine; all but that portion of it
which refers to the recall of judicial decisions," I answered. I started
to give my reasons, but seeing that he was pressed for time, I said: "I
should like to discuss that matter with you, provided your mind is open
on the subject." To my great surprise he said that he had thought the
subject over very carefully, and frankly told me that he had come to a
definite decision on it.

That was so unlike the Roosevelt I knew in the many discussions I had
had with him, when invariably I found his mind responsive, that I was
quite disappointed and somewhat taken back. But I did not want him to
feel that I had joined the ranks of the many who had parted political
company with him because he had made it known that he would accept
another nomination for President, and so, on reaching my office, I wrote
him a letter, briefly explaining why I objected to his statements
regarding the recall of judicial decisions. I assured him that on that
account I did not part from him politically, for after all I agreed with
him more than with any other candidate who might possibly be named.

The birth and development of the Progressive Party is, of course, an
element of national history that has often been detailed. William Draper
Lewis, in his "Life of Theodore Roosevelt," and Lawrence F. Abbott, in
his "Impressions of Theodore Roosevelt," both give clear accounts of it.
Roosevelt's candidacy and defeat have been variously analyzed, but I
believe now, as I believed in 1912, that but for this unfortunate
statement regarding judicial decisions, Roosevelt would have been
re-elected President in 1912. It is true that he afterwards clarified
the meaning of his use of the word "recall"; that its application was
limited to such decisions as held legislative acts unconstitutional, and
that such decisions might at the following election be submitted to
popular vote, in accordance with the method employed by a State for the
adoption of its constitution. But his clarification never overcame the
effects of the Columbus speech. William Draper Lewis, who was one of
Roosevelt's closest advisers at the time, says in his biography:

     Looking back now over the events leading up to the Republican
     National Convention of 1912, it would appear almost certain that
     had he, in his address before the Ohio Convention, either refrained
     from making the proposal or had he called it a new method of
     amending the constitution, and carefully explained it so that it
     could not have been misunderstood, it is most probable that he
     would have been nominated at Chicago, and that the whole course of
     the recent history of the United States would have been other than
     it has been.

[Illustration: NATHAN, OSCAR, AND ISIDOR STRAUS

1912]

Shortly after the Columbus speech, Roosevelt delivered, on March 20,
1912, at Carnegie Hall, New York, what was in many respects the most
forceful and eloquent address I ever heard him make. He graphically
described his dedication to his ideals of democracy:

     Our task as Americans is to strive for social and industrial
     justice, achieved through the genuine rule of the people. This is
     our end, our purpose. The methods for achieving the end are merely
     expedients, to be finally accepted or rejected according as actual
     experience shows that they work well or ill. But in our hearts we
     must have this lofty purpose, and we must strive for it in all
     earnestness and sincerity, or our work will come to nothing. In
     order to succeed, we need leaders of inspired idealism, leaders to
     whom are granted great visions, who dream greatly and strive to
     make their dreams come true; who can kindle the people with the
     fire from their own burning souls.

     The leader for the time being, whoever he may be, is but an
     instrument, to be used until broken and then to be cast aside; and
     if he is worth his salt, he will care no more when he is broken
     than a soldier cares when he is sent where his life is forfeit in
     order that the victory may be won.

     If on this new continent we merely build another country of great
     but unjustly divided material prosperity, we shall have done
     nothing; and we shall do as little if we merely set the greed of
     envy against the greed of arrogance, and thereby destroy the
     material well-being of all of us. To turn this government into
     government by plutocracy or government by a mob would be to repeat
     on a larger scale the lamentable failures of the world that is
     dead. We stand against all tyranny, by the few or by the many. We
     stand for the rule of the many in the interest of all of us, for
     the rule of the many in the spirit of courage, of common sense, of
     high purpose, above all, in a spirit of kindly justice towards
     every man and every woman.

A month after the meeting of the National Convention of the Progressive
Party, popularly called the "Bull Moose Convention," which nominated
Theodore Roosevelt for President and Hiram W. Johnson for
Vice-President, the New York State Convention of the Progressive Party
met at Syracuse, in the Arena. The convention met on September 5th.

All during the first day and night, amid lively discussion as to the
selection of candidates for Governor, committees urged me for permission
to present my name as a candidate; but I steadfastly declined, since the
governorship, being so largely a political office, did not appeal to me.
I was neither by training nor by temperament a politician, although I
had taken active part in campaigns for many years, both local and
national. The next day I was asked to take the permanent chairmanship of
the convention. This I was willing and glad to do; I wanted to be of
service to the party; also it was a foregone conclusion that acceptance
of the chairmanship would preclude my being considered a candidate for
the nomination for Governor.

The Arena was filled with about seven thousand delegates and members of
the new Progressive Party. The air was surcharged with the spirit of the
new movement--the genuine enthusiasm of men and women of character and
standing from every county in the State, and among them a great many
ministers, professors, reformers, and leaders of benevolent and
charitable movements. There was a conspicuous absence of the
professional politician. Indeed, that convention had more the character
of a town meeting than of a cut-and-dried political convention. Instead
of having decisions made for them, this great body of enthusiasts were
called upon to make their own. The candidates had not even been agreed
upon.

On September 6th I took my gavel in hand and called the meeting to
order. The first business before the convention was the nomination of a
candidate for Governor. The secretary called the counties of the State
in alphabetical order, and the chairman of each delegation made his
nomination. The outstanding candidates for nomination were William H.
Hotchkiss, one of the organizers of the Progressive Party and chairman
of the National Committee, and William A. Prendergast, comptroller of
the City of New York, who had made the speech nominating Roosevelt for
President at the Chicago Convention. A deadlock between these two
candidates ensued.

After Yates County had been heard from, a tall, gaunt young man towered
to his feet and asked to be heard; he was from the Fifteenth Manhattan
District, and he had a nomination to make. It was not quite in order,
though the spirit of the convention was to give each man a chance. While
I was hesitating about recognizing him, there seemed to be a general
desire that he be given an opportunity to speak, so I gave him five
minutes.

He looked fantastic as he strode to the platform and faced the audience.
His manner was somewhat bizarre. He burst forth in dramatic fashion as
follows:

     Fellow citizens, ladies and gentlemen: I have just come down from
     Vermont. I ask you people at this convention to make no mistake.

     We want to put a man up for Governor that no man will be afraid to
     cast his vote for, against whom there can be no charge leveled of
     misconduct of any kind, one who can sweep the State from Montauk
     Point to Lake Erie, and carry every man of every race, religion,
     and creed; a man whose name is known throughout the civilized
     world; a man the mention of whose name brings a tear of sympathy to
     the eye of almost every man and woman in the civilized land; a man
     whose name, wherever men are found with red blood in their veins,
     irrespective of race, religion, and creed, will be carried
     thundering throughout the State to victory.

     There is no chance for defeat with this man at the head of the
     ticket--

"Who is your candidate?" cried impatient listeners.

"What's his name?"

"Name your candidate!"

In sudden answer to these cries from the convention, the speaker
exclaimed:

     I nominate the illustrious and honorable Oscar S. Straus.

During the long, terrific applause that followed, the delegate stood
awkwardly waiting for a chance to finish. Finally he went on:

     We should take no chances in this fight. I could not say one
     undeserved word if I used the entire dictionary in praise of the
     other nominees, Mr. Hotchkiss and Mr. Prendergast; but, gentlemen,
     Mr. Prendergast or Mr. Hotchkiss would cause friction in the State.
     We want no friction in this election. We want success and victory.

     Gentlemen, there is not a newspaper editor in the State of New York
     that would any more assassinate the character of Oscar S. Straus
     than he would assassinate the character of his own mother.

     Gentlemen, remember! Remember that Rome was saved by the cackle of
     geese. I have no political prestige, but I warn and charge you, put
     up a man for candidate for governor who cannot and will not be
     defeated.

     Gentlemen, gentlemen, heed me! Make no mistake about Oscar S.
     Straus. You will make no mistake in putting him up as your
     candidate, and you will capture victory and success. No man has had
     better distinction at home and abroad than Mr. Straus. I ask you to
     vote for him.

The moment he finished, a stampede started. The entire hall assumed the
aspect of a good-natured bedlam. There was cheering and applause, and
many of the delegates began marching round that big auditorium,
brandishing the banners of their counties, singing "The Battle Hymn of
the Republic" and "Onward, Christian Soldiers," and breaking out in the
end with "Straus! Straus! We want Straus!"

I pounded the desk with the gavel, I shook my head in the negative, but
to no avail. The noise lasted fully twenty minutes.

The picturesque young man who had precipitated this scene was John G.
McGee, known among his colleagues as "Suspender Jack." He had been a
member of the mounted police of New York City.

Meanwhile Mr. Hotchkiss and several other leaders came to the platform
and insisted upon my accepting. They even brought Mrs. Straus up with
the hope of getting her to exert her persuasive powers. There was no
alternative; I had to accept.

Mr. Hotchkiss announced my acceptance, and immediately former
Lieutenant-Governor Timothy L. Woodruff announced the withdrawal of Mr.
Prendergast and moved to make the nomination unanimous by acclamation.
That produced more shouting and cheering, accompanied by much applause
and the waving of banners. It was a touching manifestation and an
unexpected honor. I made a brief speech of acceptance, during which I
found it difficult to hide the effect of all this demonstration. And
with more applause and cheering, the session closed with the singing of
"The Star-Spangled Banner."

The next morning the convention named for Lieutenant-Governor Frederick
M. Davenport, who was Professor of Law and Politics at Hamilton College
and had made an admirable record in the State Legislature. The ticket
was then quickly completed and the convention closed.

The nominations were received with great favor all through the State and
in the press. Roosevelt at the time was in the Far West conducting his
own campaign, and wrote me from Spokane as follows:


                                                       THE SPOKANE
                                                   SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
                                                   _September 8, 1912_

     DEAR STRAUS:

     When I left New York I had expected Prendergast to be nominated and
     there were certain reasons, which I think you know, why I felt
     that, as a matter of principle, his nomination should be made.

     But there was a still further principle involved, and that was that
     in this Convention the people should have their own way; and, upon
     my word, I am inclined to think that it was a new illustration of
     the fact that the wisdom of _all_ of us is better than the wisdom
     of any of us. Having in view the effect, not only in New York but
     the country at large, I think that your nomination stands second
     only to that of Hiram Johnson as Vice-President, from the
     standpoint of strengthening the ticket. If the only result of the
     next election were to place you in as Governor of New York, I
     should be inclined to think that the Progressive Party had
     justified itself.

     My dear fellow, I am overjoyed; I congratulate you with all my
     heart. Give my love to dear Mrs. Straus and to Roger and your two
     daughters and all the grandchildren.

                                        Ever yours
                                                  THEODORE ROOSEVELT

A few days thereafter he gave out the following interview:

     Next in importance to the nomination of the Vice-President is the
     nomination for Governor of New York. And it seems to me that Hiram
     Johnson and Oscar Straus symbolize what this movement stands for.
     One is an ex-Republican, the other an ex-Democrat; they both stand
     for what is highest in American citizenship.

     Mr. Straus is not merely a high-minded and able man, a man of
     incorruptible integrity and great ability, but also a man who has
     kept abreast of the great movement from which sprang the
     Progressive Party. He is eminently fitted to be one of the leaders
     in this movement. On every point of our platform he represents an
     intense earnestness of conviction for all the things for which we
     stand. His attitude toward business, his attitude toward the
     complicated, and the vitally important social and economic problems
     which are dealt with in our plank concerning social and industrial
     justice; in short, his whole position on governmental matters has
     been such as to warrant our saying that he is already in practice
     applying the very principles which we preach.

     New York State has a right to be proud of the fact that in this
     first State Convention of the people themselves Mr. Straus's
     nomination was, in the most emphatic sense, a nomination by the
     people themselves, a nomination representing the desire of the
     people to have the very best man take the office, although that man
     was himself sincerely desirous to escape having to take it.

     I have known Mr. Straus intimately ever since I was Governor of New
     York. When he was in my Cabinet I leaned much upon him, and a more
     loyal and disinterested friend no man could have, and, what is
     more important, no man could have a more loyal, disinterested, and
     sanely zealous supporter. As head of the Department of Commerce and
     Labor Mr. Straus himself, by study and administration of the law,
     was one of those who reached conclusions as to the needs of our
     handling of the anti-trust and interstate commerce and similar
     laws, which I set forth in message after message to Congress, and
     which were substantially embodied in the Progressive platform; and
     in his attitude toward labor, toward immigration, toward the duty
     both of public and private employees, he foreshadowed that part of
     the Progressive platform which has dealt with these same matters.

     Moreover, by his disinterestedness, his unselfish devotion to the
     cause of good government and of sound progressive doctrine for
     economic and social reform, and by his willingness personally to
     sacrifice his own interests to those of the cause he espouses, he
     is, I am happy to say, typical of all men who are in the new
     movement.

     Exactly as it is a real sacrifice for Hiram Johnson to accept the
     nomination for Vice-President, so it is a real sacrifice for Oscar
     Straus to accept the nomination for Governor of New York. Each has
     accepted because he is not thinking of himself. He is thinking of
     his duty to the people as a whole; of his duty to the great Nation
     to which he belongs. Oscar Straus's nomination is not only a most
     fortunate thing for the New York Progressives, but it is also a
     piece of real good fortune for the Progressive movement throughout
     this Nation.

When the Republicans had their convention at Saratoga a short while
after my nomination at Syracuse, several of their prominent State
leaders telegraphed me to inquire whether I would accept the Republican
nomination. They feared that with three candidates in the field the
State would go Democratic. One of my managers favored my acceptance,
which would without doubt have meant election. But my chief adviser,
Chairman Hotchkiss, agreed with me that my accepting the Republican
nomination, without the endorsement by the Republicans of the
Progressive platform, would destroy the Progressive Party in the State,
if not throughout the country. I therefore sent an immediate reply that
while I should welcome the support of any group or party that chose to
give it, I could not accept a nomination that did not mean an
endorsement and acceptance of the platform on which I stood. On hearing
of this, Roosevelt telegraphed me from Memphis: "Three cheers for you.
You are a perfect trump and you always do the right thing."

The Republican candidate was Job E. Hedges, a brilliant member of the
New York Bar. The Democrats nominated William Sulzer, and Tammany Hall
sanctioned the selection because he was considered a good opponent who
would attract the Jewish vote. But our politicians make no greater
mistake than to believe that there is such a thing as a Jewish group
vote. Of course, a candidate who by word or action has shown prejudice
against or hostility toward the Jews could not expect their suffrage;
but beyond that the Jews are not controllable as a group at the polls.
However, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House,
Sulzer had taken a prominent part in the abrogation of our treaty with
Russia, and during the campaign the slogan, "non-Jewish but pro-Jewish,"
was designed to bring him the support of the mass of Jewish voters in
addition to the regular Democratic vote.

       *       *       *       *       *

On the whole the campaign was conducted with dignity on all sides. There
was a noticeable absence of vilification of candidates and general
mud-slinging between the camps, as is too often the case in keenly
contested elections. My campaign managers arranged for me to make
addresses in every county and almost every city throughout the State. I
had a special car in which traveled, besides Mr. Davenport, my wife and
me, and several other speakers, a dozen or more reporters from the
leading papers.

I made my first speech in Getty Square, Yonkers, and from there I
traveled for seven weeks, making ten to fifteen speeches every day
except Sundays, including short talks at stations and from the rear
platform of my car. Sometimes I made speeches before breakfast, to
crowds that had gathered at the station, and there were always two or
three, and often more, formal addresses a day in some public hall, to
which I would be escorted from the train with a band of music, and
sometimes with a fife and drum corps, invariably playing "Onward,
Christian Soldiers." So many clergymen took part in the campaign that
frequently the meetings were opened with a prayer. Many of the meetings
were spontaneous, emphasizing the crusading spirit which was so
characteristic of the campaign.

One of my slogans was that I was the "unbossed candidate of the unbossed
people." One day up in the northern part of the State I was speaking on
a raised platform in the open, and, as usual, my time was limited by the
train schedule. A member of the committee told my wife, who was sitting
behind me, that the train would leave in a few minutes, and that it was
time for me to stop, and just as I got to the middle of the phrase,
"unbossed candidate--" she pulled my coat-tail as a signal for me to
stop. At that moment I was quite evidently not the "unbossed candidate"
that I professed to be, and the audience laughed and cheered with
amusement. I think that bit of bossing, however, did not cost me any
votes.

Mr. Davenport proved himself a most effective campaign speaker. Another
effective orator in our party for a short time was Bainbridge Colby, who
discharged with great distinction the important duties of Secretary of
State during the last year of the Wilson Administration. At Oneonta and
at one or two other places, while I was taking a much-needed rest, the
crowds had gathered and were calling for me. Mr. Colby, without being
introduced, responded for me, and the audiences were left with the
impression that they had listened to me. My cause certainly did not
suffer by my being so admirably represented, or perhaps I should say
advantageously misrepresented.

Roosevelt in the meantime had flung himself into the campaign with all
the force of his tremendous vigor and energy, and gave to it a dynamic
impulse that grew in intensity as he progressed through the country. He
went out to the Pacific Coast, returned through the Southern States to
New York City, speaking at every important center. In September he went
through New England. In October he started on his final tour through the
Middle West, and it was while on this trip that he was shot by a lunatic
just as he was leaving his hotel to make a speech in the Auditorium in
Milwaukee. The incident, tragic in itself, was made dramatic by his
heroism. With the bullet in his breast and his clothes soaked with
blood, disregarding the entreaties of his companions, he went on to the
Auditorium and spoke for more than an hour. To him nothing counted
except the triumph of the principles for which he was fighting.

In consequence of this accident the national managers had me leave the
State of New York and take up the national campaign, which I did
cheerfully. No one, of course, could fill Roosevelt's engagements, but
the plan was to rescue the cause so far as possible, and I spoke in
several of the larger cities where meetings had been scheduled for
Roosevelt, principally Chicago, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. My intense
anxiety regarding the condition of my chief during this time was greatly
relieved by assuring telegrams from Mrs. Roosevelt and his nephew,
George Emlen Roosevelt, who were both at his side.

       *       *       *       *       *

Two final rallies were arranged in Madison Square Garden, New York--one
on Wednesday, October 30th, for the national ticket, and the second on
Friday, November 1st, for the State ticket. Roosevelt, though not well,
considered himself sufficiently recovered to appear. His physicians,
Doctors Lambert and Brewer, had prescribed no more campaign speeches, in
fact, did not want him to go to these meetings; but he brushed aside
their injunctions and left Oyster Bay for Madison Square.

His presence at the national rally was his first public appearance since
the shooting, and keyed-up the meeting to a high dramatic pitch. Fully
eighteen thousand persons were in the auditorium and a few thousand more
were outside clamoring for admission. When Roosevelt appeared on the
platform, a roar of applause broke loose and continued for forty-five
minutes.

Roosevelt's speech, characteristically, was confined to a plea for the
Progressive cause and for the State ticket; no word for himself. He
appeared in good form and to possess his usual vigor, although it was
observed that he did not use his right arm. His speech was earnest,
calm, and exalted, closing with what he called his political creed:

     I am glad beyond measure that I am one of the many who in this
     fight have stood ready to spend and be spent, pledged to fight
     while life lasts the great fight for righteousness and for
     brotherhood and for the welfare of mankind.

At the rally for the State ticket two nights later the crowd inside the
Garden was as large as at the national rally, though there were fewer
people outside. The enthusiasm was at the same high pitch. When I arose
to speak, the cheering began and lasted twenty-seven minutes before it
could be checked. Roosevelt was expected during the evening. His
physicians had reminded him when he started from home that he had
promised not to speak any more in the campaign, to which he humorously
replied that he had promised not to speak for himself, but that this
time he would talk for Oscar Straus and Fred Davenport and the
candidates on the judiciary ticket!

At the close of my thirty-minute address, Roosevelt appeared. The crowd
went wild, and stopped cheering only when Mr. Hotchkiss, who was
presiding, besought them to stop out of consideration for the Colonel.
Roosevelt spoke for an hour and held that vast audience in rapt
attention. He devoted the first half of his speech to outlining the
Progressive cause, its meaning and purpose, and the second half to
advocating the State ticket. He referred to my public career in terms of
unmeasured praise, beginning with my first mission to Turkey. He told
the crowd that everywhere he spoke, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf and
from the Atlantic to the Pacific, he had "found that the name of Oscar
Straus was a name with which to conjure," and that it "helped the
Progressive cause in California and in New Mexico, in Illinois and in
Kansas, that we here in New York had named such a man as our candidate
for Governor." He then gave accounts of the personal services and
qualifications of the other members of the ticket, and with this meeting
the Progressive campaign of 1912 closed with a blaze of unforgettable
enthusiasm.

On election day I received the following letter from Roosevelt:


                                                        YSTER BAY
                                                   _November 5, 1912_

     DEAR OSCAR:

     I count myself fortunate in having run upon the same ticket with
     you and in having had the privilege of supporting you. You are the
     kind of American who makes one proud of being an American; and I
     wish also to say that I feel just the same way about all your
     family, your dear wife, your two daughters and son. It is just such
     a family, and just such a family life, as I like to think of as
     typical of our citizenship at its best.

         With affectionate regard and esteem
                                       Faithfully yours
                                              THEODORE ROOSEVELT


The Progressives, as might have been expected, had been poorly
organized. The time had been too short for intensive development of our
forces. We had no machine, and in a number of the counties there was
scarcely a skeleton of an organization. It was, in fact, not a party in
the ordinary sense of the word at all, but rather a crusade, and what we
lacked in organization we made up by an abundance of spontaneous ardor.
We did not really expect victory, although Roosevelt several times said
that while he knew he would be defeated, he thought I would be elected.
As a matter of fact, I believe I was the only candidate of the
Progressive cause for Governor in any State who ran ahead of Roosevelt.
In New York State he got 389,000 votes, in round numbers, while I had
393,000.

I knew from observations during my campaign from one end of the State to
the other, how poorly, from a political standpoint, the Progressives
were organized, and I confess I did not see the slightest chance of
being elected. I was not disappointed, and I think that the men
generally who ran for offices on the Progressive ticket were not
disappointed. They realized that their contest was waged for a cause
and not for office, and from an educational point of view the campaign
was eminently successful.

Considering the vastness of the undertaking and the shortness of the
time, we did as well as any of us could have anticipated, if not better.
We were confident that the cause would triumph, in a degree at least, no
matter what party was in power, and I think the facts amply justify our
belief that the Progressive ideals made a definite impression upon the
country, and have given strength, if not dominant influence, to
Progressive principles in both of the old parties.




CHAPTER XIII

THREATENING CLOUDS OF WAR

     Sinister tension in the international air--The Hague
     Treaties--Germany's opposition to satisfactory understandings--New
     spirit of international good-will gains popular momentum--A
     conference with Secretary Hay--The Senate jealous of its authority;
     the treaties are not submitted--My address before the New York
     Peace Society--Other addresses on world peace--Carnegie's notable
     efforts--My lectures at the United States Naval War College at
     Newport--Conflicts of sovereignty respecting naturalized
     citizens--The Lake Mohonk Conferences--The American Society of
     International Law is founded--Distinguished speakers at first
     annual meeting--The Society's growth and permanence--Roosevelt
     astounds the world by sending the fleet around the world--The
     homecoming of the fleet--Opposition to free tolls for American
     ships in coastwise trade--The Mexican problem and my suggestions to
     the President as to how to meet it--Italy makes war on Turkey for
     Tripoli--Other Powers fail to grasp their opportunity to effect
     peaceful adjustment--My protests and warnings are published by "The
     Outlook"--The outburst of wars in the Balkans--Germany's ruthless
     aggressive policy is disclosed.


The ominous clouds, visible from time to time on the diplomatic horizon
during my last mission to Turkey, had latterly expanded from only local
significance into implications of greater and more sinister magnitude.
It had accordingly grown more and more apparent to me that the tinder
box of Europe, the Eastern Question, was likely to burst into flames at
almost any moment; and, in common with other close observers, I was not
unaware of an inscrutable and widespread tension in the international
air.

It seemed to many of us that America, which had so long remained wrapped
rather complacently in its cloak of isolation, might have a stern duty
to perform, not only to itself, but to the rest of the world. That duty
seemed to us to involve the immediate need of a more vigorous promotion
of world peace and of the specific and definite designing and
constructing of a proper machinery of enforcement.

In 1899, and again in 1907, to be sure, we had taken a leading part in
the two Hague Peace Conferences, at the first of which twenty-six, and
in the second of which forty-four, nations participated. These nations
had signed and ratified the various treaties formulated by the two
conferences. The first conference was called by the Emperor of Russia.
Its main purpose, as stated in the Russian note proposing the
conference, was by means of international discussion and agreement to
provide the most effective means for ensuring to all peoples the
benefits of a real and lasting peace, and, above all, to limit the
progressive development of armaments.

Soon after the conference assembled, it was found that no agreement
could be reached respecting the limitation of armaments, whereupon the
attention of the delegates was chiefly directed to formulating plans for
the peaceful settlement of international disputes. This resulted in the
adoption of a treaty of arbitration entitled: "Convention for the
Pacific Settlement of International Disputes." The American, the
British, and the delegates of several other leading Powers favored an
agreement for compulsory arbitration of all matters of a juridical
nature; but this was opposed at the first conference by Germany,[2] and
again at the second conference. The treaty, however, in a modified and
purely optional form, was adopted, though it fell short, by reason of
Germany's opposition, of much that it was hoped to attain; yet it was a
distinct gain in providing definite machinery for the maintenance of
peace and the adjustment of international differences by peaceful means.

  [Footnote 2: Andrew D. White, chairman of the American delegation,
  states in his diary: "It now appears (June 9, 1899) that the German
  Emperor is determined to oppose the whole scheme of arbitration, and
  will have nothing to do with any plan for a regular tribunal whether as
  given in the British or the American scheme. This news comes from
  various sources and is confirmed by the fact that in the sub-committee
  one of the German delegates, Professor Zorn of Königsberg, who had
  become very earnest in behalf of arbitration, now says that he may not
  be able to vote for it. There are also signs that the German Emperor is
  influencing the minds of his allies, the sovereigns of Austria, Italy,
  Turkey, and Roumania, leading them to oppose it." (_Autobiography of
  Andrew Dickson White_, vol. II, pp. 293-94.)]

In the development of international relations, in case of the threat of
war or of actual war, it was regarded as an unfriendly act for outside
Powers to tender good offices or to mediate in the cause of peace. This
unfortunate and unrighteous condition was radically changed and indeed
reversed by the treaty; the signatories agreed not only to have recourse
to the good offices or mediation of friendly Powers, but agreed also
that such Powers should on their own initiative tender such good offices
to the States at variance, and that such overtures should never be
regarded as an unfriendly act by either of the parties in dispute.
Especially in our country and in Great Britain, these treaties awakened
anew the spirit of international justice and good-will, and there ensued
many meetings designed to inform and stimulate popular interest in the
cause of world peace.

       *       *       *       *       *

John W. Foster, former Secretary of State, who had been in New York a
short time before as a member of a committee to provide for a public
meeting urging the ratification of the arbitration treaties, had made an
appointment for me to meet Secretary Hay for a conference regarding
them. I met Mr. Foster at the Cosmos Club and went with him to meet Mr.
Hay at the latter's residence. Hay, as usual, met us in his gracious way
and we discussed the subject from all sides. My main concern was that
these little arbitration treaties, which excepted questions of "vital
interest and national honor," should not have the effect of abridging
the broader provisions of the Hague Treaty. I had brought with me a
draft of a treaty which guarded against such contingencies, with which
Mr. Foster seemed to be in agreement.

Hay said he fully caught my idea, but that it had been desired to make
all of these treaties alike and to conform with the one between France
and Great Britain. He said it would be difficult enough, as it was, to
get these treaties through the Senate, as there was considerable
opposition, and therefore it was advisable to have these treaties with
the several Powers identical; otherwise separate arguments would be made
against each of the treaties. The Secretary asked me, however, to leave
with him the draft I had prepared, saying that it might prove very
useful to him.

The final upshot was that these treaties, to which Hay had devoted so
much care and thought during his last months in Washington, and by which
he hoped to lessen the likelihood of war throughout the world, were
violently opposed in the Senate on the ground that they deprived it of
its constitutional rights. Senators Knox and Spooner and their followers
took the view that every separate agreement to arbitrate under these
treaties must be submitted to the Senate. An amendment to this effect
emasculated the main purposes of the treaty and left the subject of
arbitration substantially as it would be without any treaties. As Hay
stated, Roosevelt saw the situation plainly enough and decided not to
submit the treaties for ratification by the other Powers.

       *       *       *       *       *

On my return home from Turkey, the New York Peace Society, of which I
had been the president until I entered the Cabinet in 1906, and whose
membership and activities had been very much enlarged under my
successor, Andrew Carnegie, gave me a reception on January 7, 1910, at
the Hotel Plaza, in New York. Mr. Carnegie, who was earnestly and
intensely devoted to the cause of international peace, and who had
donated the necessary money for the construction of the Peace Palace at
The Hague, presided at this reception, and made one of his
characteristic addresses. The subject of my talk was "The Threatening
Clouds of War," as they appeared to me to be gathering in the Near East
and in the Balkans.

It seemed to me that the most timely public service I could possibly
render during this period was to help arouse public opinion to a sense
of the imperative need of a newer view of world relations, and a genuine
public demand for an international understanding and machinery with
which peace might be maintained.

"World Peace" was therefore my subject when, on April 13th of the same
year, the Authors' Club tendered me a dinner "in recognition of my
public services at home and abroad." It was presided over by the veteran
author and publisher, Henry Holt, who nominated Mr. Carnegie as
toastmaster. Speeches were made by our ambassador to Berlin, David Jayne
Hill, by Rev. Dr. Thomas R. Slicer, Edward M. Shepard, Professor William
P. Trent, of Columbia University, and several others.

Though the Authors' Club has a comparatively small membership, limited
to members of the craft, yet there have sprung from its ranks a number
of our most eminent diplomatists, such as John Hay, Andrew D. White,
General Horace Porter, David Jayne Hill, Dr. Henry van Dyke, Seth Low,
and Frederick W. Holls. The last two were delegates to the First Hague
Peace Conference.

Determined to make the most of the growing popular agitation for the
promotion of international arbitration and peace, Mr. Carnegie soon
afterwards organized a great peace meeting which was held in Carnegie
Hall, New York City. The big hall was packed from pit to dome, and
thousands were unable to gain admission. The meeting was opened by Mr.
Carnegie, as presiding officer, and he was followed by Baron
d'Estournelles de Constant. In my address I specially emphasized neutral
duties in time of war and the inhibition upon neutrals to lend money to
belligerents pending war as being quite as much an unneutral act as the
selling of ships of war and armaments, as had been usually the case in
the past when money thus borrowed was used for that very purpose.

During the years 1903, 1904, and 1905, I devoted much attention to
questions affecting international relations. I was invited by Admiral
Chadwick, president of the United States Naval War College at Newport,
to deliver several lectures during the summer of 1903, and took for my
subject the protection of our citizens abroad, and surveyed the entire
subject of citizenship, native-born and naturalized. I pointed out that
by the law of July 27, 1868, it was specifically provided that
naturalized citizens while in foreign states shall receive from our
Government the same protection as to their persons and property that is
accorded to native-born citizens in like circumstances. All the European
countries denied the right of expatriation, while America from the
beginning had insisted upon that right as one of its basic elements of
liberty.

In several notable instances, our Navy had taken prompt action to uphold
American rights. One such case was that of Martin Coszta, a Hungarian
insurgent in the revolution of 1848-49, who escaped to Turkey and from
there came to the United States and made the usual declaration
preparatory to being naturalized under our laws. He returned to Turkey
in 1854, and at Smyrna he was seized while on shore and taken up by the
crew of an Austrian frigate and put in irons. Before the boat got under
way, an American frigate arrived and threatened to sink the Austrian
vessel unless Coszta was released. This led to an agreement under which
he was put in the custody of the French consul-general.

It is of the highest importance that the men of our Navy, especially
those in command of ships, should be conversant with the principles of
international law, as they are frequently called upon to act promptly.
This conflict of sovereignty respecting naturalized citizens caused the
war between us and Great Britain in 1812. Beginning with 1868, we
concluded treaties of naturalization with the German States and
Austria-Hungary, and subsequently with most of the other States.

My address was subsequently published in the quarterly proceedings of
the College of March, 1904. The following year I delivered another
address before the College on international relations specifically with
reference to Russia and the United States. This address was likewise
published in the proceedings of the Naval War College, and with some
modifications appeared in the "North American Review" of August, 1905.

       *       *       *       *       *

For a number of years many of the leading men of the country who were
interested in international relations were annually, at the beginning of
the summer, the guests of Messrs. Smiley at their noted hotel at Lake
Mohonk. These gatherings were known as the Lake Mohonk Conferences on
International Arbitration, lasted several days, and addresses were made
upon various international subjects.

At the conference of 1905, it occurred to some of the members who were
in attendance, who had long entertained the idea that an American
society devoted exclusively to the interests of international law should
be formed, that, in view of the large attendance that year of many
prominent men interested in the subject, it would be a propitious time
to organize. James Brown Scott, Professor of International Law at
Columbia University, and Professor George W. Kirchwey, Dean of the Law
School of the University, were most active in promoting the idea. A
preliminary meeting was called, and about fifty of the gentlemen in
attendance at the conference took part. They elected me as chairman,
Professor James Brown Scott as secretary, and appointed a committee of
twenty-one to effect a permanent organization. The committee so
appointed consisted of the following: Chandler P. Anderson, James B.
Angell, Professor Joseph H. Beale, Jr., David J. Brewer, Charles Henry
Butler, J. M. Dickinson, John W. Foster, George Gray, Professor Charles
Noble Gregory, John W. Griggs, Professor George W. Kirchwey, Robert
Lansing, Professor John Bassett Moore, W. W. Morrow, Professor Leo S.
Rowe, Professor James B. Scott, Oscar S. Straus, Everett P. Wheeler,
Andrew D. White, Professor George G. Wilson, and Theodore S. Woolsey.

The American Society of International Law was formally organized on
January 12, 1906. Back of its founding was the firm belief that the
influence of an association of publicists and others, organized along
the lines indicated, would count for much in the formation of a sound
and rational body of doctrine concerning the true principles of
international relations.

The following editorial comment regarding this organization is quoted
from the January, 1907, issue of "The American Journal of International
Law":

     While the necessity of such a society was felt by many, no serious
     steps were taken until the summer of 1905. It occurred to some of
     the members of the Mohonk Lake conference on international
     arbitration, that a society devoted exclusively to the interests of
     international law as distinct from international arbitration might
     be formed and that the members of the Mohonk Conference would
     supply a nucleus membership. Accordingly a call was issued to the
     members present at the conference, and as the result of the call
     and meeting of those interested a committee was appointed with
     Oscar S. Straus as chairman and James B. Scott as secretary, to
     consider plans for a definite organization and for the publication
     of a journal exclusively devoted to international law as the organ
     of the Society. On December 9th, 1905, a meeting of the committee
     was held at the residence of Oscar S. Straus in New York City, and
     as the result of favorable reports of the members present it
     appeared feasible to proceed immediately to the definitive
     organization of the Society. Accordingly a call was issued by the
     chairman for a meeting of those interested in international law and
     its popularization, to be held at the New York Bar Association, on
     Friday, January 12th, 1906.

     At this meeting it was decided to organize upon a permanent basis a
     society of those interested in the spread of international law with
     its ideals of justice and therefore of peace; a constitution was
     adopted; officers were elected and the Society took its place, it
     is hoped, permanently among the learned and influential societies
     of the world.

On April 19 and 20, 1907, was held the first annual meeting of the
American Society of International Law, at Washington, which was attended
by an unexpectedly large number of members. The society had grown, in
the short time since its organization, to a membership of over five
hundred. The various sessions were devoted to discussions of
international topics, and closed with a banquet presided over by
Secretary Root, and addresses were made by several speakers, including
two former Secretaries of State, namely, Richard Olney and John W.
Foster, as well as by James Bryce, General Horace Porter, and the
writer.

To-day the society has more than twelve hundred members, and since 1907
it has regularly held annual meetings and issued its quarterly
publication, "The American Journal of International Law." Since the
beginning, Elihu Root has been the president, with whom are associated
as vice-presidents and members of the executive council more than forty
of the leading writers and authorities, Senators and judges, including
the Chief Justice of the United States. I still am the chairman of the
executive committee, of which Professor Scott has from the beginning
been the recording secretary, as well as the editor-in-chief of the
"Journal." An analytical index of the fourteen volumes of the "Journal"
(1907-20) has recently been prepared by George A. Finch, secretary of
the board of editors.

       *       *       *       *       *

While these various groups were pressing forward on their respective
avenues of approach to a better understanding between nations, President
Roosevelt was applying his energies to the problem in his own way. His
method was in this instance characterized by a strikingly objective and
dramatic treatment. He firmly believed that the greater power a peaceful
nation has to make war in a world threatened by war, the greater becomes
its power to command peace. The peace societies will not endorse this
contention; but the history of international relations gives force to
that proposition. Such are international amenities, paradoxical as it
may appear.

Roosevelt's terse message to a world threatened by war was to send a
great fleet of battleships on a voyage round the world.

The fleet was scheduled to return to Hampton Roads on Washington's
birthday, February 22, 1908. It was to be reviewed on its arrival by the
President. Admiral Adolph Marix, the chairman of the Lighthouse Board in
my Department, in the tender Maple took my wife and me, Mr. and Mrs.
Leonard Hockstader, my son-in-law and daughter, and several officials of
the Department to Hampton Roads, and we steamed out to the tail of the
Horse Shoe some ten miles from Old Point Comfort. At the appointed time,
eleven o'clock that day, Admiral Sperry in his flagship Connecticut
passed in review before the President, and following him came the
twenty-four battleships consisting of the sixteen ships that went around
the Horn, and eight additional ones, most of which had been completed
since the squadron had left the Atlantic on this voyage sixteen months
before. These ships had steamed 42,000 miles without any hitch or any
casualty, or any untoward circumstance.

When the President first decided that this trip should be made, all
kinds of hostile criticism bristled in the press of the country. But the
President, with his usual alertness, had several far-sighted purposes in
view. He says in his "Autobiography": "At that time, as I happened to
know neither the English nor the German authorities believed it possible
to take a fleet of great battleships around the world, I made up my mind
that it was time to have a show-down in the matter; because if it was
really true that our fleet could not get from the Atlantic to the
Pacific, it was much better to know it and be able to shape our policy
in view of the knowledge."

The great show of naval strength on the part of the United States that
this voyage illustrated naturally had its effect throughout the world. A
strength that is not menacing tends to allay menace. And in this
instance the visit of the fleet to Japan was promptly interpreted by
the Japanese as one of courtesy and good-will. The President, again and
again in his public utterances, as well as in his private statements at
Cabinet meetings, had emphasized his view that a strong navy makes for
peace. And toasting the admirals and captains in the cabin of the
Mayflower, he exclaimed:

"Isn't it magnificent? Nobody after this will forget that the American
coast is on the Pacific as well as on the Atlantic!"

The home-coming of the fleet was a most imposing sight. The weather was
beautiful, and altogether the function appeared as calm and peaceful as
if it had been a magnificent pleasure excursion, which indeed it had
proved to be.

       *       *       *       *       *

On my return to America in the fall of 1913, there were two notable
questions that occupied the attention of President Wilson and Congress,
in which as a private citizen I had taken some part. I was soon invited
by the National Republican Club to take part in a luncheon discussion of
"Present World Problems," and this enabled me to discuss a subject that
had resulted in a plank in the National Platform of the Progressive
Party, "that American ships engaged in coastwise trade shall pay no
tolls." As this question did not arise in the New York State campaign, I
had had no occasion to discuss it except on one occasion when I was
asked what my stand was upon that subject, and I plainly stated that I
did not favor the remission of tolls, as it conflicted with the spirit,
if not with the express wording, of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, and that
I would only favor it in the event the question were left to arbitration
and decided in our favor. In this discussion I went somewhat fully into
the subject, making it clear why I was not in favor of free tolls, and
why I supported the President in the stand that he had taken for repeal
of the act that freed our coastwise ships from such tolls.

Others who spoke at this luncheon on various phases of the general
problem were William L. Mackenzie King, at this writing the Premier of
Canada, and Miss Mabel T. Boardman, representing the American Red Cross.

In April the Senate Committee on Interoceanic Canals held hearings upon
an act to amend the Panama Canal Act repealing the provision providing
for freeing coastwise American ships from tolls. Upon invitation I
appeared before this committee and supported the position that the
President had taken, in opposition to the provisions of the platform of
his party, for the repeal of the free tolls clause. Upon the urgent
request of the President, the repealing act was passed. Some of our
ablest Senators, regardless of party, took opposing sides upon this
question. Elihu Root, who was then Senator, presented, in my judgment,
the most convincing argument and the ablest speech of his distinguished
career in the Senate, advocating the repeal of the free tolls clause.

       *       *       *       *       *

Another international subject which I was carefully studying at this
time was our relations with Mexico. I felt then, as I do now, that our
Government has often been badly served and wrongly advised in regard to
affairs in Mexico. I suggested to the President that he should send to
Mexico a commission of experienced men who could in a comparatively
short time lay before him the true conditions as a guide for our
governmental action. I pointed out that under circumstances different,
but no less perplexing, this plan had been adopted by Cleveland during
the Venezuela trouble, and that the appointment of that commission, of
which Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court was chairman, had hastened
the solution. When the idea of the United States sending a commission
such as I recommended became publicly known, it was favorably received
by General Huerta, the then President of Mexico, as well as by Carranza.
The appointment of such a commission would have had the additional
effect of offsetting the pressure in Congress for intervention, and
several of the leading Senators expressed themselves as favoring it.

       *       *       *       *       *

When storm clouds are rushing across the sky, it is very difficult to
foretell where the lightning will strike. It is needless here to discuss
the professed but spurious reasons why Italy declared war upon Turkey in
1911. It was evident that no _casus belli_ existed in any international
sense. The naked fact was that Italy determined to have a slice of
northern Africa, and was favored in that craving by several of the Great
Powers, chiefly to prevent Germany from getting a foothold on the
Mediterranean. I knew from my observations in Turkey that this
aggressive action on the part of Italy would far transcend the interest
of either Italy or Turkey, and would inevitably arouse the restless
Balkan Powers to action.

In a communication that I sent to Secretary of State Knox on September
29, 1911, attention was directed to what would probably be the outcome
of this action on the part of Italy; also that the Hague Treaty not only
sanctioned, but made it morally incumbent upon Powers that were
strangers to the dispute, to tender their good offices for the purpose
of a peaceful adjustment. Just because the United States could not be
accused of having any direct interest, such an offer could have been
made with best grace by our country. If ever there had been a war of
conquest, that was one. One of the London papers had frankly criticized
Italy's precipitous act as that of "pirate, brigand, and buccaneer."

In an article written for "The Outlook" following a number of public
addresses upon the same subject, I pointed out that Turkey, both
immediately before and since hostilities began, had appealed to the
Christian nations of the world, who were co-signatories with her of the
Hague Treaty, to use their good offices for peace, but the Christian
nations had declined to act. In this article I stated:

     So far as it opens an era possibly of the gravest menace to Europe,
     it is primarily of European concern; but in so far as the
     provisions of the Peace Treaty are disregarded by neutral Powers,
     this is a grave moral loss no less for us than for all nations, the
     magnitude of which is not lessened, but increased by the fact that
     Christian Italy is making an unprovoked war upon a Mohammedan
     Power. The efforts to bring about a peaceful adjustment under the
     circumstances is not only a moral right, but a right under the
     Convention in which Turkey, Italy, and the United States are
     equally signatories with the other forty-one nations.

     The international moral damage this war entails is the concern of
     all nations. The manner in which it was precipitated without first
     having recourse to the enlightened methods of peaceful adjustment,
     combined with the concerted refusal of European Powers to attempt
     mediation, will make peace treaties waste paper, and peace
     professions of civilized nations sham and hypocrisy.

In quick succession this war was followed in 1912 by the first Balkan
war against Turkey, and then in 1913 by the second Balkan war, between
the Balkan nations themselves to divide the spoils. For thirty years the
Treaty of Berlin (1878) had served to maintain European peace. The first
breach was the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria. The
second was the Italian-Turkish war, followed by the Balkan wars. The
toll of these latter wars entailed a sacrifice of 300,000 dead or
permanently disabled on the field of battle; and the immediate
consequence was to upset "the balance of power" so that the Great Powers
at once heavily extended their armies and navies, and their budgets ran
wild.

       *       *       *       *       *

Probably the most illuminating document concerning the conditions that
led up to the World War is the Lichnowsky Memorandum which is entitled:
"My London Mission, 1912-1914." I had known Prince Lichnowsky when he
was one of the secretaries of the German Embassy during my first mission
to Turkey. He was appointed ambassador to England after the death of
Baron Marschall in September, 1912. This memorandum was prepared as a
personal record during the second year of the war, and, after being
privately circulated, was, by design or otherwise, published. It is the
most convincing indictment of Germany's ruthless aggressive policy, and
it naturally brought down upon its author the severest condemnation of
the Emperor and the militarists. Germany's reiterated claim that Great
Britain, having designed Germany's destruction, sought to justify the
large increase of her navy, was disproved by her own ambassador.

The events that resolved themselves into the World War, as well as the
World War itself, are most convincing proofs that the preservation of
peace is a matter of common interest to the entire family of nations,
and that it must not be left to a single member of this group to disturb
the world's peace at will.




CHAPTER XIV

PERSONAL VIGNETTES

     We motor through northern Africa--The King of Italy discusses world
     politics--Exploring historical ruins with the Mayor of Rome and
     Georg Brandes--Two Cardinals--David Lubin, international genius--In
     London--William Watson, the British poet, considers residing in
     America and asks about cost of living--Lloyd George curious about
     Progressives--He guarantees a one-pound note--John Burns discourses
     on British history--The notable housing experiment at Hampstead
     Garden Suburb--Earl and Lady Grey--At Skibo Castle with Andrew
     Carnegie--Indifferent golf, but fine trout fishing--At The Hague
     Peace Palace--Some eminent Hollanders--Turning the laugh on the
     cartoonists--Rudyard Kipling on having a daughter in society--An
     evening with Israel Zangwill--Henri Bergson in an argument with
     Roosevelt, with Rodin, the sculptor, a bored listener--To Spain to
     attend Kermit Roosevelt's wedding--Spanish politics--A protégé of
     Bismarck--Recollections of Disraeli--Evidence of Spanish and Jewish
     origin of Christopher Columbus.


Motoring leisurely through Algiers and Tunis with Mrs. Straus, I was now
enjoying a delightful holiday, free from cares and responsibility. The
drowsy tropical air invited complete relaxation, and the lazy African
days ushered us into a world unbelievably remote from that of American
politics. Graceful, luminous Algiers, with its brilliant European
hotels, charming cafés, veiled women, and swarthy men, etched lasting
impressions upon our minds. My defeat in the tense Progressive contest
for the governorship of New York had afforded me this opportunity for
another taste of freedom. It was in the spring of the year 1913, and the
mountains through which we toured were full of unexpected and beguiling
scenes. This region is not only rich in historic associations, but the
engineering skill of the French has in turn modernized it with excellent
motor roads. From Tunis we crossed to Sicily, where we visited the
Carthaginian, Greek, and Roman remains of columns and temples that still
bear tragic witness to the conflict between the armies of Hannibal and
Scipio, and between the transplanted Asiatic and European civilizations.

We made our way to Rome, where Ambassador Thomas J. O'Brien showed us
many attentions, and arranged for an audience on April 28th with Victor
Emmanuel III. The King was most affable and agreeable, and spoke perfect
English. He referred to my several missions to Turkey, and said he, too,
was there frequently when he was in the navy. He spoke with an intimate
knowledge of the men and affairs in the Near East that surprised me. We
discussed Arabia and the unrest there due to the incompetency of the
Sultan's Government, and soon the conversation turned to the Balkan
situation. I said I feared that as soon as the treaty then being
negotiated, which was to end the first Balkan War against Turkey, was
signed, a fresh war would break out among the five Balkan Powers. That
would not surprise him, he said, but considered that it might be best to
let them fight it out. I answered that the trouble with that course was
that the fight would involve the Great Powers, as the several Balkan
States were attached to strings that led directly into the chancelleries
of the Great Powers--with which the King did not disagree.

We talked of the Jews, and he said in Italy they were not made a
separate element in the population. "We neither know nor care whether a
man is a Jew or not," he remarked, adding that the only persons who took
special notice of the subject at all were occasional clericals.
Personally he was very fond of the Jews; nearly every ministry had
contained one or more; and General Ottolenghi, a Jew who had been
Minister of War a few years before, had been one of his most favored
instructors. Altogether we had a fine talk of over an hour. The King's
quick and vigorous mind, his clearness of vision and breadth of
intellectual grasp I found very refreshing. Unlike some of the monarchs,
he did not seem detached and weighted down by a sense of his own
importance.

From my friend Isaac N. Seligman, since deceased, of New York, I had
received a letter of introduction to Ernesto Nathan, Mayor of Rome, of
whom I had heard much and whom I was therefore anxious to meet. I sent
Mr. Seligman's letter, together with my card, to the Mayor. The next
morning, when Mrs. Straus and I were leaving our hotel for a motor ride,
a tall, prepossessing gentleman, who impressed me somewhat as a typical
Englishman, came toward me with a look of recognition which I
instinctively answered.

"Is this Mr. Straus? I am Mr. Nathan," he said, in perfect English.

His brother was with him, and we were glad to return to the hotel with
them for a chat. We arranged for a little excursion the next day to the
ancient Roman commercial city of Ostia, whose ruins were being
excavated. In the midst of these plans the Mayor remarked that a friend
of his, Georg Brandes, the Danish savant and critic, was in Rome, and if
agreeable to us he would like to have him join us. Of course it was
agreeable, and in our little party next day were Mayor Nathan, his
brother, his daughter, Georg Brandes, a Signor Cena, editor of a leading
Italian review, and ourselves. The Mayor acted as guide and showed an
astonishing familiarity with things archæological in a most delightful
way; even the occasional spells of rain in no way dampened our enjoyment
of the trip. Upon our return, the Mayor took us to lunch in a typical
Italian restaurant, where we spent two hours at a sociable repast.

My introduction to Mayor Ernesto Nathan led to a friendship which I
prized highly and enjoyed until his death in April, 1921. He was born in
England of Jewish parents. His father was a banker and a descendant of
the Frankfort family of Nathans, a collateral branch of the Mayer family
from whom is descended the great banking family of Rothschild. After his
father died, his mother took the family to Pisa to live. Here their home
became a refuge for Italian patriots, as it had been in London. At
twenty-five Signor Nathan became business manager of "La Roma del
Popolo," a paper started by Giuseppe Mazzini, a friend of the family,
whose works he later edited. Nathan remained an editor and publisher
until he entered politics. He became Mayor of Rome in 1907, elected by
the anti-clerical party, and during the six years he remained Mayor he
did much to modernize Rome, especially in the improvement of its
street-car service and its sanitation, so that the city's death-rate
became one of the lowest in Europe. He was highly esteemed, and even the
clericals respected his uprightness and efficiency.

Brandes, when I met him, was nearly seventy years old, but
intellectually vigorous and brilliant, although cynical, even if at
times humorously and delightfully so.

Through David Lubin, American delegate to the International Institute of
Agriculture, whom I had known for many years, we met Professor Luigi
Luzzatti, Professor of International Law at the University of Rome, a
leading member of the Italian Chamber, and a convincing orator and
publicist. He was then in his seventies, a large, statesmanlike figure
of distinguished appearance. We spent a pleasant hour in his apartment
on the Via Veneto opposite our hotel. He said he was gratified to find
my views, as expressed in my "Roger Williams" and in my chapter on the
development of religious liberty in my "American Spirit," so much in
accord with his own. He told me about his brochure, "Liberta di
Consciensa e di Sciensa," which had been translated into German under
the title "Freiheit des Gewissens und Wissens." In it he makes
considerable reference to Roger Williams, and pays me the compliment of
saying that he derived the inspiration for his book from mine. He also
quotes extensively from Roosevelt's letter on religious liberty, which I
have embodied in Chapter X of this volume.

I called on Professor Luzzatti a number of times thereafter, which in
his charming way he had begged me to do because he was confined to the
house with a cold and therefore could not call on me. In one of his
notes he wrote that we were friends because our ideas and ideals were
the same, and he wanted to be sure to see me again before I left Rome.
He confirmed what the King had told me, that there was no anti-Semitic
spirit in Italy. He said he was a Jew, but was not brought up
religiously as such, although he was known to be ready on all necessary
occasions to stand up for his people.

Professor Luzzatti was largely responsible for improving Italy's
financial system, and in the establishment of the Banca Popolari, or
People's Banks. He was also influential in the negotiation of Italy's
commercial treaties.

Through the offices of P. R. Mackenzie, who for a number of years had
been Rome correspondent of the "New York Sun," I met Cardinals Rampolla
and Falconio. We called first on the latter, who knew our country well.
For nine years he had been papal legate at Washington, during which time
he became a naturalized citizen. As we entered his reception room, I
observed two little American flags attached to an ornament on the
center table. He informed, me as he greeted me that His Holiness was
quite ill, otherwise he would have advised me to allow Cardinal Rampolla
and himself to arrange for an audience.

Mr. Mackenzie informed the Cardinal that I had been a member of the
Roosevelt Cabinet, which recalled Roosevelt's visit to Rome in 1910. Of
course, I was anxious to learn how both these prelates regarded that
incident. Cardinal Falconio said that the Holy Father had made no
conditions as to the visit, but had merely expressed the hope that there
might be no repetition of the Fairbanks incident; the Holy Father knew
how broad-minded and well-disposed Roosevelt was toward all creeds and
had really wanted very much to meet him. The Cardinal said that of
course Roosevelt could not be blamed; the matter should not have been
handled through the embassy. His remarks implied that the mismanagement
had been there.

We now went within the Vatican district, under the arch on the side, to
the palatial residence of Cardinal Rampolla. On entering, we were led to
the Cardinal's private room next to the formal reception chamber, where
the Cardinal greeted us warmly. He has great charm of manner and is most
gracious; withal he impressed one as a keen, learned, and shrewd
prelate. He was regarded as the ablest and most distinguished of the
cardinals eligible to the Holy See, and it may be remembered that he was
considered the logical successor of Leo XIII, and it was said he would
probably have been elected Pope but for the opposition of the Emperor of
Austria.

In referring to the Roosevelt incident, he too held Roosevelt entirely
blameless, and added that both he and Brother Falconio knew how kindly
Roosevelt felt toward Catholics and the Holy See, and that there should
have been nothing official about that message; if he had been in Merry
Del Val's place, the regrettable misunderstanding would not have
happened. Evidently he blamed the papal secretary.

David Lubin gave a dinner at the Hôtel de Russie to Mrs. Straus and me
on May 1st. Among the guests were Mayor Nathan and Marquis Sapelli,
president of the International Institute of Agriculture, and the
Marchioness. Professor Luzzatti had accepted, but his cold still
prevented his going out. Lubin was a rough diamond, so to speak: a man
of vision, unlimited energy and enthusiasm. It was he who induced the
Italian Government to recognize the International Institute of
Agriculture, and he was regarded by that Government as its founder.
Indeed, he was better understood in Rome than in Washington. He knew
nothing and cared less about diplomatic amenities. When I was in the
Cabinet our ambassador at Rome had made an unfavorable report about him
because of some supposed tactless move which was objected to by our
ambassador. This report displeased Secretary Root, and the result would
have been Lubin's recall as our delegate to the Institute, had I not
interceded for him with the President, explaining what manner of man
Lubin was, that he had no manners but genius, and that I felt sure the
King of Italy himself would intercede for him.

As a matter of fact about a year after that there was some question of
appointing another person as American delegate, and the King did
intercede for Lubin. For the help and encouragement that I gave this
worthy man he was always thereafter most grateful to me. It was David
Lubin, too, who first aroused interest in America in the establishment
of an agricultural credit system, as well as in the coöperative banks.

       *       *       *       *       *

From Rome we went direct to London, where I shortly got in touch with
William Watson, the poet. I had met him the year before in the United
States. I was chairman of the executive committee of the Authors' Club
at the time, and as such its president; the Club gave him a reception;
also he was at my house several times. It was said of him that he was
better known than Robert Bridges and would have been selected as poet
laureate in preference to Bridges had he not written a poem called "The
Woman with the Serpent's Tongue," referring to Margot Asquith, wife of
the Premier, which spoiled his chances for official recognition. He
appeared somewhat disappointed and to be considering permanent residence
in America. He asked me about the cost of living in cities other than
New York, which he considered too extravagant.

Watson gave me a luncheon at the British Empire Club, where I met a
number of his friends--Sir Sidney Lee, editor of the "Dictionary of
National Biography"; Sir William Robertson Nicoll, editor of the
"Bookman" and of the "British Weekly"; H. W. Massingham, editor of the
"Nation"; and a few others. Watson told me that Sir Sidney Lee's
biography of Shakespeare was considered the best extant from an
historical and critical point of view, and that his biography of King
Edward had created a sensation in England, but that its aim was to
portray the human side of King Edward. He told me also that Sir Sidney
was an Israelite. My own conversation with Sir Sidney was very general.
He is a mild man with a reserved manner.

Sir Charles and Lady Henry invited us to luncheon at their beautiful
town house in Carlton Gardens, to meet Lloyd George, who was then
Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other guests were: Sir Alexander Ure,
solicitor-general for Scotland; Dr. Thomas J. MacNamara, parliamentary
secretary to the Admiralty; Robert Donald, editor of the "Daily
Chronicle," a leading labor daily.

Lloyd George explained the important Liberal measures to me,
particularly the National Insurance Act of 1911, amendments to which
were then being considered in the House. He declared that it was
necessary to curb or reform the House of Lords before social justice
measures, such as this insurance act, legislation for old age pensions,
etc., could be put through. He asked about Roosevelt and the status of
the Progressive Party, and whether the newspapers were favorable to the
cause; it seems that the newspapers did not give him adequate
information regarding the Progressives. I had to tell him that many of
our leading dailies were not with us. I explained to him that I thought
the Progressive movement could hardly be regarded as a party, but that I
believed its influence in liberalizing both of the old parties would be
considerable.

When I was in London shortly after the outbreak of the World War, I
remember a humorous incident at another meeting with Lloyd George, at a
small dinner. For emergency use there had been issued one-pound treasury
notes that looked more like a "shinplaster" of our Civil War days than
like a dignified British pound. One of the guests brought in a number of
these, for which some of us exchanged gold. As I took one up I remarked
about the appearance of it and added that before I accepted it I would
require the endorsement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lloyd George
quickly answered, "That can be done," and promptly took the note and
wrote his name on the back of it. It remains in my possession as a
souvenir.

The following Sunday, Sir Charles and Lady Henry again invited us to
luncheon, this time to their country home near Maidenhead, to meet Sir
Rufus and Lady Isaacs. Sir Rufus is now Lord Reading, and it was then
quite well understood that he would be appointed Lord Chief Justice. He
expressed great interest in our parliamentary system as compared with
that of Great Britain, but thought the British method had an advantage
over ours in that members of the Cabinet were at the same time members
of Parliament and could advocate their own measures, and that in England
a Cabinet member must be not only an administrator, but a
parliamentarian as well. He was very anxious to know how administrative
measures in our country are brought forward and enacted into laws. I
explained our system to him and told him I thought the system of
questioning in Parliament members of the Cabinet left very little
opportunity for the Cabinet members to devote themselves to the
administrative work of their departments.

During this stay in London, I again had several pleasant meetings with
Postmaster-General Herbert Samuel, whom I had visited when I passed
through London on my return from Constantinople in 1910. He informed me
that within a month he intended visiting Canada and then the United
States. Later in the year I met him in my own country, where he
delivered several public addresses and made a fine impression.

While we were at tea one afternoon on the terrace of the House of
Commons with Mr. and Mrs. Samuel, the Right Honorable John Burns,
president of the Local Government Board, joined us. He knew both my
brothers and was pleased to meet me. He asked me to accompany him to
his department, which is only a short distance from Westminster Hall. As
we passed the entrance to Westminster, he said to me:

"Let us stop here and let me give you a graphic page of British
history."

So we halted for about ten minutes under the scaffolding of the men who
were doing some repair work on the edifice, while Burns discoursed
eloquently on the well-known facts of British history. I was as much
interested in the man as in the great Gothic structure, and my mind went
on to review the march of democracy from the booted and spurred Cromwell
to the radical labor leader John Burns. The radicalism of Burns was at
one time considered dangerous, but on entering the Cabinet he became
conservative and reliable, proving the effect of responsibility upon
even the more radical minds when in office.

Across the Thames Burns pointed to some factories, saying: "There is
where my father worked as a day laborer, and where I worked." And I was
indeed impressed with the democracy of Great Britain in our day.

We spent a charming evening with Mr. and Mrs. Harry Brittain, now Sir
Harry and Lady Brittain, in their cozy home on Cowley Street. The only
other guest was Earl Grey, former Governor-General of Canada. Earlier in
the year I had met both Sir Harry Brittain and Earl Grey in New York,
when they came over respectively as chairman and secretary of the
British committee for the Celebration of One Hundred Years of Peace.

A few days thereafter Earl Grey invited Mrs. Brittain, Mrs. Straus, and
me to breakfast with him and then to accompany him to the now famous
Hampstead Garden Suburb. I was glad of this opportunity to see that
experiment, because the subject of housing workers in wholesome homes
and surroundings at a moderate cost was one that interested me very
much.

Hampstead is only about five or six miles from the heart of London. In
this beautiful suburb, every house has a garden, and the architecture of
the houses is varied and attractive. Earl Grey knew several of the
tenants, and took us into a number of the houses. At that time the
rental of an entire house per week was six and a half shillings and
upward; and there were large single rooms with cooking facilities for
three and a half shillings a week. The population was almost seven
thousand, and the suburb was being extended. There was an air of
contentment about the place, and the children looked robust and happy.
The wonder of it all was that the plan was on an economically sound
basis and was paying four and a half per cent annually on the capital
invested. The Earl had much to do with the development of this suburb
and, if I mistake not, was chairman of the board at the time.

Mrs. Straus and I were also invited to spend a week-end with Earl and
Lady Grey at Howick, their Northumberland estate. Mrs. Straus, however,
had planned to take a cure at a German health resort, so my son Roger
was invited in her stead. The only other visitor was Henry Vivian, M.P.,
who was associated with Earl Grey in both the Hampstead Garden Suburb
and the organization of the coöperative societies, of which latter Earl
Grey was chairman. I participated in a meeting of the Coöperative
Society of Northern England and saw how practical and inexpensively
conducted they were, cheapening merchandise of all kinds by eliminating
the profits of middlemen and the cost of distribution, and to that
extent lowering the cost of living. Along these lines we have much to
learn in our own country.

Roger and I spent a delightful few days with Earl and Lady Grey. The
Earl represented the finest type of English nobleman. He was a man of
the highest ideals, even regarded by some as rather visionary in his
various plans for the betterment of economic conditions; a man who
recognized, as do so many of the British titled people, the patriotic
responsibilities attached to their position.

I now proceeded to the northern part of Scotland to spend a few days
with Andrew Carnegie at Skibo Castle in Sutherland. It was what Andrew
Carnegie called "university week" at Skibo, for in accordance with an
annual custom he had as his guests the provosts of the several Scotch
universities.

Every morning we were awakened by the music of several Scotch
highlanders dressed in their kilts and playing old native tunes on their
bagpipes. Those were unique and memorable awakenings in the
steel-master's castle; the bagpipes attuned the mind instantly to the
Scotch atmosphere and Scotch tradition. We started our day invariably
with a game of golf, at which we helped each other out as caddies, for
all of us, Mr. Carnegie included, were indifferent players (beyond which
stage I have not even since progressed), so that we all felt quite at
home with one another on the links.

We had hoped to test Carnegie's much-lauded and far-famed salmon pond,
but that season the fish were late in coming up the run, so we were
deprived of that pleasure and had to console ourselves with a little
trout fishing. Two or three were put into each of our baskets for
breakfast, and the remainder were religiously restored to the pond.

At that time Skibo Castle had but recently been built, but already it
was noted for its generous hospitality, which both the British and
American friends of Mr. Carnegie so much enjoyed.

I had promised Mr. Carnegie that I would attend the ceremonies opening
the Peace Palace at The Hague, to which all the members of the Hague
Tribunal had been specially invited. From Skibo, therefore, I returned
to London, to meet my old friend Hakki Pasha, who was one of the Turkish
members of the Tribunal, and together we went on to The Hague.

A word about the origin of the Peace Palace may not prove tedious.
Shortly after the close of the first Hague Conference in 1899 the late
Professor Martens, distinguished Russian international jurist, had a
talk with our ambassador at Berlin, Andrew D. White, who had been
chairman of the American delegation at that conference. Together they
discussed the desirability of a building at The Hague which should serve
as a "palace of justice" for the Permanent Court and as a place of
meetings for international conferences. Subsequently Ambassador White
presented the idea to Andrew Carnegie, and Carnegie invited him to come
to Skibo to discuss it. Ambassador White records in his "Autobiography":

     The original idea had developed into something far greater. The
     Peace Palace at The Hague began to reappear in a new glory--as a
     pledge and sign of a better future for the world. Then there came
     from Carnegie the words which assured his great gift to the
     nations--the creation of a center as a symbol of a world's desire
     for peace and of good will to man.

The programme for the dedication was in keeping with the occasion. The
city itself was decorated with festive drapery and floral arches. It was
a beautiful day and great crowds of people had gathered. The great
conference hall and the galleries of the Palace were filled with
representatives of the nations: the diplomatic corps; about forty
members of the Permanent Court; members of the States General of
Holland; the Queen; Prince Henry; the Queen Mother, and many ladies;
altogether an imposing assembly.

The ceremony opened with the singing of anthems by the choir from
Amsterdam. An historical address was made by the former Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Jonkheer van Karnebeek, president of the Carnegie
Building Foundation. His son, by the way, is Minister of Foreign Affairs
at this writing and was Holland's chief representative at the Washington
Conference of 1921. Mr. Van Swinderen, the retiring Minister of Foreign
Affairs, made the address accepting the custody of the building.

In the evening a banquet to Mr. Carnegie was given in the Hall of
Knights at Binnenhof by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the name of
the Government, to which were invited the nobility and all the high
officials who had attended the ceremony, and who thereafter were
received in audience by the Queen at the Royal Palace.

The greatest possible distinction was shown to both Mr. and Mrs.
Carnegie, who were brimming over with gratification. Well known as
Carnegie was as one of the greatest captains of industry, he is even
better known, and will be longer remembered throughout the world, by the
extent of his benefactions, in the distribution of which he found his
supreme happiness in the last two decades of his life.

When the World War began, the cartoonists made much sport of the Peace
Palace as the outstanding embodiment of the irony of fate, and with the
peace advocates for the failure of their vision. But evidence is not
entirely lacking that the peace advocates may yet be able to turn the
laugh on the cartoonists. Some of the most constructive features of the
League of Nations were formulated by commissions working under the roof
of the Peace Palace. The International Court of Justice, organized
under the provisions of the covenant of the League of Nations, has its
seat within the Palace and will soon be ready to commence its
constructive work. The Palace is a contribution whose worth to
civilization can hardly be measured in a single generation.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the fall of that year we returned to New York, but only for a few
months. When Kermit Roosevelt became engaged to Miss Willard, charming
daughter of our ambassador to Spain, my wife promised him that unless we
were unavoidably prevented, we should be present at his marriage in
Madrid early in the following June. We had become very much attached to
our young friend, whom we got to know so well during his stay with us at
Constantinople.

On May 19, 1914, we returned to Europe on the S.S. Lusitania. On board
we were agreeably surprised to find our long-time friend, Mrs. T. J.
Preston, Jr., formerly Mrs. Grover Cleveland, seated at our table in the
dining-saloon. She was traveling alone and was to meet her husband and
daughter in London. Naturally we spoke of Cleveland and of his qualities
as they had revealed themselves to her and to his more intimate friends.
When a man is President and always in the limelight, people get a
perverted impression of him, a fact true more or less since Washington's
day, but perhaps to a greater degree in the case of Cleveland. Mrs.
Preston referred to many incidents that illustrated his gentleness and
consideration, and she gave credit to his advice and guidance for much
of the tact she displayed as mistress of the White House, for she was
scarcely out of her teens when she occupied that important post.

In London I received a letter from Roosevelt saying he would meet us in
Paris on June 7th, and suggesting that I keep in touch with our embassy
there. Miss Catherine Page also was going to the wedding to be one of
the bridesmaids, and Ambassador Page asked us to take her with us, which
of course we were glad to do.

We stayed in London for several days, and soon after our arrival, there
was a young people's dance at the embassy to which the ambassador asked
us to come if only for a short stay. There we met Mr. and Mrs. Rudyard
Kipling. In the course of a pleasant chat, I asked Kipling in what work
he was then engaged.

Kipling pointed to the next room at the dancing, and said: "Sitting up
late nights as I have a daughter in society, which is my principal
occupation at present."

I spent an evening with Israel Zangwill, during which he unfolded to me
a plan he was formulating to call a conference of representative Jews
from various countries to form a central committee which was to be more
internationally representative than the Alliance Israélite of Paris,
which is in reality dominantly French and therefore does not represent
the world of Israel in an international sense. Such a body was to
protect, defend, and plead for the cause of the Jews wherever necessary
and to speak in behalf of the Jewry of the world. He said he had talked
it over with his colleagues and they wanted me to take the presidency of
such a body because of my experience in statesmanship and world
diplomacy. I took care not to discourage him, but told him I should have
to consider the matter, because with me personality sank out of sight
when an important cause was to be carried forward.

When we arrived in Paris, a note awaited us from Ambassador Herrick
asking us to come to the embassy, and informing us that Roosevelt was
there. When I arrived I found Roosevelt in the smoking-room engaged in
an animated conversation with ex-Premier Hanotaux regarding the physical
characteristics of the races of Europe, in which Henri Bergson also
participated, and to which the sculptor Rodin appeared to be a bored
listener. Roosevelt was talking French, and when he could not find the
word he wanted, he used an English term for which Bergson would then
give him the French equivalent.

The next day our party left for Madrid--Roosevelt, his daughter Alice,
their cousin Philip, son of William Emlen Roosevelt, Miss Page, Mrs.
Straus, and myself. We were a jolly party.

Roosevelt and I, of course, talked politics, especially the future of
the Progressive Party. The State campaign for Governor and United States
Senator was being discussed when Roosevelt left home, and he had given
out an interview before sailing regarding the sort of men that should be
chosen, in which he had kindly referred to me as the standard of nominee
for Senator. The press had commented extensively and favorably upon such
a choice and there had appeared many articles and editorials giving
consideration to my name. Roosevelt had, of course, referred to me only
as the type of man to be chosen, and believed that if the nominee for
Governor were chosen from New York City, it might be well to choose the
candidate for Senator from up-State. I told him I had no personal vanity
in the matter, that what we wanted was the candidates that would best
embody the cause. He answered that he knew me well enough for that, but
that every one agreed that next to him I was the most prominent
Progressive, and in New York State even stronger than he, as shown by
the election of 1912. Of course I did not agree with this generous
statement, which was another proof that figures do sometimes lie.

He expressed the hope that the Progressives and the liberal wing of the
Republicans might unite. He lamented the difficulties for the party in
the coming election, and said he was reluctant to enter the campaign,
but, he added: "I must stand by the men who stood by me." If Johnson was
again to be the candidate of the party for Governor of California and
needed his help, he would have to go there, though he could not overtax
his throat, which had been weakened by his fever in the jungles of
Brazil. He said if that fever had overtaken him two weeks earlier, he
would not have pulled through; as it was, he had had a narrow escape.

At Irun, the Spanish border, King Alphonso's private car was hitched on
to our train. From there on to the King's summer palace, where he left
the train, a small guard of honor was drawn up at every stopping-place
and the chief officials of the district came to pay their respects to
their sovereign. The King was only twenty-eight years old, but was
generally conceded to be a man of ability, with enlightened views, and
highly regarded by his subjects. However, among the random notes that I
made at the end of this visit to Spain, I wrote:

     I very much doubt if monarchy will last another score of years in
     Spain unless the King takes a lesson from Great Britain and is
     content to have Parliament govern the country. The democratic
     spirit is rapidly growing, but I very much doubt if the people with
     their long traditions of monarchical government, will be prepared
     for many years for a democratic form of government.

The most powerful man in Parliament, though out of the Ministry at the
time, was the late Premier Maurer. The Conservatives were in power, but
their tenure was precarious. It was said that Maurer's ancestors several
generations ago were Jews, which is also true of several members of the
nobility, whose ancestors were converted during the period of the
Inquisition.

Our ambassador and his staff of secretaries were at the station in
Madrid to meet us. The Roosevelts went to the embassy and we went to the
Ritz Hotel. At eleven o'clock on the morning of June 10th, the civil
marriage took place in the Prefecture of Police before a district judge.
It was a simple proceeding, attended only by the immediate family and a
few intimate friends, perhaps a dozen in all. The ceremony was read from
a book in which was included the marriage contract. The bride and groom
and four witnesses then signed the contract, the witnesses on this
occasion being the father of the bride, the father of the groom, and two
Spanish noblemen.

The following day at high noon the religious ceremony was performed in
the chapel of the British embassy. There were about seventy-five persons
present: the diplomatic corps, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and
several other Spanish officials, and some friends. After the ceremony,
there was a wedding breakfast at the embassy. The Roosevelts left that
same evening for Paris, and I did not see them again in Europe.

This was our second visit to Spain. In 1897 my wife and I had been there
for about a week, and many of the men with whom we had spent pleasant
hours at that time were now no longer living. Chief among these were Sir
Henry Drummond Wolff and Signor Castelar. Sir Henry, who was British
ambassador to Spain at the time, I had not seen since he was special
envoy to Turkey in 1888, and I remember how delighted he was to see us
again and how very much at home he made us feel. We also met Lady Wolff
then, who, however, was not well. She told us of some of her experiences
in Persia; also that Sir Henry was very ill there, having been poisoned
at a dinner given by the Shah.

Another colleague of my first Turkish mission whom I had found at Madrid
in 1897 was Herr von Radowitz, German ambassador. He invited us to dine
one evening at the embassy, and after dinner showed us the throne room
in which hung a picture of the Kaiser. Radowitz explained that it was
painted by a friend of the Emperor, "somewhat theatrical, you see, but
he is fond of appearing grandiose." He started to tell me how he came
into possession of the painting, that he had told the Emperor that the
embassy had no likeness of him, but he corrected himself by saying: "No,
I did not ask for the picture, my wife did." He displayed rather a
slighting estimate of his sovereign. The fact was that he was a protégé
of Bismarck, and after the latter's retirement Radowitz was transferred
from Constantinople to Madrid, which was regarded in the nature of a
demotion, and that perhaps largely accounted for his attitude.

As we conversed after dinner, Radowitz made the remark that in 1878 he
was one of the secretaries to the Berlin Congress and that there he met
Disraeli. Disraeli always made specially prepared speeches in English,
which Radowitz took down in French. Then Disraeli would compliment him
and say, "Did I really speak in this nice way or did you only write me
down so elegantly?" When Radowitz replied, "Yes, this is what you said,"
Disraeli would say, "So let it stand."

This led me to draw out Sir Henry, who was also present, regarding
Disraeli. He had known Disraeli very well. He told me that at the age of
twelve he had met Disraeli and had always had access to him. I asked Sir
Henry whether he had not kept a diary. He said he had not, but wished
that he had. "Dizzy," he said, was not a compromiser; if he had
opponents, he recognized them as such and never sought to placate them.
When he first entered Parliament he was a brilliant, flowery speaker, so
much so that his party, the Conservative, was afraid of him. Afterward,
when he became a member of the Ministry, he had trained himself down to
a rather prosy level, yet now and again his speech would glow with
brilliant passages excoriating his opponent. He was quick at repartee
and often held up the other side to ridicule in telling metaphor.

I asked Sir Henry about Dizzy's loyalty to Judaism. He said Dizzy never
denied it, holding up especially the race idea. I remarked that in
reading such of Disraeli's novels as "Coningsby" and "Tancred," and in
the Proceedings of the Berlin Congress, I was impressed with his race
loyalty and his purpose to secure equal political rights for the
oppressed members of his race in the newly constituted Balkan States.

Sir Henry answered me: "I don't recall the novels, but what you say was
true, although of course his loyalty was to England first. Dizzy's idea
was that the race should amalgamate."

I wanted to know whether he recollected when Disraeli's novels first
came out. He said he remembered all but "Vivian Grey," which Dizzy wrote
when he was quite young. He added that Disraeli's writings made him
quite a lion among the literary set, but did not help him politically.
He wanted to count among the best socially, and ever pointed his
political guns toward that target.

When I asked Sir Henry about Disraeli's personal appearance, he said:
"Lord Dufferin (Frederic Blackwood) looked very much like him; so much
so that he might have been taken for Disraeli's son. Dizzy and Mrs.
Blackwood were said to be very good friends. He met her on many of his
frequent visits to the home of Lady Blessington, during the period when
he was beginning to gain popularity."

Sir Henry had been rather critical of Disraeli, but he ended by saying:
"Taking Dizzy all in all, he was the greatest English statesman I have
ever known." And to me Disraeli had always been a fascinating subject,
so much so, indeed, that at one time I had the intention to write a
biography of him.

       *       *       *       *       *

With Emilio Castelar I had come into correspondence following the
publication of the French edition of my "Origin of the Republican Form
of Government in the United States," in which he was much interested. He
expressed the hope that the next time I came to Europe we might meet,
and when I came to Madrid, Mr. Reed, for many years secretary of our
legation there, made an appointment for me, and accompanied Mrs. Straus
and me to his home.

He was a short, rather stout man of sixty-five, bald, with dark skin and
sparkling brown eyes, and a gray moustache. He was a bachelor. We spoke
French, and though it was an ordinary conversation he was quite
oratorical. He said he was a republican and believed thoroughly in
conservative republicanism such as we had in the United States, but that
Spain was not ripe for republicanism, and that he had parted company
with the Spanish republicans because he could not endure their
principles; they were ready to pull down, but not to build up; they were
anarchists, and not republicans.

He presented Mrs. Straus with his photograph, and when she asked him to
autograph it, he returned to his study and wrote in Spanish on the back
of it a charming sentiment regarding us and our country. He was anxious
to have us come and take Spanish dinner with him, but unfortunately we
were leaving that evening for Seville.

I was interested in some articles Castelar had written for the "Century
Magazine" in 1892-93 regarding Columbus, and especially in those of the
articles in which he referred to the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. I
asked him whether he had finished the work, and he told me he had
brought it out complete in book form in Spanish, in which he had dwelt
more fully on the Jewish expulsion and had published a number of facts
from original research made for the work, though not by himself. He went
to his study to give me a copy of the book, but found that he had none
on hand. He promised to send me one in a few days through Mr. Reed,
which he did.

The expulsion of the Spanish Jews was of great interest to me, and on
this second visit to Madrid I took advantage of the opportunity to see
some of the historical relics from that period. I got in touch with Dr.
Angel Pulido, life senator of Spain, and together with Professor A. S.
Yahuda, we visited the historic city of Toledo, about two and a half
hours by rail out of Madrid. Dr. Pulido had for years advocated measures
to induce Jews to return to Spain, especially those who still retained
the Spanish language, as do many in Turkey and nearly all those in
Morocco who are the descendants of those driven out of Spain.

Toledo is one of the most ancient cities of Spain. It was once the
residence of the kings of Castile, and under the Moors had a population
of some two hundred thousand, of whom seventy-five thousand were
estimated to have been Jews. The population now is about twenty
thousand, and the city is but the bedraggled remains of its former
grandeur. In its ancient glory it was noted for its silk and woolen
industries and for the manufacture of the famous Toledo steel from which
were made swords and other weapons that rivaled those of Damascus; and
it was the home of a number of Jewish scholars and noted men, Eben Ezra
(1119-74), for instance.

There are two old synagogues in the city which I was anxious to see. One
was erected at the end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth
century, and was converted into a church in 1405. It is called Santa
Maria la Blanca. Its architecture is of the best Moorish style; the
interior has twenty-eight horseshoe arches borne by thirty-two octagonal
piers, and the elaborate capitals are ornamented with pine cones.

In the same district, near by, is the Sinagoga del Transito, of similar
style, erected about 1360. It was built at the expense of one Samuel
Levy, treasurer of Peter the Cruel, who was afterward executed by order
of his king. The walls of the interior were decorated with Hebrew
writing, mainly passages from the Psalms. In 1492 this synagogue was
turned over to the Calatrava Order of Knights, and many members of this
order lie buried in the body of the building. Later the synagogue was
consecrated to the death of the virgin.

Near these synagogues also was the Casa del Greco (House of the Greek),
so called because the famous Greek painter, Dominico Theotocopuli,
forerunner of the impressionists, lived there. Among his pictures is a
large one of an "auto da fé" which took place in the main square of the
city, and the square when I saw it still looked much the same as in the
painting. The picture shows the balconies of the houses surrounding the
square filled with eager and gay spectators who had come to witness and
enjoy the burning of Jewish heretics. They must have assembled in about
the same spirit as fashionable people of a later day came to the bull
fights. In the picture the procession is entering the enclosure where
are seated the members of the Holy Office, or inquisitors, at whose side
stand the officers holding torches with which to light the pyre on which
the condemned victims were bound. As I gazed at the square, I could
graphically visualize the scene portrayed in the picture. Such cruelty
and perversion inevitably presaged the spiritual as well as the material
decadence of the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula.

       *       *       *       *       *

By the courtesy of Senator Pulido, I met and had several conferences
with the Marqués de Dosfuentes, who several years before, as Fernando de
Antón del Olmet, had written an article entitled "La verdadera patrio de
Cristóbal Colón," which was published in "La España Moderna," a leading
monthly of Spain.

I was very much interested in the data that several of the historians of
Spain had unearthed regarding the ancestry and place of origin of
Columbus. The article by the Marquis just mentioned was based on the
research made by Celso Garcia de la Riega, and both Olmet and Riega came
to the conclusion, based upon their examination of records, that
Columbus was not an Italian, but a Spaniard, and that he was born in
Pontevedra, Galicia, in the northern part of Spain; that his father's
name was Colón (the Spanish for Columbus), and his mother's name
Fonterosa; and that he was of Jewish ancestry.

In his article Olmet says, after going into detail regarding the
nationality of Columbus according to the documents which he was able to
examine:

     Nothing seems more logical than the preceding reasoning, and,
     moreover, this is the simplest method of explaining that the
     Admiral's parents were a Colón and a Fonterosa, which gives us a
     clue to the mystery of his life. From the document under notice it
     is to be inferred that Domingo de Colón named was a modest trader.
     If the admiral was his son, it would not be absurd to suppose that,
     given the social prejudices of the times, this should have been a
     sufficient motive for hiding his origin and country. But there is
     still another reason that fully justifies his secrecy and clears up
     all mystery. The patronymic "Fonterosa" appears in the Province of
     Pontevedra connected with the names of Jacob the elder, another
     Jacob, and Benjamin; Colón's mother was called Susana. "If the
     admiral belonged to this family, doubtless Jewish," says Sg. La
     Riega, "since we may draw this inference from the Biblical names,
     or if he belonged to a family of new Christians, should we not
     forgive his action in the matter and declare him fully justified in
     his resolution not to reveal such antecedents? We must bear in mind
     the then existing hatred toward the Hebrew race and the merciless
     fury let loose against it in the latter half of the fifteenth
     century."

In another part of the article Olmet says:

     Colón never mentioned any relative, paternal or maternal. Even when
     Colón was at the zenith of his fame no one in Italy came forward to
     claim relationship with him, although he was the most famous
     personage of that time. Thus everything goes to corroborate Don
     Fernando Colón's affirmation in his "Life of the Admiral" that his
     father wished his origin and birthplace to remain unknown.

The research of La Riega was continued to 1914 and published in that
year. The author died early in the year, shortly before I arrived in
Madrid. Other Spanish historians also have published conclusions similar
to those of La Riega. There was, for instance, a brochure by Enrique de
Arribas y Turull, entitled "Cristóbal Colón, Natural de Pontevedra,"
which was originally delivered as a lecture before the Madrid Historical
Society. This also sums up, in nineteen points, the reasons for the
conclusion that Columbus was a Spaniard, and of Jewish ancestry.




CHAPTER XV

THE WORLD WAR

     Paris throbs with the _Marseillaise_--A British railway conductor
     refuses a five-pound note--Americans panic-stricken in London--A
     special committee to aid Americans in Europe--The embassy
     committee--Mr. and Mrs. Herbert C. Hoover--Impressions of Earl Grey
     and Waldorf Astor--England's "White Paper" is issued--Sir Edward
     Grey--Russian autocracy's effect on Allied cause--I am urged to
     state British views to American newspapers--We return home--James
     Speyer gives a dinner--I broach the subject of mediation to
     Bernstorff--A flying trip to Washington; mediation interviews with
     Bryan, Spring-Rice, and Jusserand--A letter from Earl
     Grey--Germany's insincerity is exposed--New Year messages to
     warring nations--Roosevelt's warnings--An effort to persuade
     President Wilson to confer with ex-Presidents--Prominent Jews of
     German origin condemn Germany's attitude--America enters war--Final
     visits with Theodore Roosevelt--His death--Pilgrims to Sagamore
     Hill.


Touring through Normandy late in July, 1914, we met some friends who had
just come from Paris who told us that war was imminent and from best
reports would break out within a very few days. Accordingly we hurried
to Paris and in the course of twenty-four hours the whole aspect of the
city had changed. From the windows of our hotel on the Place Vendôme and
on the principal boulevards of the city we saw youths of military age
marching to headquarters. The air throbbed with the _Marseillaise_.
Everywhere there were crowds, but they were neither boisterous nor
hilarious. Everywhere there was an air of tension and determination,
vastly unlike the usual mood of jovial, happy Paris.

Starting at once for London, we found the trains so overcrowded that it
was impossible to get accommodations, so we motored to Dieppe and
reached there in time to take the boat that left at three o'clock in the
morning for Newhaven. The ordinary capacity of the boat was five hundred
passengers, but it was packed from stem to stern with some two thousand
persons on this voyage, mainly Americans. The Calais-Dover crossing of
the Channel had already been suspended.

On board the train from Newhaven to London, a curious incident occurred
that indicated the derangement of things. I had four fares to pay,
amounting to about three pounds. I handed the conductor a five-pound
Bank of England note. He took it, but shortly returned with it, saying
he could accept nothing but gold. I expostulated with him, told him I
had no gold, and since a bank note was valid tender I insisted upon its
acceptance. But the upshot was that he preferred to take my card with my
London address!

It would appear that my credit at that moment was better than that of
the Bank of England.

We arrived in London on Sunday, August 2d. At the Hyde Park Hotel, to
which we went, a typewritten notice was posted announcing a meeting on
the following day at the Waldorf Hotel on the Strand. The persons who
signed the notice were unknown to me, and at first I was inclined to pay
no attention to it. However, I did go, and found gathered inside and in
front of the hotel several thousand stranded Americans. The main hall
and all approaches to it were packed. Several persons in the crowd
recognized me and made a passageway so that I could get into the room
where the meeting was being held. Upon my entrance I was lifted upon a
table that served as a platform, and was asked to speak. I made a short
address to the panic-stricken assembly, assured them they had nothing to
fear and were as safe in London as if they were in New York, and that
our committee would remain with them and help them get suitable
transportation as early as practicable. There was loud cheering and my
words seemed to have a comforting effect.

Immediately thereafter a group of us came together and organized a
special committee for the aid of Americans in Europe. There were
Frederick I. Kent, one of the vice-presidents of the Bankers' Trust
Company; W. N. Duane, another vice-president of the Bankers' Trust
Company; Theodore Hetzler, a vice-president of the Fifth Avenue Bank;
Joseph P. Day, a prominent real estate auctioneer of New York City;
William C. Breed, an officer of the Merchants' Association; Chandler P.
Anderson and James Byrne, prominent American lawyers, several others,
and myself. We arranged for headquarters at the Hotel Savoy, where
several of the largest salons were placed at our disposal so that we had
room for the various departments that needed to be formed to attend to
the wants of the many terrified Americans who were pouring into London
from all over the Continent. Mr. Hetzler was chairman of the general
committee, Mr. Duane secretary, and Robert W. DeForest, vice-president
of the American Red Cross, was member _ex-officio_. I was made chairman
of the embassy committee of which Ambassador Page was honorary chairman,
and the American ambassadors to France, Germany, Austria, and the
ministers to Holland and Belgium were made advisory members. We found
many willing helpers, including a number of professors from American
universities and other public-spirited men and women.

The necessary sub-committees were speedily formed: Mr. Day was made
chairman of the transportation committee and got in touch with the
managers of all the transatlantic steamship companies. Mr. Kent was
chairman of the finance committee, and through his banking connections
was able to get a limited amount of gold to advance to those who could
not convert their foreign money, notwithstanding the moratorium that had
been declared which made it impossible for several days to get ready
money; foreign bills were not being accepted by the banks. With the
declaration of the moratorium we at once called a meeting of the
managers of the hotels where most of the Americans were stopping, and
without exception these men were very accommodating. They agreed not to
require payment from their American guests for the time being, and as
far as possible to advance them a little money to meet their immediate
requirements.

Our embassy was crowded from morning to night with hundreds of citizens,
most of whom wanted to make application for passports, for the steamship
companies required the exhibition of passports before arranging for
transportation. The rooms at the embassy were not large enough to
accommodate the crowds that filled them, so we transferred the passport
division to the Hotel Savoy, and Ambassador Page assigned to me several
clerks to facilitate the handling of our business. I am sorry to say
there was a tendency on the part of many American travelers to find
fault with our ambassador and the embassy. This was not at all
justified, and I took every occasion to assure them that the ambassador
was doing all in his power with his limited staff, and that our
committee had his fullest coöperation and was getting his aid in every
possible way. I consulted with Ambassador Page almost every day, and
together we planned for arranging for money and the many other
requirements of our citizens.

In those first hectic days, some of us worked all day and far into the
night, or rather into the next morning. Many British friends who visited
our rooms marveled at the promptness and efficiency with which we
dispatched business under the circumstances, and were solicitous for
the health of "the unofficial ambassador," as I was being called, and
his staff.

After the committee had been going a few days, it secured the
coöperation of Mr. and Mrs. Herbert C. Hoover. He was chairman of an
American benevolent society, of the woman's committee of which Mrs.
Hoover was at the head. As the members of our relief committee returned
home, the work was by degrees turned over to Mr. and Mrs. Hoover and
their associates, until by August 27th we put all of the remaining work
and funds into the hands of their society.

One day Earl Grey paid me a visit at our headquarters, and with him was
Mrs. Waldorf Astor, now Viscountess Astor, who reminded me that "all
work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," and insisted that Mrs. Straus
and I spend the week-end at Cliveden, their residence, a short distance
by rail out of London. Other guests were Earl Grey, Geoffrey Robinson,
editor of the London "Times," and several others connected with the
editorship of "The Round Table," a political quarterly.

Mr. Waldorf Astor was an earnest, modest young man, then about
thirty-four years old, unspoiled by his enormous wealth. On the
contrary, he was and still is devoting much of his wealth as well as his
parliamentary activities to philanthropic work, including the treatment
and prevention of tuberculosis, and in this connection had been in touch
with my brother Nathan in regard to milk pasteurization.

There were several subsequent week-ends at Cliveden. On one of these
visits, a dozen or more young men were there, members of England's
foremost families. They enjoyed themselves at tennis and other games and
on Monday were to join the colors. It is sad to record that most of
these fine fellows, with the exception of two or three, were killed or
seriously wounded within the next few months.

When England entered the war, the diplomatic correspondence was
published in what was called the British "White Paper." Sir Edward Grey,
now Viscount Grey, had made a speech in Parliament, of which I read the
published version in this "White Paper." It happened that on that very
day Earl Grey, cousin to Sir Edward, was lunching with me at my hotel,
and I took the occasion to point out to him the necessity of making
clear, especially for the American public, that the reason England had
joined the Allies was not only on Belgium's account, but to uphold the
sanctity of international obligations. This concerned not alone the
belligerent nations, but all the nations. Without the sanctity of
international obligations the war, no matter how it ended, would cause a
reversion to a state of international barbarity. Earl Grey suggested
that I discuss the subject with his cousin, and arranged for a meeting.
A few days later we three sat down to a simple and informal luncheon at
Earl Grey's home on South Street, in Park Lane.

Sir Edward Grey spoke earnestly and frankly. He felt the great
responsibility of the decision that brought England into the war, and
said he had often asked himself whether he could have done otherwise.
There was nothing chauvinistic in either his attitude or his arguments.
It was plain that he had weighed the entire issue carefully. His
open-mindedness, his simplicity and straightforwardness of manner, his
great ability and humanitarian zeal, impressed me very much.

I called his attention to the importance of having Russia grant civil
and religious rights to her subject nationalities; the failure of such
action would weaken the moral cause of the Allies, and also from an
American point of view it was important that Russia give some evidence
of a liberal spirit, otherwise it might be feared that victory for the
Allies would redound mainly to the advantage of autocracy in Russia. I
contended that it was not a question of humanity, but plain state
policy, and that it was important that the Governments of Great Britain
and France bring Russia, as their ally, into line. I had received
several cables from prominent men in New York and Boston who had thus
expressed the American point of view.

The conversation ran on for an hour and a half in a very informal way.
Earl Grey then made the suggestion, in accordance with my remarks of a
few days before about the necessity of making clear England's position
in entering the war, that I give out an interview to the American press
covering the substance of our conversation. I demurred. Naturally I
hesitated to state publicly the delicate and critical questions that the
British Minister of Foreign Affairs had so frankly discussed with me.
However, Sir Edward himself said he would appreciate my doing so, for he
had perfect confidence in my doing it without embarrassment to his
country. I therefore agreed to it, with the proviso that he approve the
interview before it was released for publication.

I got in touch with the representatives of the American papers in London
and that evening gave out the interview. The next morning I sent a copy
to Sir Edward, who returned it to me without a single change, saying he
approved both its form and content. The matter was then cabled to
America, published in our leading papers on August 15th, and cabled back
for republication in the British papers.

Thereafter the London papers came to me for further interviews, and in a
subsequent statement I dwelt more specifically on the importance of
Russia's fair treatment of her subject nationalities, particularly the
Jews, who had suffered most. The press representatives asked whether
they might show my interview to Lord Weardale and if possible get his
comment, to which I gladly consented.

Lord Weardale had been head of the Parliamentary deputation that visited
Russia the year before and had an intimate knowledge of Russian
conditions. He told me later that he had already written the Russian
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sazonoff, along the identical lines of my
interview. He supplemented what I had stated, with an interview, saying,
among other things:

     It would be an immense step in the path of progress of Russia
     herself and would create a profound sentiment of satisfaction in
     the civilized world if the Tsar at such a juncture were to give
     emphatic endorsement to his already declared intention to give full
     religious liberty to all his peoples. It is not enough to be
     powerful in the battlefield; it is even more important to conquer
     the approval of the human conscience.

The Government and people of Great Britain were very solicitous at that
time regarding public opinion in America and the probable attitude of
our Government. In many quarters there was a feeling of uncertainty and
even of misgiving toward the statement by President Wilson respecting an
offer of mediation at the opportune moment, in accordance with the
provisions of the Hague Treaty. Because of this and other
considerations, Sir Edward Grey and others recognized the importance of
having Russia give evidence of a more enlightened spirit.

       *       *       *       *       *

We left London at the end of August, and upon arrival home went up to
Hartsdale, a short distance out of New York, to visit with our son. A
few days afterward Mr. James Speyer, whose summer home was but a few
miles distant, at Scarboro, telephoned, inviting Mrs. Straus and myself
to dine with him. Mrs. Speyer had not returned from abroad; the guests
were Mr. and Mrs. Frank A. Vanderlip and Count von Bernstorff. As Mrs.
Straus was rather worn out by her London experience, I went alone. There
were several other neighbors, Mr. Frank H. Platt and Mr. Frank Trumbull
and perhaps one other, about eight of us, of whom Mrs. Vanderlip was the
only lady.

Bernstorff I had known for a number of years. I had first met him in
1888 when I was on my first mission to Turkey and he was attaché of the
German embassy. Later he came to Washington as ambassador when I was in
the Cabinet, and we met frequently there.

The conversation at dinner was general, although it was inevitable that
we discuss the war. Bernstorff voiced the usual claim of the Germans,
that they did not want war, and that the Kaiser and the German
Government stood for peace. When he had dilated upon that theme I asked
him:

"Is that the present sentiment and attitude of your country?"

He replied that it certainly was when he left Berlin only two weeks
before, on returning to America from his leave of absence.

Knowing how anxious President Wilson was to use any proper opportunity
that might present itself for ending the war, I asked Bernstorff whether
his Government would entertain a proposition for mediation.

He answered me promptly: "Speaking for myself, I certainly would
entertain such a proposition." But he added that he could not speak
officially, since cable communication with his Government had been cut
off for a week or more.

I asked him whether in his opinion his Government would give favorable
consideration to such a proposal. He said that before leaving Berlin he
had discussed with the Chancellor the possibility of mediation,
following the report of President Wilson's statement that he was ready
to offer his services as mediator to both parties, and the Chancellor
had said that the war had but begun and it was too early to instruct
regarding mediation until the offer was presented. On my questioning him
further, the ambassador said his personal opinion was that his
Government would accept an offer of mediation. I remarked that I could
not but regard his statement as significant, and asked him if I might
use it in such a manner as I saw fit. He replied that he had no
objection.

As we rose from the table, I made sure of my understanding of his
statements, and then the thought occurred to me that the best thing to
do was to report the conversation to Secretary of State Bryan, so that
he might, if he saw fit, bring it before the President. I so informed
Bernstorff, and again he told me he had no objection.

I looked at my watch. It was ten-fifteen. I announced that I would go to
Washington on the midnight train. My host suggested that I "sleep on it
and don't hurry"; but I concluded that if there was anything I could do
to shorten the war by even a few hours I would have to charge myself
with neglect of duty if on account of personal convenience I had
refrained from doing so. The next day was Sunday; the day after was
Labor Day; and all the while thousands were falling on the battlefield.
Several of the guests agreed with my decision, so I bade them
good-night, called my motor, and caught the midnight train for
Washington.

Sunday morning I telephoned to Mr. Bryan at once and made an appointment
to meet him at his home. I repeated my conversation with Bernstorff
precisely as it had occurred, and Bryan believed, as I did, that it
might pave the way to mediation. I suggested that he have the German
ambassador come to Washington and speak with him. He communicated with
the German embassy, and Bernstorff arrived the following morning.

Bryan presented the subject to the President, who expressed himself as
pleased with the possibility of a favorable outcome. The Secretary
advised me to have a conference with the British ambassador, Sir Cecil
Spring-Rice, and with the French ambassador, M. Jusserand. He had
already informed them what had taken place and of my presence in
Washington. Sir Cecil asked whether I would kindly come to the embassy,
and I replied I would do so, and suggested that he arrange to have the
French ambassador also present. This he did.

When I reached the embassy, M. Jusserand had not yet arrived, and Sir
Cecil and I indulged in reminiscences. He too had been in Constantinople
during my first mission, as secretary of the British embassy. Soon we
were joined by M. Jusserand, whom also I had known well for many years,
for he had been in Washington since 1902, and I had seen much of him
during my Cabinet days.

When we took up the proposal regarding which we had come together, both
of these gentlemen agreed that it was deserving of serious attention,
but Sir Cecil had little confidence in Bernstorff, who had been his
colleague at Cairo, where they had represented their respective
Governments. He asked whether I thought an ambassador would make such a
statement as Bernstorff's without authority from his Government. I
replied that both he and M. Jusserand were better qualified to answer
that question, upon which M. Jusserand said that he knew that no
ambassador under the German system would dare make such remarks without
previous authority from his Government.

"That is so much the better," I commented.

Sir Cecil declared that German diplomacy was peculiar and that the
Foreign Office had no conscience in disavowing statements by its
ambassadors if it suited Germany's purpose.

After we had gone over the whole subject, both ambassadors stated that
if it held one chance in a hundred of shortening the war, it was their
duty to entertain it. I replied that I hoped they would entertain it
cordially.

Jusserand in his usual happy manner said, "'Cordially,' that is a little
too strong."

"Well, sympathetically, then," I said.

"Yes, sympathetically, yes." And with that we parted, both ambassadors
expressing their thanks and appreciation of my services.

I had been scrupulously careful to be absolutely accurate in all my
statements, and it was therefore gratifying, after the Bryan-Bernstorff
conference, to have the Secretary tell me that the ambassador's report
of the Scarboro incident was in every detail in accord with mine, and to
have the ambassador also confirm the correctness of Mr. Bryan's
understanding from my report. Naturally I was anxious to avoid
misunderstandings or misconceptions of any kind. The issue was too
important.

Both Secretary Bryan and Ambassador Bernstorff cabled to Berlin, and for
the time the subject rested there. My remaining in Washington was
unnecessary, and I returned to New York. But before leaving, I called by
appointment at both the French and British embassies, which also had
communicated events in detail to their Governments. Both ambassadors
expressed their high appreciation for my services and hoped I would keep
in close touch with them regarding the matter, both for their sake and
for the sake of our respective Governments. I told them I would regard
myself as "messenger boy" for mediation. Sir Cecil replied, "Ambassador
extraordinary." He promised to keep me informed, and two days later
wrote me:

     I have not yet received any intimation from my Government, nor do I
     expect one unless something definite is before them. But I need not
     tell you how heartily my sympathy is with your humanitarian
     efforts, and you know Grey well enough to be sure that, while
     scrupulously faithful to all his engagements, he will do everything
     possible in the cause of peace.

Throughout these negotiations we took great care to keep the matter
secret. Despite that fact it leaked out in some way, and the
correspondent of the London "Times" reported it in such a way as to give
the impression that I had been duped by the wily German ambassador; and
there were one or two other papers which took that view. Sir Cecil
Spring-Rice was incensed at this interpretation and wrote me on October
3d:

     I am sure no one who knows you and knows the facts would ever think
     that you were either duped or the secret agent of Germany. I am
     quite positive that Sir Edward Grey would never have such an idea.
     What you did--and what I hope you will continue to do--is a work of
     pure philanthropy.

On October 15th he wrote me again on this subject, saying that when the
London "Times" representative returned to Washington from New York, he
would set him right as to the facts with a view to having the report
corrected, and adding:

     We used to say at school, "Blessed are the peace makers, for they
     get more kicks than half-pence!" It represents a melancholy truth,
     but, however, I am sure every well-thinking person must appreciate
     your beneficent efforts.

But in general the press of Great Britain expressed its appreciation of
the services I had rendered in lifting the latch of the door to
mediation.

A letter from Sir Edward Grey concerning the negotiations sheds
important light upon the British attitude:


                                        FOREIGN OFFICE, LONDON, S.W.
                                       _Saturday, 26 September, 1914_

     DEAR MR. STRAUS:

     Thank you for your letter of the 9th. I am so busy that I have not
     time to write at any length; but do not let that make you suppose
     that I am out of sympathy with what you say.

     First of all, however, we must save ourselves and the West of
     Europe, before we can exercise any influence elsewhere. The
     Prussian military caste has dominated Germany, and the whole of the
     West of Europe is in danger of being dominated by it. The German
     Government, in the hands of this military caste, prepared this war,
     planned it, and chose the time for it. We know now that the war has
     revealed how thoroughly the German preparations had been made
     beforehand: with an organization and forethought which is
     wonderful, and would have been admirable had it been devoted to a
     praiseworthy purpose. Not one of the other nations now fighting
     against Germany is prepared in the same way.

     Now, we wish to have three things: Firstly, to secure our own
     liberty as independent States, who will live and let live on equal
     terms; secondly, the establishment somehow of a Germany not
     dominated by a military caste; a nation who will look at liberty
     and politics from the same point of view as we do, and who will
     deal with us on equal terms and in good faith; thirdly, reparation
     for the cruel wrongs done to Belgium; to get that is a matter of
     honour and justice and right.

     The statements made by Wolff's Bureau in Europe deny that Germany
     is yet ready for peace. If she is ready for peace, then I think
     that her ambassador in Washington ought not to beat about the
     bush. He ought to make it clear to President Wilson that he is
     authorized to speak on behalf of his Government; and state to the
     President that Germany does wish to make peace. In that case,
     President Wilson could approach all the others who are engaged in
     this war and bring them into consultation with one another and with
     him. But at present we have no indication that Germany wishes to
     have peace, and no indication that she would agree to any terms
     that would give reparation to Belgium and security to the rest of
     Europe that the peace would be durable.

                                 Yours very truly
                                                       E. GREY

The history of those negotiations is presented somewhat at length
because my friend of many years, the late Ambassador Page, in his
recently published letters also expressed the feeling that I had been
used as a dupe to throw the blame for continuing the war upon Great
Britain, though he expressed great confidence in me and friendship for
me. I may say I was not unmindful of this contingency; but I felt that
if the negotiations did not result as we hoped, they would serve to
expose the insincerity of the German Government with regard to its peace
professions. And this is precisely what happened, as the answer of the
German Chancellor, received by the State Department on September 22d,
confirms:

     The Imperial Chancellor is much obliged for America's offer.
     Germany did not want war, it was forced upon her. Even after we
     shall have defeated France we shall still have to face England and
     Russia. England, France, and Russia have signed a convention to
     make peace solely in mutual agreement with each other. England,
     that is, Mr. Asquith, the London Times, and English diplomatic
     officers, have on various occasions ... [sic] that England is
     determined to conduct the war to the utmost and that she expects
     success from it lasting a long time. It is therefore up to the
     United States to get our enemies to make peace proposals. Germany
     can only accept the peace which promises to be a real and lasting
     peace and will protect her against any new attacks from her
     enemies. If we accepted America's offer of mediation now our
     enemies would interpret it as a sign of weakness and the German
     people would not understand it. For the nation which has been
     willing to make such sacrifices has a right to demand that there
     shall be guarantees of rest and security.

Secretary Bryan, in his instruction to Ambassador Page on September 8th,
had anticipated Germany's refusal to accept mediation. The instruction
concluded:

     We do not know, of course, what reply the German Emperor will make,
     but this war is so horrible from every aspect that no one can
     afford to take the responsibility for continuing it implacably. The
     British and French ambassadors fear that Germany will not accept
     any reasonable terms, but even a failure to agree will not rob an
     attempt at mediation of all its advantages because the different
     nations would be able to explain to the world their attitude, the
     reasons for continuing the war, the end to be hoped for and the
     terms upon which peace is possible. This would locate the
     responsibility for the continuance of the war and help to mould
     public opinion. Will notify you as soon as answer is received from
     Bernstorff.

On September 29th all the British papers served by the Central News War
Service carried a cable from New York detailing the negotiations, which
ended:

     It is believed by those concerned that an important step has been
     taken to pave the way for mediation, when the opportune moment
     arrives. In other words, the bolt on the door of mediation has been
     thrown back so that it will be possible for the door to be opened
     without either side being forced to take the initiative. Time will
     doubtless show that the initiative so fortuitously taken by Mr.
     Straus will prove of real service in the interests of ultimate
     peace negotiations, and any endeavors to deprecate those services
     as having been made in Germany's interests are not only contrary to
     all the facts, but are most unfortunate.

     _Note_: The censor does not object to the publication of the
     foregoing details, but insists that publication should be
     accompanied by a footnote pointing out that since these
     occurrences took place the German Government have disavowed their
     ambassador.

Had Germany's oft-reiterated peace professions been sincere, she would
have accepted this offer for mediation. By her refusal the falsity of
her professions was exposed not only in Great Britain and in our own
country, but in all the neutral countries; and the _exposé_ served as
added proof to all peace-loving and neutrally-minded persons that the
responsibility for the war and its continuance rested upon the German
Government.

In America many of us continued to hope that some way might be found to
bring the representatives of the warring nations into a conference,
thereby removing misunderstanding and misconception and paving the way
for an early peace. On December 31st the New York representative of the
Central News of London asked several Americans to write New Year's
messages to the warring nations of Europe, to be cabled to all the chief
newspapers of the continent. Messages were given by Dr. Nicholas Murray
Butler, Andrew Carnegie, Bishop David Greer, and myself, and they were
all substantially of the same tenor, as a passage from each will show:

     _Bishop Greer_: It is the earnest hope and prayer of all Christian
     people in America that the awful and deplorable war now raging may
     soon reach an end which will insure lasting peace and one
     satisfactory in character to all the nations involved.

     _Andrew Carnegie_: I am convinced that the next effort of lovers of
     peace should be to concentrate the world over in demanding that
     this unparalleled slaughter of man by man shall be the last war
     waged by civilized nations for the settlement of international
     disputes. War dethroned--Peace enthroned.

     _President Butler_: May it be in America's fortunate lot to bind up
     the wounds of the war and to set the feet of her sister nations
     once more in the paths of peace, international good-will and
     constructive statesmanship.

     I said: For the past five months each of the nations has been
     seeking victory in the trenches of death; but it has not been found
     there. Only through wise counsels can the victory of permanent
     peace be obtained. President Wilson and His Holiness the Pope have
     offered their offices to open the door of mediation. Will not the
     Kaiser and King George give the mandate so that the door may be
     opened and this delusion be dispelled, thereby earning the
     blessings of a bleeding and suffering world?

These statements are cited as evidence of how slowly we in America came
to realize the ruthless designs for conquest which the German
militarists had prepared and fostered for forty years, not only
strategically, but even in shaping the psychology of the child in school
and the man in the street to conform to their design.

For a year or more events marched on, tragically, like a malignant
disease. On February 2, 1917, I lunched with Roosevelt at the Hotel
Langdon, on Fifth Avenue and Fifty-Sixth Street, where Roosevelt was in
the habit of stopping when in New York. The German Government two days
before had announced her submarine blockade of the British, French, and
Dutch coasts, and our own entrance into the war seemed likely.

We were discussing the crisis, and Roosevelt said he did not think we
should be involved; the President would probably find some way out and
arrange to have Germany's pledge, not to destroy merchant ships of
neutrals or belligerents without warning, whittled down so as to apply
only to ships flying the American flag. He told us that he had engaged
passage on one of the United Fruit Company steamers to Jamaica for Mrs.
Roosevelt and himself. Mrs. Roosevelt needed a change, and they would
start in a few days. Regarding the war, he could do nothing more. He
had done all he could. He had made an offer to the Secretary of War to
raise a division, and had a whole card catalogue of names of men who had
volunteered to serve in it.

His relations with the President were far from friendly. He had
violently criticized him in articles contributed to the "Metropolitan
Magazine" and in several public addresses had urged preparedness and
compulsory military training. I asked him, in view of the German
blockade, what he would do if he were President. He said he would
promptly assemble our fleet, put marines on the interned German ships,
and show Germany that we were in dead earnest; that unless she recalled
her decision to sink merchant ships without observing the rules of
modern warfare we should take immediate steps to protect our rights.

"If we continue to back down we will become Chinafied, without any
rights that other nations will respect," said Roosevelt emphatically.

In such critical times, personal differences might be laid aside, I
suggested, and I wanted him to write the President and let him have the
benefit of his views. I went further: I suggested that I could write the
President about it. But in Roosevelt's opinion, Wilson would conclude
that Roosevelt had himself urged me to do this because of my close
association with Roosevelt.

My own relations with the President were always agreeable, I might even
say most friendly. He had written me sometime before, that he would
consider it a favor if I would keep him informed of developments that
came under my observation regarding important matters. It occurred to me
that on the eve of war it would be a fine thing if he consulted with his
two surviving predecessors, as Monroe had done in consulting with
Jefferson and Madison before issuing the doctrine which bears his name.
In the crisis we were facing such a step would allay partisan
differences and serve to solidify the Nation. With these ideas in mind I
sent the President the following telegram:

     Every patriotic American should support you in this great crisis in
     the history of our country. May I suggest the course followed by
     Monroe under a crisis involving many of the same principles, to
     confer with the two surviving ex-Presidents, whose advice, I feel
     sure, will be most helpful and serve to patriotically solidify the
     country behind you?

I informed Roosevelt of my action. He felt sure the President wanted
neither advice nor cooperation, though he himself was ready to give him
the fullest coöperation should Wilson desire it. He thought the same was
true on the part of Mr. Taft. The telegram, to my surprise, was given
out at Washington to the press a day or two later, but nothing ever came
of it.

On February 7th the country was more or less agreeably surprised by the
fact that Count von Bernstorff had been given his passports and
Ambassador Gerard at Berlin had been instructed to demand his. I say the
country was surprised because the President had so long delayed and
avoided such a step--even after the sinking of the Lusitania and the
Sussex following his "strict accountability" and other strong
statements--that it was generally believed he did not mean to take it.

Roosevelt, of course, thought that we should have taken such action long
before. His contention was always that had we taken prompt and decisive
steps after the Lusitania tragedy, we should have been spared the
submarine invasions. In fact, he thought we should have acted when
Germany announced her submarine blockade and possibly saved ourselves
from the Lusitania horror. Now that diplomatic relations were broken
off, he canceled his trip to Jamaica, not wishing to be out of the
country when war was likely to be declared at any moment.

At about this time the impression was current that the Jews of America
were anti-Ally, a fact that had a prejudicial effect in France and
England. It probably grew out of the fact that three of the largest
Jewish banking houses of the country were of German origin, and further
that the Yiddish press was anti-Russian in its sympathies as a result of
the treatment of Jews in Russia.

After a careful investigation of these reports, a group of us met at the
home of Eugene Meyer, Jr., later chairman of the War Finance
Corporation. Among those I recall at this meeting were: Fabian Franklin,
of the "New York Evening Post"; George L. Beer, the historian; Rabbi
Stephen S. Wise; Professor Richard Gottheil, of Columbia University. M.
Stephane Lauzanne, editor of "Le Matin" of Paris, and Professor Henri
Bergson, both of whom were then in New York, had also been consulted. It
was decided that the most practical way of correcting this erroneous
impression was for me to write to the French and British ambassadors at
Washington.

Accordingly I wrote to Ambassadors Spring-Rice and Jusserand that the
impression was unfounded, that our investigations and observations
showed a large preponderance of pro-Ally sympathy among the Jews, and I
cited a number of leading citizens in business and the various
professions, who were representative of their class, whom I knew
personally to be pro-Ally. I stated further that in one of the largest
Jewish clubs, whose membership consisted almost entirely of Jews of
German origin, the pro-Ally sentiment was so strong as to be practically
unanimous.

The ambassadors were grateful for this information, which they
communicated to their Governments; and through the agency of M. Lauzanne
and with the consent of the ambassadors, the letters were given in full
to the French and British press.

On the very day that Congress declared war against Germany, April 6,
1917, we were giving a dinner at our home to Professor Henri Bergson.
Among our guests were James M. Beck, author of "The Evidence in the
Case" and "The War and Humanity"; ex-Senator Burton of Ohio; former
Governor and Mrs. John M. Slaton, of Georgia; Adolph S. Ochs, of the
"New York Times," and Mrs. Ochs. Bergson was regarded as the unofficial
representative of France in our country at the time. Of course, our
thoughts and conversation were dominated by the great event of the day.
Professor Bergson and Mr. Beck drank and responded to toasts with
eloquent fervor. It was felt by all that the entrance into the war of
the United States would prove a decided factor in winning it for
democracy and constitutional liberty.

       *       *       *       *       *

Just before Christmas, 1918--to be specific, on December 22d--I called
on Roosevelt at the Roosevelt Hospital, where he was convalescing from
his seven weeks' illness, believed to have been inflammatory rheumatism.
He was dressed in his _robe de chambre_ and was seated in an armchair
with a pile of books before him. He looked neither enfeebled nor
emaciated, though he showed signs of illness. When I asked him how he
had been since my last visit, for I had called on him frequently during
his illness, he told me that he had had an attack of embolism--I think
that was the ailment--which showed in his wrists, and that his fever had
gone up to 104. But that was all gone and he was again feeling fine. He
was planning to return to Sagamore Hill to spend Christmas, which he
subsequently did.

He inquired particularly about my son Roger, of whom he was very fond,
and who was then in Siberia, where he had served for some months as
captain and assistant intelligence officer on the staff of General
William S. Graves, in command of the American Expeditionary Forces. I
told him we had had a cable from Roger from Blagoveschensk that he was
well. In his last letter he had expressed a desire to come home, since
the war was over. Roosevelt agreed that that was right. He would not
want his own sons to endanger their lives in the civil war raging in
Russia, and he would not have Roger do so. "Let the Russians settle
their own internal affairs; that is not our business," he added.

By way of amusing and interesting Roosevelt, I told him of a curious
incident narrated in one of Roger's letters. He had been sent as the
official representative of the army into the Amur Province, of which the
governor was Alexandre Alexiefsky, who had been a member of the
Constitutional Assembly of the Kerensky Government. When Roger called,
the governor repeated his name familiarly and then asked: "Are you
related to His Excellency by that name in the Cabinet of President
Roosevelt?" When Roger told him he was my son, the governor immediately
expressed a readiness to help him in every possible way, because as the
latter said he owed his life to me. As Roger expressed it, "He was
courteous before, but after that he was ready to give me his
undershirt."

[Illustration: ROGER W. STRAUS

First Lieutenant, afterwards Captain, on the Staff of General W. S.
Graves, American Expeditionary Force in Siberia. Now Major in the
Reserve Corps, U. S. A.]

Alexiefsky had told Roger the story of his case. In the autumn of 1908,
several Russians whom the Czar had exiled to Siberia as political
prisoners made their escape and came to the United States. The Russian
Government discovered this and engaged one of the leading New  York law
firms to secure the extradition of the refugees, which was demanded on
the specious charge of murder. Secretary Root, in the midst of his many
important duties, favored the extradition, and the papers were referred
by the State Department to Attorney-General Bonaparte. Application for
deportation was also made to me under the immigration laws.

Meanwhile several prominent men and women interested in the case--Miss
Lillian Wald, of the Henry Street Settlement House, New York, and James
Bronson Reynolds, chairman of the American Society for Russian Freedom,
foremost among these--supplied the intelligence and the proof that these
men were not criminals in any sense, but political refugees. When
Roosevelt spoke to me about them, I told him that I had declined to
deport them because it was clear to me that they were political
refugees. At that moment Bonaparte joined us. Roosevelt requested him to
return the papers in the case, and shortly directed that the men were
not to be deported.

Roosevelt said he vividly recalled all this. His face beamed as he said:
"Is n't that fine! Very fine! I'm delighted to hear it!"

"You did that," I said to him; "without your sustaining me these men
would have been either extradited or deported, which would have meant
death."

"Both of us did it; it's fine! I'm delighted to hear it," he commented,
his face glowing with its usual vivacity.

The next day Roosevelt left the hospital to return to his home in Oyster
Bay. He apparently gave every indication that soon he would be entirely
well again and be with us for many years. Certainly that is what we all
expected. He was only sixty.

Exactly two weeks later, on January 6, 1919, I received a telephone call
at seven o'clock in the morning from Miss Striker, secretary to Mr.
Roosevelt, announcing that he had died early that morning. For thirteen
years or more he had had a large and affectionate share in our lives and
thoughts, and Mrs. Straus and I felt as though we had been stricken with
the loss of a member of our immediate family. I can truly say that I
never had a more loyal or a dearer friend. He always treated me and mine
as if we were among his nearest relatives.

On January 8th my wife, my son's wife, and I motored to Oyster Bay to
attend the funeral in the little Episcopal Church. It had been
Roosevelt's wish that he be buried from the little church that was the
place of worship of his family. The building held only about three
hundred and fifty persons, so that none but his family and close friends
could be present. There was a committee from the United States Senate
headed by Vice-President Marshall; a committee from the House; several
former members of the Cabinet--Elihu Root, Truman H. Newberry, Henry L.
Stimson, James R. Garfield, Mrs. Garfield, ex-President Taft, Governor
Hughes. William Loeb, Jr., and Captain Archie Roosevelt were ushers. The
other sons, Theodore and Kermit, were still in France. The church was
filled with a company of sincere friends and bereaved mourners. The
regular Episcopal service was begun at twelve-forty-five, and lasted
about twenty-five minutes, when we all accompanied the body to the
little cemetery on the side of the hill half a mile away.

Hardly a day passes without its scores of pilgrims to that grave. They
come from near and far. Many lay flowers on the grave. On holidays and
Sundays they come by the hundreds. Two years ago the intimate friends of
Roosevelt, who had been officially or personally associated with him,
formed the Roosevelt Pilgrimage, an association whose purpose is to keep
alive the ideals and personality of Theodore Roosevelt by an annual
visit to his grave and a simple ceremony. The idea and organization
originated with Mr. E. A. Van Valkenburg of the Philadelphia "North
American." On January 6, 1922, some sixty persons made the pilgrimage,
headed by Dr. Lyman Abbott, permanent chairman of the association. James
R. Garfield read Roosevelt's Nobel Peace Prize address, delivered in
Christiania in 1910, at the conclusion of which some wreaths were laid
on the grave. Mrs. Roosevelt invited us all to luncheon, and the
old-time hospitality and friendliness of the Roosevelt home brought many
memories of our departed leader.

After luncheon the annual meeting of the Pilgrimage took place in the
great North Room, where Roosevelt had so often received his friends and
guests. Dr. Abbott made a brief and feeling address, and Mrs. Richard
Derby (Ethel Roosevelt) read from original manuscript Roosevelt's
proclamation of 1912 which called into being the Progressive Party.
Hermann Hagedorn read a poem entitled "The Deacon's Prayer," by Samuel
Valentine Cole, which had especially appealed to Roosevelt. The last
stanza of this poem is as follows:

  "We want a man whom we can trust
    To lead us where thy purpose leads;
  Who dares not lie, but dares be just--
    Give us the dangerous man of deeds!"
  So prayed the deacon, letting fall
    Each sentence from his heart; and when
  He took his seat the brethren all,
    As by one impulse, cried, "Amen!"




CHAPTER XVI

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

     The League to Enforce Peace goes into action--Taft recalls that
     Roosevelt favored a League of Nations--I sail for Europe as
     chairman of the overseas committee--England's youthful Lord
     Chancellor--Bryce at the age of eighty-two--On to
     Paris--Conferences with Colonel House--House declares that the
     League of Nations is "on the rocks"--Bourgeois comes to our
     apartment--He is persuaded to accept and support the Covenant as
     provisionally presented--Wilson congratulates me--The President
     addresses the correspondents--At the Plenary Session--An imposing
     spectacle--Clemenceau brusquely opens the session--President Wilson
     speaks for 1,200,000,000 people--Significance of the term
     "Covenant"--Bourgeois accepts text as drafted, but offers
     amendments for political effect--Japan voices her ancient
     grievance--The golden chapter in the history of
     civilization--Impressions of General Smuts--Sir Robert Borden opens
     fire on Article X--At a Washington's Birthday luncheon with General
     Pershing--The General's nervousness at prospect of having to make a
     speech--Sazonoff tells me about the Czar--A luncheon to Ambassador
     Sharp and myself--Concerning the side-tracking of Secretary
     Lansing--Taft's efforts at home on behalf of a League of
     Nations--Conferences with Venizelos--Serbia's claims--Meeting in
     London of allied societies for a League of Nations--Religious
     liberty resolution offered and adopted--I confer with President
     Wilson in Paris--A luncheon with Russian refugee
     statesmen--Excitement regarding the Monroe Doctrine article--My
     address at the Sorbonne--The Covenant of the League of
     Nations--Colonel House urges me to return to America--Alexander
     Kerensky--United States Senate vigorously debates the Covenant--Our
     efforts to secure its adoption--World policies are subordinated to
     home politics--Conclusion.


Now that the curtain of armistice had descended upon the world's most
devastating war, the League to Enforce Peace was endeavoring to
coöperate in every possible way with President Wilson and the official
delegates to the Peace Conference, and with similar organizations in
Europe, to bring into existence a League of Nations.

I had been made chairman of the overseas committee, and on the afternoon
of Theodore Roosevelt's funeral, former President Taft and I met to
confer regarding the work to be done. Both of us were very much
depressed by the death of our friend. Taft felt grateful that
"Theodore" (as he always called Roosevelt) and he had some months
earlier reëstablished their long-time former friendship, which had
unhappily been interrupted by political events.

Mr. Taft courteously told me that he was glad that I was going to Paris,
and that he believed I might render a great service in helping to secure
an effective League of Nations. He hoped I would have conferences with
Balfour, Lloyd George, and Léon Bourgeois, and that I would be able to
show them what kind of a League we, and as we thought, the American
public generally, wanted. At my request, Taft agreed to write me a
letter, signed by himself as president of the League to Enforce Peace,
and by A. Lawrence Lowell, chairman of the Executive Committee, giving
me full authority to take whatever action in Europe I might consider
wise. I told Taft that I wanted a letter which should expressly state,
among other things, that I was to support our official delegates, as it
would not do for America to show a divided front. He told me, what I
also had known from conversations with Roosevelt, that Roosevelt had
latterly expressed himself in favor of such a League of Nations as we
stood for. I reminded Taft that Roosevelt had been the first in recent
years to emphasize the subject of a League of Nations, having done so in
his Nobel Peace Prize address.

The committee to represent at Paris the League to Enforce Peace
consisted of myself as chairman, Hamilton Holt as vice-chairman, and
such other members of the League as might be in Paris at that time. Mr.
Holt, after consulting me as to methods and plan of action pending my
arrival, had left New York on December 28th. I had postponed my
departure for Paris until I could learn of my son Roger's departure from
Siberia.

On January 25, 1919, I left New York, reaching London on February 4th,
where I promptly conferred with the members of the British League of
Nations Union. Sir Willoughby Dickinson, M.P., gave me full details of
the meetings that had been held by the English, French, and Italian
leagues in Paris, at which our League was represented by Hamilton Holt.
I also had a consultation with Lord Shaw, the chairman of the conference
of delegates, who gave me a copy of the resolutions that had been
adopted.

We remained in London several days, and while there dined with our new
ambassador, John W. Davis, formerly the Solicitor-General of the United
States. Both he and Mrs. Davis, in the short time they had been in
London, had won the esteem of official England. At this dinner I had a
long conversation with the new Lord Chancellor, Birkenhead, formerly Sir
Frederick Smith, who held a distinguished position at the British Bar,
and had been Attorney-General in the last Cabinet. In the latter part of
1917 he had visited the United States, where I had met him, and where he
had made a number of addresses in the leading cities, as well as in
Canada. He was then only forty-seven years of age, but looked much
younger, and therefore quite unlike the typical Lord Chancellor robed in
venerable dignity. He told me that he was the youngest Lord Chancellor,
with one exception, that had ever sat on the woolsack. He had the
youthful and vivacious face of a man in the thirties. He said that
nothing would please him more than, when he was no longer Lord
Chancellor, to practice law in America, but he said that precedent would
not permit a former Lord Chancellor to return to the bar and practice
his profession.

Birkenhead was very outspoken in his opposition to a League of Nations,
saying that it was a Utopian idea. He asked whether I had seen his book
which had recently appeared, describing his visit to America. I told him
I had not, and on the next day he sent me a copy bearing his
inscription.

The following day we lunched with Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Samuel. He had
held several Cabinet positions, and had been Secretary of the Home
Office in the last Cabinet. He was defeated as candidate for Parliament
in the last election. He told me he had recently returned from Paris
from a Zionist Conference where his views and advice were desired. He
stated that he was not a Zionist, but was in full sympathy with the
Balfour Declaration to secure a homeland in Palestine with equal civil
and religious rights for all nationalities. I told him that was
precisely my position. His son was present, who was about twenty years
of age, and had been in the British army, and was later transferred to
the Zionist Corps.

That evening I dined with Sir Arthur Steele-Maitland, M.P.,
Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office, where I met my old friend
Viscount Bryce, who was then about eighty-two years of age. He was still
in the best of health and his mind was as alert as ever. He brought me a
copy of his recent brochure, "Proposals for the Prevention of Future
Wars," Maitland strongly favored a League of Nations, and told me that
after I arrived in Paris, if I found it necessary for the committee of
the League of Nations Union to return there to reënforce the official
delegates, I should write or wire him, and several of the members would
go over to coöperate with our committee; and that he would write Lord
Robert Cecil so that we might have a conference. I had similar letters
from Lord Shaw and Sir Willoughby Dickinson.

We arrived in Paris on February 9th, where our friends, Mr. and Mrs.
Edward Mamelsdorf, had generously placed at our disposal their
comfortable apartment in the rue Montaigne, which was most conveniently
and centrally situated, and saved us the necessity and difficulty of
securing accommodations, all the hotels being jammed full. The following
morning I met Mr. Holt, who had admirably represented our committee at
the several conferences that were held prior to my arrival; also Judge
William H. Wadhams, Mrs. Fannie Fern Andrews, Arthur Kuhn, secretary and
legal adviser of our committee, besides several other members of our
League.

With Mr. Holt I went to the Crillon Hotel, headquarters of the American
Delegation, and had a conference with Colonel House, with whom
arrangements were made for the fullest coöperation between our League
and the Official Commission. We also conferred with Mr. Gordon
Auchincloss, the son-in-law and secretary of Colonel House, who, after
consulting with the latter, gave me in confidence a typewritten copy of
the Articles of the League entitled: "Draft as Provisionally Approved."
He said that the Colonel wanted me to have this, so that I might study
it. I was told at the same time that the outlook for the adoption of a
League was very discouraging because the French Delegation, of which
Léon Bourgeois was the head, insisted upon the inclusion of two
additional clauses, (1) the control by the League of the manufacture of
all armaments and of all war industries, and (2) an international
military force to defend the French frontier, which, Bourgeois insisted,
quoting from a former speech of President Wilson, "was the frontier of
civilization."

President Wilson had emphatically objected to the proposed additions.

When I informed Colonel House that I was about to call on Léon Bourgeois
at his home across the Seine, he said, "By all means, go," and added
that Bourgeois's attitude "had put the League on the rocks."

Mr. Holt, Mr. Kuhn, and I proceeded to Bourgeois's house, but when we
arrived there late in the afternoon, we were told that M. Bourgeois was
out, that he was then in the Senate and would not return until late.
While there, however, I met my friend and colleague on the Hague
Tribunal, Baron d'Estournelles de Constant. He said he would see to it
that we met Bourgeois that evening. Mr. Holt, Mr. Kuhn, and I then
returned to my apartment, and had hardly arrived there when my telephone
rang and I was informed that M. Bourgeois and Baron d'Estournelles were
on their way to my residence. They arrived promptly at seven o'clock.

In the course of the discussion, Bourgeois presented the interposing
difficulties to which I have referred, giving the divergence of views
between him and President Wilson and Colonel House. I explained to him,
more fully than he seemed to have appreciated before, that the
war-making power was lodged by our Constitution exclusively in Congress,
and that even if the President should agree to the additional articles,
if these articles would in any way conflict with the war-making power as
provided for in the Constitution, President Wilson's assent would be
without effect, and would never be ratified by our Senate.

At this point in our conversation, the telephone rang and M. Bourgeois
was informed that the President of the Ministry, M. Clemenceau, desired
to see him at once. Bourgeois said he would shortly return and hurriedly
left us. In the meantime we continued the conversation with
d'Estournelles, who, being familiar with our American system, was better
able to appreciate the problem. I told him plainly that Colonel House
had said to me that afternoon that "the League of Nations was on the
rocks."

Bourgeois returned in half an hour and we resumed the discussion. After
explaining more at length our constitutional provisions, I told him that
if the proposed League were made too strong it would be useless, so far
as America was concerned, since it would not be ratified by the Senate.
Knowing what a strong advocate he had always been of the League of
Nations, as he was and had been for years past the president of the
French League of Nations Society, I asked him whether he would prefer
having no League rather than a League as drafted, without the two
articles he had proposed.

He frankly replied that if that were the alternative, he would prefer to
have the League as drafted. He then referred to the fact that at our
last Congressional election, the Administration had been defeated, and
therefore, as he understood it, the President represented a minority
party. I told him that, while such would be the case under the European
system, it was not so under our system, and then read to him from my
letter of credence "to support the President," explaining that the
president of our League, Mr. Taft, along with Dr. Lowell, myself, and
many others, was not of the President's party, yet I was authorized and
instructed to support the President.

Bourgeois replied that at the Plenary Session of the Conference, which
was to be held on the Friday following, namely, on the 14th, at the Quai
d'Orsay, in view of the American position which I had made clear to him,
he would support the "Draft as Provisionally Approved," but that he
wanted me to appreciate that they had politics in France as well as we
had, and that therefore he would, at any rate, have to present at the
Conference the two articles referred to, if for no other reason than for
their popular effect; but that I could rely on it that his Government
would in the final analysis accept the covenant or draft as
provisionally presented by the representatives of the fourteen nations
which had participated in its preparation and had preliminarily agreed
to it.

When Bourgeois and d'Estournelles departed, which was at about ten
o'clock, I called up Colonel House, and, after briefly informing him
what had taken place, I told him that the League was "off the rocks." He
expressed his great gratification, and on the following morning when I
met him he said that he had informed the President, who desired heartily
to congratulate me.

When Colonel House had informed me that "the League was on the rocks,"
it was more real than figurative; for at the session of the Commission
on the League held the evening before, the French members having
insisted among other provisions upon an international army to guard the
frontier, and President Wilson having point-blank refused to agree to
it, an _impasse_ had been reached, since neither side would give way.
The Commission thereupon adjourned, apparently without any possibility
of coming to an understanding. Considerable bitterness was developed in
the discussion, as I learned, between the President and M. Bourgeois. It
was at this stage that I fortuitously arrived at the Crillon to report
that our committee, by calling on M. Bourgeois, had been able
unofficially to take up and discuss with him the situation, which
officially had apparently passed beyond the stage of further discussion.
Therefore it was, as Holt and I were subsequently informed, a great
relief to the President and Colonel House, as well as to Clemenceau and
Bourgeois, that we had been able to remove the _impasse_ by inducing the
French delegates to agree to support the Covenant as preliminarily
drafted.

       *       *       *       *       *

Some months before, there had been organized in Paris a luncheon club,
the Cercle Interallié, as a comfortable and convenient meeting-place for
many officials and others. Immediately upon my arrival, I was introduced
at the club, where I frequently took lunch and met many people,
officials and delegates of the allied nations. The day following our
conversation at my apartment, I met Baron d'Estournelles by appointment
at lunch, and he informed me that Bourgeois had expressed himself
gratified with the clarification I had given him and that I could rely
upon the Covenant being adopted as we had agreed.

On the morning of the 14th, while I was at Colonel House's office, I
received a copy of the Covenant which had just been put in print, as
reëdited by the Sub-Committee of the League of Nations under the
chairmanship of Lord Robert Cecil. While I was there, President Wilson
came in to meet the representatives of the American press. When he saw
me, he expressed his high appreciation for our services and helpfulness.
The President made a brief address to the correspondents, beginning in a
semi-humorous vein, and then giving a general description of the
Covenant as finally drafted, explaining that where so many nations were
involved, no one's individual ideas could be fully satisfied, and that
there had to be yielding on all sides. Wilson added that he would have
liked to see some definite declaration regarding the protection of
religious minorities, and referred to several of the other outstanding
provisions.

Colonel House asked me to see Bourgeois again before the Plenary Session
which was to take place that afternoon, saying that he had heard that
Bourgeois was going to oppose the Covenant. I immediately called on
Bourgeois again, and told him precisely what the Colonel had said, but
Bourgeois assured me that there had been no change, and that the
Covenant, or as it was styled in French, _Le Pacte_, would not be
opposed.

That same afternoon, I went with former Ambassador Henry White, one of
our official delegates, to the Session of the Plenary Conference at the
Quai d'Orsay which convened at 3.30 o'clock. I accompanied him into the
Conference room, a large, vaulted, ornate chamber known as the Clock
Room, where were seated, at the tables arranged along three sides of a
square, with an inner row of seats arranged in the same way, the
delegates of the thirty nations.

On the outside of the square were the tables for the secretaries of the
several nations. At the head of the table sat M. Clemenceau; to his
right was President Wilson, and on his left was to be Lloyd George, but
as he was not present, Lord Robert Cecil sat in his place. Next on the
right was Mr. Lansing, and next on the left was Mr. Balfour, and so on
in order. In the rear of the chamber were a number of distinguished
persons and other officials of the Powers. To one side was another large
room with arched entrances, occupied by the correspondents of the press
of the world. The proceedings began at four o'clock. The ushers closed
the large entrance doors leading out into the foyer, and all was still
and in expectancy when Clemenceau rose and, in his usual brusque and
unceremonious manner, announced that "Monsieur Wilson" would have the
"parole," meaning the floor.

President Wilson arose, calm, dignified, and entirely self-possessed,
and, after a few preliminary words, stated that the representatives of
the fourteen nations which composed the League of Nations Committee had
unanimously agreed to the Covenant consisting of twenty-six articles to
be presented to the Conference, representing, according to the estimate,
1,200,000,000 people.

He read the articles of the Covenant, one by one, interpolating here and
there brief explanations. The title "Covenant" had been given the
document by Wilson, a designation he had previously used in one of his
speeches. This was regarded as most appropriate, since the pact was not
a treaty or convention, but something higher and more sacred, hence the
scriptural designation "Covenant," such as God had made with Israel.

After reading the articles, Wilson made an address of about thirty
minutes. It was clear, forceful, and in his inimitable style. In closing
he said: "Armed force is in the background in this programme, but it is
in the background, and if the moral force of the world will not suffice,
the physical force of the world shall. But that is the last resort,
because this is intended as a constitution of peace, not as a League of
War. Many terrible things have come out of this war, gentlemen, but some
very beautiful things have come out of it. Wrong has been defeated, but
the rest of the world has been more conscious than it ever was before,
of the majesty of right."

Lord Robert Cecil then spoke briefly, and I will quote a single passage
from his address: "Finally, we have thought that if the world is to be
at peace, it is not enough to forbid war. We must do something more than
that. We must try and substitute for the principle of international
competition that of international coöperation."

Signor Orlando of Italy followed with a brief address, then M. Léon
Bourgeois rose and spoke somewhat at length in French. He said that he
proposed amendments which he thought he ought to mention; that while his
country had accepted the text which had been read, the amendments were
mentioned so that, as the text went before the world, the amendments
might also be considered, to the effect that we ought to have a
permanent organization to prepare military and naval means of execution
and make them ready in case of emergency.

Baron Makino, speaking with persuasive eloquence in perfect English,
maintained his previous amendments which were as follows: "The equality
of nations being a basic principle of the League of Nations, the High
Contracting Parties agree to accord, as soon as possible, to all aliens,
nationals of States, members of the League, equal and just treatment in
every respect, making no distinction either in law or in fact on account
of their race or nationality." He then added: "I feel it my duty to
declare clearly on this occasion that the Japanese Government and people
feel poignant regret at the failure of the Commission to approve of
their just demand for laying down a principle aiming at the adjustment
of this long-standing grievance, the demand that is based upon a
deep-rooted natural conviction. They will continue in their insistence
for the adoption of this principle by the League in the future."

George Barnes, the English labor leader, then spoke, upholding the
argument of Bourgeois for an international force. After him Venizelos
spoke, referring to the amendments of France which had been held back
because of constitutional barriers of acquiescence on the part of
certain countries. He thought those countries should make an effort to
remove those barriers, but that, if they could not do so, then France
should recede from her position. Mr. Hughes of Australia interposed a
question, demanding to know when and where the discussion of mandatories
would take place, to which Clemenceau replied that the document would
rest on the table and would be discussed at a distant date. Thereupon,
he abruptly adjourned the session.

As the delegates moved out, I met President Wilson, who asked me for my
opinion about the Covenant. I replied that it was much more
comprehensive and forceful than I had believed it possible for the
nations preliminarily to agree upon. He expressed himself as much
gratified. I believed then, and do yet, that but for Wilson's prestige
and dominant leadership of the Conference, so far at least as the
Covenant was concerned, it would perhaps not have been formulated, if
ever, until after the Treaty of Peace was concluded. At any rate, I very
much doubt if an agreement could have been arrived at.

After my conversation with Wilson, Bourgeois said to me that he hoped I
was satisfied with his remarks in support of the Covenant, that he had
to refer to the amendments he presented so that they might receive
consideration. I told him that he had followed the course he had agreed
to when he spoke to me two nights before, that while he would refer to
his amendments, he would nevertheless support the Covenant.

When I had returned to my apartment, I wrote in my "Random Notes": "I
regard this day and its happenings as the golden chapter in the history
of civilization." Notwithstanding what has since happened, I have not
abandoned hope that such may yet prove true.

       *       *       *       *       *

Two days before the meeting of the Conference, Hamilton Holt and I had
tea with General Smuts, the distinguished South African delegate. He is
a man of very pleasant appearance, rather short in stature, and with his
florid complexion looks like a veritable Dutchman. He was then
apparently about fifty years of age. He would hardly, from his
appearance, be taken for a soldier, but rather for a student. He had
given much detailed study to the subject of a League of Nations, and
from his brochure "The League of Nations--A Practical Suggestion"
(1918) more of his suggestions as there set forth entered into the
articles of the Covenant than those proposed by any other of the
delegates, including Wilson. Smuts advocated in this brochure that "the
League should be put in the very forefront of the programme of the Peace
Conference," the same position that Wilson afterward successfully pushed
forward. In the preface of his brochure, dated December 16, 1918, Smuts
says:

     To my mind the world is ripe for the greatest step forward ever
     made in the government of man. And I hope this brief account of the
     League will assist the public to realize how great an advance is
     possible to-day as a direct result of the immeasurable sacrifices
     of this war. If that advance is not made, this war will, from the
     most essential point of view, have been fought in vain, and great
     calamities will follow.

Several days after the Conference, on February 17th, my wife and I, Mr.
and Mrs. Holt, and Arthur Kuhn of our committee, attended the French
Senate with Baron d'Estournelles, who is a member thereof. He introduced
us to a number of Senators, with whom we had tea. I had a talk with the
venerable Alexandre Ribot, head of the group of the Moderate Republican
Party, a refined gentleman of the old school, and of thoroughly
statesmanlike appearance. We also met Senator Paul Strauss, whom I had
known when he and his wife visited our country some eighteen years
before. He is the editor of the "Revue Philanthropique," and is a member
of the Academy of Medicine. He said that he believed his family and mine
were connected. This may be so, but I have no definite record.

Dining with Sir Robert Borden, then Premier of Canada and one of the
British delegates, the following evening, we met several of his
colleagues. Balfour was expected, but he had been compelled to return
to London that day. Sir Robert was an important member of the British
Delegation and made some very helpful suggestions. He opposed Article X
of the Covenant which provides that "the High Contracting Parties
undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the
territorial integrity and existing political independence of all States,
members of the League," etc., the same article that eventually met with
so much opposition in our Senate, and doubtless was the principal cause
for the Senate's failure to ratify. At that time it was generally
rumored that Borden would be selected as ambassador to the United States
to succeed Lord Reading. He would doubtless have made a most acceptable
representative in Washington of the British Government, exceptional as
it would have been to have the British Empire represented by a colonial
official. No one could have been sent who understood our country and our
people better.

       *       *       *       *       *

Washington's Birthday was celebrated by the American Society, which gave
a luncheon at the Hôtel Quai d'Orsay, which I attended. There were
present about one hundred and fifty Americans. It was a notable
assembly, and I had the pleasure of sitting next to General Pershing,
with whom I had a lengthy talk. We spoke, among other things, of the
proposal that our country should take a mandate to govern the Ottoman
Empire or any part of Europe. Great propaganda had been made that we
should take a mandate for the Ottoman Empire. Pershing agreed with me
that this would lead to endless complications and would not be approved
at home. I also talked with Colonel House upon the subject, who was of
the same opinion. Pershing was evidently quite nervous, for he was
expected to speak, and he was making some notes. It appeared to me he
was more disturbed than if he were about to enter into a serious
military engagement.

I had lunch the next day with Boris Bakhmeteff, the Russian ambassador
to the United States, at which I met Sazonoff, former Minister for
Foreign Affairs under the Czar's régime. We naturally spoke about
affairs in Russia and the possibility of reconstruction. I was told that
the late Czar was kindly and humane, but that he had been completely
misled and dominated by crafty ministers who were plotting and
intriguing one against another; that Russia was not, by reason of the
ignorance of its people, fitted to become a republic, but that it must
have a government powerfully centralized, and that its best hope would
be the restoration of the monarchy under Grand Duke Nicholas as
constitutional ruler. Sazonoff said it was a pity that Petrograd was not
taken by the Allied fleet. I am told that, under the Czar, Sazonoff was
the leader of the liberal wing.

A few days later I gave a little dinner at my apartment to enable Mr.
Vance McCormick, chairman of the War Trade Board, to meet several
prominent Russians, including Ambassador Bakhmeteff and Sazonoff. Mr.
Hoover was also present. We discussed the rehabilitation of commerce
with Russia.

On the 26th of February the Union of Associations for the Society of
Nations, together with the European Bureau of the Carnegie Peace
Foundation, gave a luncheon in honor of Ambassador Sharp and myself at
the Cercle Interallié, at which M. Léon Bourgeois presided. There were
present some seventy-five guests, mostly delegates and French officials,
including Sir Robert Borden; Venizelos, the Greek delegate; the
Roumanian minister; M. Vesnitch, the Serbian minister; and the Brazilian
ambassador. At the conclusion, M. Bourgeois arose, and, although there
were to be no set speeches, he expressed the regret of the French nation
that Ambassador Sharp would in the near future relinquish his post, and
complimented his Administration upon its work of the past four trying
years. He praised my effective helpfulness in regard to the League of
Nations, and stated that he not only greeted me as a twin, because he
was born in the same year as I was, but also as a Frenchman, since my
father, who was born in 1809, was a Frenchman by birth, and because my
great-grandfather was a delegate to the Conference which was summoned by
Napoleon during the first decade of the past century.

In reply, I stated that an American, to be truly patriotic, should
understand our early history, and that no American with this knowledge
could fail to have a love and sense of gratitude for France, our ally in
the establishment of democracy, as we had so recently been her ally for
the liberation of the world.

My various conferences regarding the League of Nations, while it was
under discussion and formulation by the Committee of the Conference
having charge of that subject, were held with Colonel House and his
secretary, Mr. Auchincloss. On February 27th, I had lunch with Secretary
Lansing. It had been quite obvious to me that even before this he had
been practically side-tracked, and that Colonel House had replaced him
from the beginning, doubtless by direction of the President. This was
very evident so far as the League of Nations was concerned. Mr. Lansing
informed me that he had pointed out a number of technical objections to
the Covenant as formulated, which, he was sure, would prove a fruitful
source of difference and would make trouble. It seemed to me that he was
evidently not conversant with the various stages of discussion regarding
the articles of the Covenant. I referred to the entire omission in the
second draft of the section respecting civil and religious liberty and
the protection of minorities, which was contained in the tentative
draft, but was finally omitted because Japan had insisted that the
equality of races be included, whereupon the whole subject had been
omitted. I suggested that the entire subject, which was in fact a Bill
of Rights, now that it had been excluded from the Covenant, should be
incorporated in the treaties to be made with each of the new nations.
Lansing agreed with me that that should be done and would under the
circumstances be the best plan.

       *       *       *       *       *

At this time, during February and March, 1919, the League to Enforce
Peace had organized numerous meetings throughout the country from New
York to San Francisco, advocating a League of Nations. Mr. Taft had
spoken at many of these meetings for months past, traveling untiringly
and making most effective addresses. At these meetings the Covenant was
approved and resolutions to that effect were passed. On February 25th
and 28th I received cables briefly describing such meetings and the
substance of the resolutions passed. I received cables to the same
effect from Salt Lake City, from San Francisco, and from New York. These
I gave to Colonel House, who in turn gave them to the press, and
sometimes they were cabled back through the Associated Press to American
newspapers.

       *       *       *       *       *

From time to time a number of the representatives of the Balkan and East
European nations came to my apartment to confer with me, doubtless
because of my diplomatic experiences in that part of the world, and
because of my relationship with Colonel House and our official
Commission. Among others who conferred with me was M. Venizelos, who
came to discuss the claims of Greece to additional territory to the
north, and on the western littoral of Asia Minor, and to the islands
adjacent. He explained, as an ethnological basis for such a claim, that
the Greek race was purer and less mixed in that part of Asia Minor and
in the islands than in Greece proper. He placed before me several
brochures containing studies of these points and sent me maps
illustrating those claims, also a document in English entitled: "Greece
Before the Peace Congress." He told me that, unless his presence was
imperatively demanded in Paris, he would attend with me the London
Conference of the Peace Societies of the various nations which was to be
held there March 11th.

On March 7th M. Vesnitch, the chief delegate of Serbia, came to see me
about Serbia's claims to two towns, Verschatz and Weisskirchen, which
the sub-committee of ten, under the chairmanship of M. Tardieu, had
awarded to Roumania. He claimed they were predominantly Serbian as to
sympathies and population, and that because they happened to be on the
railroad running through Roumania was no valid reason for transferring
them under Roumanian sovereignty. He said Serbia could never consent to
such transfer, which would cause not only dissatisfaction, but constant
trouble.

       *       *       *       *       *

The day after the Plenary Session of the Conference and the preliminary
adoption of the Covenant, President Wilson returned to America. I talked
with M. Bourgeois, M. Vesnitch, M. Venizelos, and several of the
chairmen of the allied societies for a League of Nations, and we agreed
to hold a conference of the delegates of the various societies. Chiefly
because of our desire of having with us Sir Edward Grey, who was the
chairman of the British Society, and Lord Bryce, both of whom at that
time were not entirely well, we decided to hold the conference in London
instead of in Paris. It was subsequently decided to hold it March
11th-13th for the purpose of discussing the draft of the Covenant as
preliminarily adopted, and to consider such changes and amendments as
might be deemed advisable, which when acted upon and adopted were to be
presented to our respective official delegates prior to the next meeting
of the Plenary Conference, to be held after President Wilson's return.

Accordingly, on March 11th, the delegates representing America, Great
Britain, France, Greece, China, Jugo-Slavia, and Roumania assembled in
London, in all about fifty in number. Besides myself as chairman, there
attended, from America, Hamilton Holt, Arthur Kuhn, Dr. Henry Churchill
King, Mrs. Fannie Fern Andrews, Raymond V. Ingersoll, Dr. Frederick
Lynch, and Edward Harding. Great Britain was represented by Lord Shaw of
Dunfermline, Sir W. H. Dickinson, Major David Davies, M.P.; J. H.
Thomas, M.P.; J. R. Clynes, M.P.; Sir A. Shirley Benn, M.P.; Sir Arthur
Steele-Maitland, M.P.; Professor Gilbert Murray; Aneurin Williams, M.P.;
H. Wickham Steed, and others. From France came M. Léon Bourgeois,
Vice-Admiral Fournier, General Léon Durand, Baron d'Estournelles de
Constant, and others. Greece was represented by M. Venizelos and
Professor Andreades. China was represented by Mr. Chang and Mr. Cheng;
Jugo-Slavia by M. Yovanovitch; and Roumania by Professor E. Pangrati,
Professor Negulesco, and Miss Helene Vacaresco.

A preliminary consultation was held on the 10th, with Professor Gilbert
Murray in the chair, and next morning the first meeting of the
conference was held at Caxton Hall, Westminster. Lord Shaw was elected
chairman, and W. J. T. Griffith, secretary. The various articles of the
Covenant were discussed, together with the amendments and changes
proposed by the delegates from the several countries. On behalf of our
delegation, I offered a resolution regarding the free exercise of
religion as well as freedom from civil and political discrimination
because of religion, which resolution after discussion was unanimously
adopted. Nine separate resolutions were offered by the British
delegates, some ten resolutions by the French delegates, and others by
the Roumanian and the Chinese delegates. In all, there were three
sessions, and the resolutions that were adopted M. Bourgeois was
authorized to present to the allied prime ministers.

On the evening of the 12th, Major David Davies, on behalf of the League
of Nations Union, gave a dinner at the Criterion Restaurant to M.
Bourgeois, Dr. Nansen, M. Vandervelde, M. Venizelos, and me. Right Hon.
H. A. L. Fisher, Secretary for Education, was toastmaster. Besides the
delegates, a number of other prominent men were present. Several
speeches were made laudatory of the Covenant and expressing high hopes
for the new world order. Emphasis was laid upon the necessity of
building up a body of opinion throughout the world to support the ideals
of the League and of international peace.

After adjournment, I returned to Paris, and on March 24th made a report
to President Wilson, who, a few days before, had returned from America,
and sent him the resolution proposed by the American delegates, namely,
to add a new article to the Covenant as follows:

     The High Contracting Parties, realizing that religious
     discriminations give rise to internal dissatisfaction and unrest
     which militate against international concord, agree to secure and
     maintain in their respective countries, as well as in states and
     territories under the tutelage of other states acting as
     mandatories on behalf of the League, the free exercise of religion
     as well as freedom from civil and political discrimination because
     of adherence to any creed, religion or belief not inconsistent with
     public order or with public morals.

To this proposal President Wilson replied, saying: "I am indeed
interested in a religious liberty article in the Covenant, but am trying
to reach the matter in another way." He doubtless had in mind to cover
it in treaties with the new nations for the protection of minorities, as
was subsequently provided in the treaty with Poland and with the Balkan
States.

At a luncheon on April 6th with the Russian group of refugee statesmen
in Paris, I again met M. Sazonoff; M. de Giers, formerly ambassador at
Constantinople; M. Bark, formerly Minister of Finance under the
Government of the late Czar; and M. Boris Bakhmeteff, the Russian
ambassador to the United States. They all spoke most disparagingly of
Russian conditions at the time. M. Sazonoff criticized and complained of
the Peace Conference, which, as he stated, had in no way condemned
Russian Bolshevism, and its failure in so doing had encouraged the
Bolsheviki. He said that had the Allies taken Petrograd, which could
have been done with very little sacrifice, that would have been the
beginning of the end of Bolshevism and would have rallied the Russian
people, who would themselves have destroyed the Bolsheviki. He added
that Russia's cruel treatment of the Jews under the Czar's Government
was an indefensible wrong, and doubtless contributed to driving some of
those who had suffered most into the ranks of the Bolsheviki.

While Sazonoff was talking, I wondered why he and some of his
colleagues in the Ministry had not prevented the outrages against
defenseless Jews, which resulted in the horrible pogroms which shocked
the moral sensibility of the world.

It is true that Sazonoff belonged to the so-called liberals of Russia,
and they did not have the courage to stand up for the basic principles
of humanity when in office, which they now, doubtless, sincerely
proclaim. Such is the withering and dispiriting effect of autocratic
government upon its own highest officials, who often lack the courage,
even if they have the vision, to correct abuses; and because of this
moral cowardice they prepare the way and supply the motive that sooner
or later expresses itself in revolution. Napoleon is reputed to have
said that the treatment of the Jews in every country is the thermometer
of that country's civilization.

Several times a week, during this period, conferences occurred in my
apartment with representatives of the Eastern and Balkan States.
Information had reached Paris that serious persecution of Jews was
threatened in Prague and throughout Tchecko-Slovakia; and on March 25th
a conference was arranged between M. Edouard Benès, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the Tchecko-Slovak Republic, and several gentlemen
representing the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish and
Zionist Committee, consisting of Julian W. Mack, Judge of the United
States Circuit Court; Professor Felix Frankfurter, of Harvard
University; Aaron Aaronson, head of the Agricultural Experiment Station
of Palestine; Lewis L. Strauss, the assistant of Herbert Hoover; and
myself. Letters from Prague from two of the Food Administration
officials reported that a press propaganda was carried on against Jews,
and that several attacks upon them had been made; that a movement was on
foot to deport a number of them to Pressburg, the hot-bed of
Bolshevism.

M. Benès pointed out that if any pogroms occurred, which these reports
foreshadowed, it would seriously prejudice his country and would
alienate American sympathy, which in turn might result in discontinuing
food shipments to his country. He stated that he was a disciple of
President Masaryk and always shared his liberal social and political
views; he said he would at once telegraph President Masaryk, who he knew
would do everything in his power to suppress the anti-Semitic agitation.
We were very much impressed with the enlightened statesmanship of M.
Benès, who, since then, has shown himself to be one of the foremost
statesmen in middle Europe. He assured us at the time that any
persecution of minorities in his country would be contrary to its
organic laws, and in direct violation of the principles and policies
upon which it had been determined to organize the State, and that we
could rely on it that no efforts would be spared in securing equal
justice for all without regard to race or religion.

From Sir Robert L. Borden, the Premier of Canada and one of the
delegates of the British Empire to the Peace Conference, I received on
March 21st a copy of his memorandum on the several articles of the
Covenant. I found them well conceived and in the main admirable. He
opposed Article X as drafted. He wanted it either stricken out or
clarified. I sent him a copy of a speech of Mr. Taft's of March 5th
referring to the same subject.

At the request of Colonel House, on April 11th, I had another conference
with M. Bourgeois. The Commission on the League of Nations of the
fourteen nations, under the chairmanship of President Wilson, had the
night before held a protracted session discussing the revision of the
Covenant, at which President Wilson offered the revised Article XXI
containing the special provision regarding the Monroe Doctrine, as
follows:

     ARTICLE XXI

     Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of
     international engagements such as treaties of arbitration or
     regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine for securing the
     maintenance of peace.

M. Larnaud and M. Bourgeois, the French representatives, both objected
to specific reference to the Monroe Doctrine, and made long speeches in
support of such objection. Colonel House desired me to impress upon M.
Bourgeois the reasons for this amendment and why it was necessary
specifically to mention the Monroe Doctrine, because, without it, it
would not be possible to have the Covenant confirmed by the Senate. As I
did not know M. Larnaud, I thought it best to discuss the subject with
M. Bourgeois so that he might confer with his colleague. In company with
Baron d'Estournelles de Constant, I called on M. Bourgeois at his
residence. I soon learned that M. Bourgeois did not object to specific
reference to the Monroe Doctrine, but he desired, in return for his
assent, to obtain President Wilson's assent to the amendments Bourgeois
had offered respecting a general staff and control or supervision of the
military force that each of the States was to supply to support the
League. As the Commission was to meet again to finish the consideration
of the Covenant, he agreed to confer with M. Clemenceau, saying he would
have to learn the other's views. He further said it must be determined
how best to formulate the article especially referring to the Monroe
Doctrine so as not to conflict with the general provisions.

At the session of the Commission that evening at the Crillon Hotel,
which lasted until after midnight, the article as quoted above,
specifically mentioning the Monroe Doctrine, was adopted. Colonel House
gave me the exact wording of the article, which I at once cabled to the
League to Enforce Peace in New York, with the request that Mr. Taft be
informed. The same day I received a cable from Mr. Taft and Dr. Lowell,
forwarded by Acting Secretary of State Frank L. Polk, to the effect
that, in the opinion of the Executive Committee of the League, specific
reference to the exclusion of the Monroe Doctrine from the jurisdiction
of the Covenant of the League was absolutely necessary to secure
confirmation by the Senate. On the following day Taft cabled me that the
Monroe Doctrine amendment was "eminently satisfactory."

I immediately advised President Wilson, sending him a copy of the cable.
The following day, I received the following letter from him:


                                                     _18 April, 1919_

     MY DEAR MR. STRAUS:

     I have been very much cheered by your kind letter of yesterday,
     with the message which it quotes from the League to Enforce Peace
     and from Mr. Taft personally, and I want to thank you very warmly
     for your own kind personal assurances of satisfaction with the
     results of our work on the Covenant.

                                  Cordially and sincerely yours
                                                          WOODROW WILSON

On April 23d, on the invitation of Professor Stephen Hayes Bush, of the
State University of Iowa, who was in charge of the Free Lecture Course
of the American Expeditionary Force, I delivered an address in the Grand
Amphitheatre of the Sorbonne. The great hall was filled with about one
thousand of our officers and men who were taking courses at this ancient
institution of learning. There were two lectures that afternoon, the
other by M. Ferdinand Buisson, the noted educator. His subject was "The
Educational System of France," which he had done so much to develop
since the educational system had been secularized by the separation of
Church and State in France. He described why education had been taken
from the control of the Catholic clergy, not out of hostility to the
Church, but in order not to prejudice the religious scruples of
non-clericals and non-Catholics.

I took as my subject "America and the League of Nations," and showed in
what respect the Covenant provided definite sanctions to make peace
decisions effective. I pointed out that following the war, for the first
time in history, the dominant power of the world rested in
democratically governed nations, and that theirs was the opportunity and
the responsibility to make provisions that such a war shall never be
waged again; and that now it was the duty of statesmanship to translate
the victory won in war into greater security for the future peace and
happiness of the world. I quoted from the speech of President Poincaré
in welcoming the Peace Delegates, in which he had described the reasons
why America entered the World War. He had said: "It was a supreme
judgment passed at the bar of history by the lofty conscience of a free
people to rescue her mother from the humiliation of thralldom and to
save civilization."

That same evening, M. Nicolas W. Tchaikovsky, president of the Archangel
Government of Northern Russia, called at my apartment to discuss with me
conditions in Russia. I had met him before when he was in Washington in
1907, after his escape from prison in Siberia. During several periods
before that time he had lived in western United States, where he had
engaged in farming. He had formerly belonged to the group of social
revolutionists. I spoke with him about the Hoover plan of sending food
into Russia, to which he replied that if an armed force could be sent
there it would be better, but that without an armed force the Bolsheviki
would use the provisions for their own red guard. I explained to him
that that could not be done, since the agents of the Food Administration
would themselves supervise the distribution, just as was done in Belgium
during the German occupation. He did not seem to think well of the whole
plan and considered that it would be of advantage to the Bolsheviki
politically, and would make their people believe it was a recognition of
their régime. He seemed to think that the Bolsheviki authorities could
not stop fighting in Russia even if they wanted to, as their several
generals acted independently.

He spoke of Lenin as an honest, strong-headed, misguided fanatic, who he
believed would in time discover his error and would have the moral
courage and honesty to throw up his hands. Trotsky, he said, was quite
another sort--an ambitious adventurer.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Plenary Session of the Conference was called to order at the Quai
d'Orsay on April 28th, at 3 P.M. I again attended with our official
delegate, former Ambassador Henry White. The representatives of the
thirty nations were seated as before. I was given a seat just behind the
American Commission. The Session was presided over by M. Clemenceau, who
showed no signs of the effects of his recent wound by an assassin's
bullet. He opened the session with a few words, then called on President
Wilson, who declared in a matter-of-fact way that, since he had read the
articles of the Covenant to the Conference at the previous session
(February 14th), and since all the delegates had the Covenant as amended
before them, he would confine himself to pointing out the amendments and
the reasons therefor.

The immense hall was packed as on previous occasions. After President
Wilson had made his statement, which was rendered into French by the
official interpreter, he moved several resolutions, one nominating Sir
James Eric Drummond as Secretary-General of the League, and one that
Belgium, Brazil, Greece, and Spain should be members of the Council
pending the selection of the four additional States by the Assembly of
the League.

As chairman of the League to Enforce Peace, I wrote a letter to the
President on the following day offering my congratulations upon the
adoption of the Covenant. To this I received the following reply:


                                                 PARIS, _1 May, 1919_

      MY DEAR MR. STRAUS:

     Thank you with all my heart for your generous letter of the 29th.
     It has given me the greatest pleasure and encouragement, and I want
     to take the opportunity to say how valuable in every way your own
     support of and enthusiasm for the League of Nations has been. It is
     a real pleasure to receive your unqualified approbation.

                            Cordially and sincerely yours
                                                            WOODROW WILSON

After the Plenary Session on April 28th and the adoption of the Covenant
of the League of Nations, I felt that my duties in Paris were at an end.
The winter had been very strenuous, and the weather had been very
inclement--much rain and very little sunshine. I decided to take a rest,
and was advised, because of some slight ailment in my left leg due to
impeded circulation, to take the baths at Bagnoles de l'Orne. The usual
régime there is to take twenty-one baths. After I had taken eight, I
received a letter from Colonel House saying that he would regard it most
helpful if I would return to America at as early a date as possible. He
informed me that the counsel for the American Commission, David Hunter
Miller, was also returning; that passage had been secured for both of
us on the U.S.S. Mount Vernon which was sailing from Brest on June 2d.
He stated that it would be rendering a valuable service if I would
confer with some of the Senators, so that they might be fully informed
regarding the discussions and details of the negotiations as they
progressed.

I accordingly returned to Paris, and on May 27th had a conference with
Colonel House, who again impressed upon me the services I might render
in returning to the United States, since no one was more familiar than
Mr. Miller and I with the meaning and significance of the articles of
the Covenant; no one, therefore, was better qualified to answer the
criticisms and objections that had been made.

In the course of conversation, he said that in his opinion Woodrow
Wilson would not become a candidate again for President unless the
treaty were rejected, which might force him to run against his will in
order to save the treaty; should the treaty, however, be ratified, there
would be no occasion for him to become a candidate.

       *       *       *       *       *

The day before this, while I was paying a visit at the Hotel
Continental, I met Jane Addams and Lillian Wald, and with them was
Alexander Kerensky, the former Premier of Russia, They asked me to meet
Kerensky, which I did. He proved to be not at all the kind of man in
appearance that I had pictured. He did not resemble the Russian type. He
was clean-shaven, rather spare, a little above medium height, and seemed
about forty years of age. He looked more like a student than like a
leader who had stood in the storm-center of political turmoil.

Kerensky told me that he did not believe in Kolschak, principally
because he regarded him as a tool of the Britain and Russian nobility.
Kerensky expressed himself as opposed to having the Allies recognize
Kolschak unless it was conditioned on definite guarantees that a free
democratic election be held so that the people might decide what form of
government they desired.

The following day, Dr. Dluski, the Polish peace delegate, together with
M. Lieberman, a Jewish member of the Polish Diet, called upon me to
explain, if not justify, the Polish pogroms, evidently because of the
great publicity that had been given thereto by the mass meeting in New
York. The resolutions passed by that meeting, and presented to the
President, had appeared in dispatches to European papers.

We left Paris for Brest on May 30th. The Mount Vernon, which was
scheduled to sail on the following day, had postponed sailing until June
3d. It carried some five thousand officers and men of the Sixth
Division. Dr. Mezes and his wife were also on board. Dr. Mezes, who is a
brother-in-law of Colonel House, organized the group of experts, of
which he was chairman, which had rendered such valuable service to the
Commission. We were all very comfortably provided for on the ship, and
it was most interesting to observe the system and order with which the
five thousand officers and men were taken care of. They were a jolly
lot, happy to return home, and without exception conducted themselves in
a correct and orderly manner. We had a delightful crossing; the weather
was fine and the sea was calm.

       *       *       *       *       *

Shortly after my return to the United States, the League to Enforce
Peace called a meeting of the Executive Council to determine what action
it could best take to further the ratification of the treaty which was
now being vigorously debated in the Senate. It was decided that Mr.
Vance McCormick and I should be a committee to confer with the
President. We subsequently desired to add Dr. A. Lawrence Lowell,
president of Harvard University, to our number, provided it would be
agreeable to the President, which Mr. McCormick was to ascertain when
arranging for the appointment. The President designated August 6th as
the day on which he would see us, and accordingly Dr. Lowell, Mr.
McCormick, the Secretary of the League, Dr. Short, and I went to the
White House.

President Wilson assured us that, while he was somewhat tired, he felt
in good condition. He said he had had a number of conferences with
individual Senators who had objected to the ratification of the treaty,
and that he had given them explanations regarding the main points in
dispute, namely, Article X, guaranteeing against external aggression;
Article XXI, providing that nothing in the Covenant should be deemed to
affect the validity of the Monroe Doctrine; and Article I, providing
that any member of the League may, after two years' notice, withdraw
from the League. These were the main subjects covered by the
reservations formulated by the moderate group headed by Senators Kellogg
and McCumber.

We suggested that it might be of good result if the President could in
some public and formal way make his explanations and interpretations
regarding these points. The question was how this could best be done.
The President believed it would be preferable if one of the Senators of
the opposition addressed to him a letter of inquiry, so framed as to
enable the President to give his views. It was then understood that Dr.
Lowell, Mr. McCormick, and I should confer with Senator Hitchcock, the
Democratic leader of the minority of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
who could advise us as to what member of the Republican majority on the
committee it would be best for us to confer with.

After our conference with the President, we went to the Senate and found
the Committee on Foreign Relations in session, examining Secretary of
State Lansing. Senator Hitchcock suggested that we call on Senator
McCumber, but as he was not then in Washington, Dr. Lowell and I called
on Senator Kellogg. The latter told us what we already knew, namely,
that he was in favor of the League and was scheduled to make his speech
in the Senate advocating the ratification of the treaty with the
reservations his group had formulated, which reservations he felt
confident were not in the nature of amendments, but interpretative only,
and therefore would not require resubmission either to the Plenary
Session or to Germany. Dr. Lowell and I outlined our plan regarding the
letter to the President, asking for his interpretation of the articles
above referred to. While Senator Kellogg personally favored this plan,
he said he would first have to confer with the members of his group, and
he believed they would be favorably inclined. We then inquired whether
the President's interpretations and clarifications might not serve the
purpose of making the reservations unnecessary. The Senator said "no,"
but that the reservations could recite the fact that they were based
upon the President's interpretations. We arranged that Senators Kellogg
and Hitchcock should confer upon the subject with a view of preparing
such a tentative letter of inquiry which might be shown to the President
in advance, and to which the President could reply, giving his
interpretations.

After leaving Senator Kellogg, we again called on Senator Hitchcock. In
all of these conferences between the Senators of the various groups, we
acted as the "honest brokers" for the League. Senator Hitchcock thought
very favorably of our plan and believed it would work out
advantageously. Dr. Lowell and I felt gratified with our day's work,
though, as matters developed, nothing came of this plan.

In this connection I cannot refrain from quoting a story which Dr.
Lowell told apropos of the problem. The story, as I recall it, was that
a noted colored preacher was holding a service in which he read a
chapter from Isaiah referring to the Seraphim. After the service one of
the colored brethren asked the preacher what was "the difference between
a Seraphim and a terrapin." The latter, rubbing his head, replied: "My
son, I grant you there is a difference, but they have made it up."

Unfortunately, while there was, in words at least, if not in context, a
difference between the reservations offered by the Administration group,
the group of mild reservationists, and the majority group, yet, for
reasons that I need not enter into here, they did not "make it up."

       *       *       *       *       *

In concluding this chapter and in closing these memoirs, I cannot resist
reflecting how much wiser the Allied Powers and America were in the
conduct of the war than in the making of peace, and afterwards. In war
they finally pooled their strength and won; in the peace terms they
again drew measurably apart. The men who framed the peace terms
subordinated world policies to home politics. The United States, by
reason of a contest between the Administration and the majority group in
the Senate, allowed its sense of world responsibility to be negated by
partisan differences. Reconstruction is being halted. And why? Because
the leading statesmen of the Entente Powers still lack the economic
wisdom, or, what is the equivalent, the courage, to shape their
international policies along world economic lines. My own country, in
withholding its coöperation, is equally culpable. The result is tension
and derangement in the relationship of nations.

As the malady from which this and other countries are suffering is
world-wide, so must the remedy be world-wide. And America cannot free
herself from the responsibility by isolating herself and refusing to do
her part in applying the remedial measures necessary to restore normal
conditions. The remedy does not consist in the lessening or weakening of
sovereignty by individual states. It consists in the enlargement of
their sovereign functions in concert with and in just relations to other
states for the administration of common interests. It requires no
surrender of sovereignty for individual states to conform their policies
to the world's common needs.


                              THE END


                               Index




INDEX

Throughout the index, _S._ stands for the author.


  Aaronson, Aaron, 418.

  Abbott, Ernest, 183, 188.

  Abbott, Lawrence F., _Impressions of Theodore Roosevelt_, 263, 264,
        290, 311; 174, 254, 289.

  Abbott, Lyman, 122, 183, 184, 188, 272, 311, 395.

  Abdul Aziz, Sultan, 298.

  Abdul Hamid II, Sultan, difficulty of obtaining audience with, 58, 59;
    at Selamlik, 63, 64;
    feared assassination, 64;
    _S._'s long-delayed audience, 67-69;
    physical aspect of, 68;
     and Baron de Hirsch, 93;
    _S._ again received by, 99;
    permits excavations in Babylonia, 100;
    his obligation to _S._, 100, 101;
    _S._'s farewell audience, 102, 103;
    decorates Mrs. Straus, 104;
    welcomes return of _S._, as minister, 134;
    does not favor raising U.S. mission to embassy, 135;
    "the whole show," 136;
    receives German Emperor, 137, 138, 139;
    and the indemnities due to missionaries, 141, 142;
    and Mohammedans in the Philippines, 143 _ff._;
    instructs them to submit to U._S._ army, 146, 159;
    and foreign visitors, 152;
    increased power of, 153;
    his gift to _S._, 155, 156; 72, 97, 98, 157, 276, 277, 279, 282, 292.

  Abraham, 157.

  Adams, John, 258.

  Adams, John Quincy, 260.

  Addams, Jane, 425.

  Adee, Alvey A., 48, 91, 98.

  Adler, Cyrus, 240, 252.

  Africa, Northern, Italy seeks territory in, 340.

  Aguinaldo, Emilio, fails to arouse Sulu Mohammedans to revolt, 146.

  Ahmed Riga Bey, 298, 299.

  Alaska salmon fisheries, protection of, 235, 236.

  Alaskan boundary question, 173, 174.

  Alexiefsky, Alexandre, 392, 393.

  Algeciras Conference, 192.

  Algiers, motoring through, 343.

  Alliance Israélite (Paris), 167, 359.

  Allied Societies for a League of Nations, conference of, 415, 416.

  Alphonso XIII, of Spain, 361.

  American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, and _S._'s
        appointment to Turkey, 45, 49.

  American citizens, naturalized, rights of, in foreign countries, 163,
        332, 333.

  American College for Girls, 297.

  American diplomats, meager salaries of, 102.

  American Jews in Turkey, 80, 81, 82.

  _American Journal of International Law_, quoted, 335; 336.

  American politics, two main currents in, 307.

  American Society of International Law, 334-336.

  Americanism, Roosevelt quoted on, 183.

  Americans, stranded in London, committee for relief of, 371 _ff._

  Ames, James B., 160.

  Amos, Morris S., 172.

  Anarchists, exclusion and deportation of, 231, 232;
    defined in Act of 1907, 232.

  Anderson, Chandler P., 372.

  Andreades, Professor, 415.

  Andrews, E. Benjamin, 120.

  Andrews, Fannie Fern, 400, 415.

  Angell, James B., resigns Turkish mission, 124, 125; 131, 134.

  Anglo-Japanese Alliance, automatically ended by Four-Power Treaty, 229.

  Anthon, Charles, 24.

  Aoki, Mr., Japanese Ambassador, 218, 227.

  Arbitration, as a remedy for industrial disputes, 195.

  Arbitration treaties, failure of, 329, 330.

  Armenians, massacres of, 139, 148, 280.

  Artin Effendi, 157.

  Asquith, Herbert H., 350, 384.

  Asquith, Margot, 350.

  Astor, Waldorf, 374.

  Astor, Mrs. Waldorf (Viscountess), 374.

  Astor, William, 113.

  Athens, _S._'s visits to, 152-154, 285, 286.

  Athletics in the universities in 1870, 26.

  Auchincloss, Gordon, 400, 412.

  Augusta Victoria, German Empress, in Constantinople, 136 _ff._

  Austria-Hungary, and the Keiley episode, 46, 47;
    in sympathy with Germany (1909), 279;
    annexes Bosnia and Herzegovina, 341.

  Authors' Club, dinner to _S._, 331.

  Avigdor, Isaac S. d', 3.

  Avigdor, Jules d', 3.


  Babylonia, excavations in, 97 _ff._

  Bacon, Rev. Dr., 24.

  Bagdad railway, concession for building, and the World War, 279.
    And _see_ Persian Gulf.

  Bakhmeteff, Boris, 411, 417.

  Balfour, Arthur J., Palestine for the Jews, 399; 229, 397, 409.

  Balkan Wars (1912 and 1913), 341, 342, 344.

  Baring, Sir Evelyn, 79.
    And _see_ Cromer, Lord.

  Bark, M., 417.

  Barlow, Joel, 145.

  Barnard, Frederick A. P., 26, 27, 28.

  Barnes, A. S., 45.

  Barnes, George, 407.

  Barnum, H. S., 103.

  Baron de Hirsch Fund and Trade School, 96.

  Bartholdt, Richard, 420.

  Bates, General, 146.

  Bavaria, Jews of Palatinate of, 1 _ff._

  Bayard, Thomas F., and the Keiley episode, 47;
    quoted, 126; 44, 85, 91, 93, 94.

  Beaconsfield, Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of, at the Berlin Congress
       (1878), 363;
    Sir H. D. Wolff on, 364, 365;
    his loyalty to Judaism, 364;
    his novels, 364.

  Beale, Joseph H., 334.

  Beck, James M., 391.

  Beecher, Henry Ward, urges appointment of _S._ to Turkey, 45, 46,
        116; 40.

  Beer, George L., 290.

  Beiram, feast of, 59, 60.

  Beirut, schools in, 73.

  Belmont, August, 40.

  Benedict XV, Pope, 387.

  Benès, Edouard, 418, 419.

  Benn, A. Shirley, 415.

  Bent, Theodore, 100.

  Bergson, Henri, 360, 390, 391.

  Berlin, Treaty of, violated by Roumania, 166, 167; 241.

  Berlin, Congress of (1878), 363, 364.

  Bernays, Michael, and the Queen of Roumania, 304.

  Bernstorff, Count von, on the origin of the war, 378;
    on U.S. mediation, 378 _ff._;
    _S._ said to have been duped by, 382, 384;
    given his passports, 389.

  Berr, Michael, 3.

  Bethmann-Hollweg, Chancellor von, reply of, to offer of mediation,
        384, 385.

  Beveridge, Albert J., 122.

  Bible societies, troubles of agents of, 74.

  Biddle, James, 87.

  Bien, Julius, 171.

  Birkenhead, F. E. Smith, Baron, sketch of, 398;
    opposed to League of Nations, 398, 399.

  Bissinger, Erhard, 73.

  Blaine, James G., and Dr. Burchard, 38, 39.

  Blanc, Baron, 72.

  Bliss, Cornelius N., 174.

  Bliss, Daniel, 75.

  Bliss, Edwin E., 103.

  Bliss, George, 21, 22.

  Bliss, Howard S., and the Syrian Protestant College, 76.

  Bliss, Isaac, 72.

  Bliss, William G., 103.

  B'nai B'rith Order, 167, 171.

  Boardman, Mabel T., 339.

  Boker, George H., 51, 90.

  Bonaparte, Charles J., 230, 232, 237, 393.

  Bonetti, Monsignor, 149.

  Bonney, Mr., 158.

  Borden, Sir Robert L., 409, 410, 411, 419.

  Bosnia and Herzegovina, annexed by Austria, 341.

  Bosphorus, the, 57, 155.

  "Bosses," the, Roosevelt's attitude toward, 309.

  Boulanger, Georges E. J. M., "the second Napoleon," 52, 53, 54.

  Boulangist movement, collapse of, 54.

  Boulé (Greek Parliament), 286.

  Bourgeois, Léon, proposes additional articles in League Covenant,
        400-403, 406, 408; 404, 407, 411, 412, 419, 420.

  Brandes, Georg, 345, 346.

  Brann, Father, 149.

  Breckenridge, Clifton R., 125.

  Breed, William C., 372.

  Brewer, David J., 334, 339.

  Bridges, Robert, 350.

  British League of Nations Union, 398.

  Brittain, Sir Harry, 353.

  Brittain, Lady, 353.

  Brown, William Haig, 120, 121.

  Brown University, gives _S._ honorary degree, 120.

  Browning, Oscar, 290.

  Bryan, William J., letter of Roosevelt to, 254;
    and the offer of U.S. to mediate, 379, 380, 381;
    his instructions to Mr. Page, 385; 252, 253.

  Bryce, James, Viscount, 177, 231, 336, 399, 415.

  Bryce, Lady, 231.

  Buchanan, James, 31.

  Budros Pasha, Roosevelt's denunciation of murder of, 288.

  Buisson, Ferdinand, 421, 422.

  Bulgaria, 294.

  Bullock, Seth, 176, 177.

  Bülow, Prince Bernhard von, 136, 247.

  Burchard, Samuel D., and his "rum, Romanism, and rebellion" speech,
        38, 39.

  Burns, John, 352, 353.

  Burton, Theodore E., 391.

  Bush, Stephen H., 420.

  Butler, Charles H., 334.

  Butler, Nicholas M., 121, 386.

  Buyukdereh, 57.

  Byrne, James, 372.


  Cabinet, routine of meetings of, 215, 216.

  Cairo, _S._'s visit to, 77-79;
    with Roosevelt at, 287 _ff._

  Calice, Baron de, 60, 135.

  California, Japanese in, 218;
    outbreak against Japanese in, 220;
    anti-Japanese legislation in, 228,
    nullifies "Gentlemen's Agreement," 266;
    general sentiment of, 228.

  Cambon, Jules, 135.

  Cambon, French Ambassador to Turkey, 135.

  Campbell, Timothy, anecdote of, 115.

  Canadians, and the Alaskan boundary, 174.

  Cannon, Joseph G., 265.

  Capitulations, the, 86 _ff._

  Cardwell, John, 78.

  Carlisle, John G., 115, 127.

  Carlisle, Mrs. John G., 115.

  "Carmen Sylva." _See_ Elizabeth of Roumania.

  Carnegie, Andrew, and the Homestead Labor leaders, 197;
    President of National Civic Federation, 197;
    his character, 198;
    his _Autobiography_, 198;
    entertains _S._ at Skibo Castle, 355;
    and the Peace Palace, 356, 357; 178, 331, 332, 386.

  Carnegie, Mrs. Andrew, 357.

  Carol, King of Roumania, _S._ entertained by, 300;
    on economic questions, 302;
    admired Roosevelt, 302;
    his attitude toward Jews, 302, 303.

  Carranza, President of Mexico, 340.

  Carter, George R., Governor of Hawaii, 222.

  Carter, Mrs. George R., 222.

  Carter, J. Ridgely, 300.

  Cassel, Sir Ernest, 305.

  Cassini, Count, 173.

  Castelar, Emilio, sketch of, 365;
    on the expulsion of Jews from Spain, 366.

  Catholics, Roosevelt's attitude toward, 182, 183, 259-262.

  Cavass, the, functions of, 58.

  Cecil, Lord Robert, quoted, 406; 399, 404, 405.

  Cena, Signor, 345.

  Central News War Service, 385, 386.

  _Century Magazine_, 151, 366.

  _Cercle Interallié_, 404.

  Chadwick, French E., 332.

  Chaffee, Adna R., 166.

  Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 238.

  Chamberlain, Leander, 272.

  Chang, Mr., 415.

  Chapman, John, 51.

  Chapman, Mrs. John, 51.

  Charterhouse School and Roger Williams, 120, 121.

  Cheng, Mr., 415.

  Chevket Pasha. _See_ Mahmoud.

  Chicago, campaign to purify primaries in, 121, 122.

  Chicago _Record_, 143.

  China, and the open door, 161.

  Choate, Joseph H., _S._'s friendship with, 36.

  Christianity, few conversions to, in Turkey, 75.

  Christians, in Turkey, resent visit of German Emperor, 139.

  Cilicia, massacre of Armenians in, 280.

  Cincinnati _Times-Star_, 251, 252.

  Civic Federation of Chicago, 121, 194.

  Civil service, Roosevelt on, 184.

  Civil War, the, results of, 20.

  Clemenceau, Georges, 53, 401, 403, 405, 407, 420, 423.

  Cleveland, Frances (Folsom), 48, 116, 118, 299.
    And _see_ Preston, Frances.

  Cleveland, Grover, elected President (1884), 38, 39, 40;
    _S._ recommended to, as minister to Turkey, 44-46,
      and appointed, 46;
    and the Keiley episode, 47;
    interview of _S._ with, 48, 49;
    letters of, to _S._, 110, 111, 113;
    and the silver question, 108, 109, 110;
    his tariff message (1887), 109;
    popular esteem for, 109, 110, 119;
    relations with _S._, 110;
    at Lakewood, 112, 118;
    on Isidor Straus, 112;
    and the Van Alen appointment, 113, 114;
    and the bond loans, 116;
    his address at the Beecher Memorial, 116;
    and C. F. Murphy, 117;
    failing health, 118;
    his death and burial, 118, 119;
    quoted, 126;
    address at meeting of protest against Kishineff massacre, 170;
         42, 43, 89, 99, 102, 195, 339, 358.

  Cleveland-Blaine campaign, the, 38, 39.

  Clynes, J. R., 415.

  Coastwise shipping and Canal tolls, 338, 339.

  Colby, Bainbridge, 321, 322.

  Cole, Samuel V., "The Deacon's Prayer," 395.

  Collinsworth Institute, 11, 243.

  Cologna, Abraham de, 3.

  Colombia, Republic of, and the Panama revolution, 174-176.

  Columbia College, _S._ a student at, 25-29.

  Columbia Grammar School, _S._ a pupil at, 22-24.

  Columbia Law School, _S._ a student at, 29, 30;
    faculty of, 30, 31.

  Columbus, Christopher, was he a Spaniard, of Jewish ancestry? 368, 369.

  Columbus, Ga., Straus family settles in, 17;
    life in, 18;
    captured and looted by Union forces, 17;
    dinner to _S._ at, 242.

  Commerce and Labor, Department of, _S._ appointed head of, 212;
    its scope, 213;
    _S._'s method of conducting, 213;
    his staff, 213, 214;
    civil service in, 214;
    division of, opposed by _S._, 239.

  Commercial bodies, relations of, with the Government, 236-238.

  Commission to investigate treatment of Jews in Russia, report of,
        107, 108.

  Congress, jingo agitation in, 124.

  Constantinople, first impressions of, 58;
    custom regarding official calls at, 60;
    conditions of life in, 61, 62;
    ceremony of Selamlik in, 63, 64;
    second arrival at, 133;
    visit of German Emperor to, 136-139;
    visitors to, 149-152, 298, 299;
    in 1909, 276.

  Contract labor law, 216.

  Coons, Joseph D., 171.

  Cooper, Peter, 301.

  Coöperation Society of Northern England, 354.

  Corbin, Henry C., 166.

  Cortelyou, George B., 212, 213, 254.

  Corwine, William R., 237.

  Coszta, Martin, case of, 332, 333.

  Coudert, Frederick R., 38.

  Cowles, Lieut.-Commander, 174.

  Cox, Samuel S., 42, 43.

  Cramp Shipbuilding Co., 138, 142.

  Cravath, Paul D., 170.

  Crete, Greek designs on, 293, 294;
    Venizelos in charge of affairs in, 295, 296.

  Criminals, exclusion and deportation of, 233, 234.

  Croker, Richard, 110.

  Cromer, Evelyn Baring, Lord, 79, 290, 291.

  Cromwell, Oliver, 353.

  Crum, Mr., colored, appointed Collector at Charleston by Roosevelt, 184.

  Cuba, trouble with Spain over, 122, 123.

  Cullom, Shelby M., 163.

  Curley, Captain, 7, 8, 15, 16.

  Curtis, William E., 143, 144.

  Cutting, Robert F., 25, 26.

  Cyprus, 157.


  Daniel, John W., 240.

  Davenport, Frederick M., 317, 321, 324.

  Davies, David, 415, 416.

  Davis, Cushman K., 128.

  Davis, John C., 174.

  Davis, John W., 398.

  Davis, Mrs. John W., 398.

  Day, Joseph P., 372.

  Day, William R., 128, 130.

  De Forest, Robert W., 372.

  Democratic State Convention (N.Y., 1891), silver question in, 108, 110;
    adopts sound-money plank, 110.

  Depew, Chauncey M., 265.

  Derby, Ethel (Roosevelt), 395.

  Dewey, George, 219.

  Dews, Dr., 17, 18.

  Diaz, Porfirio, 160.

  Dickinson, J. M., 334.

  Dickinson, Sir Willoughby H., 398, 399, 415.

  Dillon, Count, 52, 53.

  Dillon, Countess, 52, 53.

  Diplomatic corps, at Constantinople, official calls among, 60, 61.

  Diplomatic romance, a, 143-148.

  Diplomatic service of U.S., suggestions for improving, 105.

  D'Israeli, Mrs. Benjamin, the elder, 3.

  Disraeli, Benjamin. _See_ Beaconsfield.

  Dixon, Joseph M., 255.

  Djavid Bey, 278, 281, 282, 284.

  Dluski, Dr., 426.

  Dodge, Cleveland H., 299.

  Dodge, William E., 131.

  Donald, Robert, 351.

  Dosfuentes, Marqués de. _See_ Olmet.

  Dougherty, Daniel, 40.

  Drago, Luis M., 304, 305.

  Draper, William F., Ambassador to Italy, 131, 132, 158.

  Draper, Mrs. William F., 158.

  Drummond, Sir J. Eric, 424.

  Duane, W. N., 372.

  Dufferin, F. T. H. Blackwood, Earl and Marquis of, 79, 364.

  Dunnell, E. G., 48, 49.

  Durand, Léon, 415.

  Dwight, Charles A. S., 103.

  Dwight, Henry O., 72, 103.

  Dwight, Theodore W., 30.


  Earl, Charles, 216.

  Easley, Ralph M., 121, 122, 194, 195, 196.

  Eastern Question, possibilities of trouble in, 327 _ff._

  Eben Ezra, 367.

  Edward VII, 350.

  Egypt, status of, 77 _ff._;
    conditions in, 290, 291.

  Eidlitz, Otto M., 200.

  Eight-hour law, favored by Roosevelt, 196.

  Einstein, G. F., 43, 44.

  Eitel Friedrich, Prince, _S._'s impression of, 291, 292.

  Eitel Friedrich, Princess, 291, 292.

  Electoral reform, campaign for, 121, 122.

  Eliot, George. _See_ Evans, Mary Ann.

  Elizabeth, Queen of Roumania, aspect and accomplishments of, 301,
        302;
    genesis of her pen-name, 301;
    her study, 301, 302;
    her gifts to _S._, 302, 304;
    and Hay's hymn, 303, 304;
    on Prof. Bernays, 304.

  Employer and employees, change in relations between, and the result,
        194.

  English chapel, Constantinople, service in, 66.

  Erb, Professor, 154.

  Erdman Act, the, 200.

  Estournelles de Constant, Baron d', 332, 401, 403, 404, 409, 415, 420.

  Eulenburg, Count, 138.

  Evans, Mary Ann, 51.

  Expatriation, right of, 332, 333.

  Ezekiel, Moses, 158.


  Fairbanks, Charles W., Vice-President, and Pius X, 289, 290, 348;
    at Constantinople, 298, 299; 247, 269.

  Fairbanks, Mrs. C. W., 247, 298.

  Falconio, Cardinal, 347, 348, 349.

  Federated unions, 194.

  Ferrero, Guglielmo, _Greatness and Decline of Rome_, 177.

  Ferrero, Madame, 177.

  Filipinos, McKinley and _S._ on granting independence to, 161.

  Finch, George A., 336.

  Finley, John H., 219, 220.

  Finley, John P., quoted, 146, 147.

  Fish, Hamilton, 25.

  Fish, Stuyvesant, 25.

  Fisher, H. A. L., 416.

  Flour, question of shipments of, to Turkey, 147, 148.

  Flower, Walter C., 122.

  Flynn, Mr., 17.

  Fort, Governor, of New Jersey, 119.

  Fortescue, Lieutenant Granville, 210.

  Foster, John W., 329, 330, 334, 336.

  Fouad, Pasha, 134.

  Foulke, William D., 209.

  Fournier, Vice-Admiral, 415.

  Four-Power Treaty (1921) effect of, on relations of U.S. with Japan, 229;
    and the Anglo-Japanese alliance, 229.

  France. _See_ Great Powers.

  Frankfurter, Felix, 418.

  Franklin, Benjamin, 258.

  Franklin, Fabian, 390.

  Frederic, Harold, _The New Exodus_, 107; 51.

  Frederick III, German Emperor, 138.

  French delegation to Peace Conference. _See_ Bourgeois.

  French Senate, _S._ attends session of, 409.

  Freycinet, Charles L. de S. de, 53.

  Frick, Henry C., 197.

  Frye, William P., 128.

  Fuller, Melville W., 119, 239, 240.

  Fulton, Senator Charles W., 236.

  Furtado, Abraham, 3.

  Furth, Jacob, 171.


  Gage, Lyman J., 122.

  Gager, O. A., 45.

  Garfield, James R., 184, 186, 187, 214,
  264, 288, 294, 395.

  Gargiulo, dragoman, 57, 58, 69, 99, 136, 155, 276.

  Garretson, Joseph, 251.

  Gates, C. F., 140.

  Gaynor, William J., 308.

  General Slocum, steamboat, explosion on, 234.

  George V, 387.

  George, King of Greece, receives _S._ in audience, 286, 287;
    admired Roosevelt, 287; 294.

  Georgia Military Academy, 16.

  Gerard, James W., Ambassador to Germany, demands his passports, 389.

  German Government, and U.S. offer of mediation, 380 _ff._;
    its insincerity exposed, 384, 386.

  German influence in Turkey, 279.

  Germany, and Venezuela, 174;
    Roosevelt on attitude of, 192;
    Chevket Pasha on attitude of, 293;
    sells warship to Turkey, 295;
    attitude of, at Hague conferences, 328 and _n._, 329; 280.

  Ghika, Prince and Princess, 65.

  Giers, N. K. de, 417.

  Gilder, Richard W., _Grover Cleveland_, quoted, 108; 272.

  Gillman, Henry, 81, 82.

  Gilmore's Garden, 33.

  Gladstone, William E., 253.

  Gneist, Rudolf von, 94.

  Gompers, Samuel, and the reinstatement of Miller, 180, 181; 195, 239,
        240, 252.

  Gorman, Arthur P., and the Turkish
  mission, 42, 43; 38, 39.

  Gorst, Sir Eldon, _S._ entertained by, 290, 291.

  Gorst, Lady, 290.

  Gottheil, Richard, 390.

  Gould, Jay, 39.

  Government Printing Office, and non-union printers, 180, 181.

  Governors, the, of certain States, appeal to Roosevelt to accept
        renomination
        (1912), 310.

  Grace, William R., Mayor of New York, 38, 42.

  Graetz, Heinrich, _History of the Jews_, 278.

  Grant, Ulysses S., 28, 89, 220.

  Graves, William S., 392.

  Gray, George, 119, 128, 334.

  Great Britain, and Venezuela, 174;
    remonstrance from society in, against lynchings, 185;
    and the Lynch affair, 281;
    her reasons for entering the war, 375, 376;
    solicitude in, regarding action of U.S., 377.
    And _see_ Great Powers.

  Great Powers, the, alignment of, in 1909, 279;
    effect of jealousy of, on Turkey, 280;
    seek concessions then, under new régime, 280;
    and the Crete affair, 294;
    and the Balkan disturbances, 344.

  Greece, conditions in (1910), 286;
    designs of, in Crete, 293 _ff._;
    buys warship from Italy, 294;
    territorial claims of, 414.

  Greeks, fail to appreciate Venizelos, 296.

  Greene, Joseph K., 103.

  Greer, David H., 386.

  Gregory, Charles N., 334.

  Grenfell, Sir Francis, 79.

  Grey, Albert H. G., Earl, entertains _S._, 353, 354, 355; 374, 375, 376.

  Grey, Lady, 354, 355.

  Grey, Sir Edward, on England's reasons for entering the war, 375, 376;
    and the proposed mediations of the U.S., 382;
    letters of, to _S._, on the negotiations, 383; 377, 415.

  Grey of Fallodon, Edward, Viscount. _See_ Grey, Sir Edward.

  Griffith, W. J. T., 416.

  Griggs, John W., 128, 334.

  Griscom, Lloyd C., 155.

  Grosvenor, Edward A., _History of Constantinople_, 77.

  Günzburg, Baron, 133.

  Gutmann, Ritter von, 133.


  Hagedorn, Hermann, 395.

  Hague, the, opening of Peace Palace at, 356, 357.

  Hague Court of Arbitration, _S._ appointed to, by Roosevelt, 164, 165;
    Russia and Japan decline to go before, 188;
    Moroccan question and, 192.

  Hague Peace Conferences, participation of U.S. therein, 328;
    results of, 322, 329.

  Hakki Pasha, Grand Vizier, 282, 356.

  Hale, Edward E., 178, 260.

  Hale, Archdeacon, 120.

  Hamburg-American S.S. Co., 152.

  Hamdy Bey, and the proposed excavation in Babylonia, 98, 100;
    his death and funeral, 283, 284; 151.

  Hamlin, Cyrus, 76.

  Hampstead Garden Suburb, 353, 354.

  Hanna, Marcus A., career and character of, 198, 199; 195, 197.

  Hannibal, 344.

  Hanotaux, Gabriel, 360.

  Harding, Edward, 415.

  Harlan, John M., 160.

  _Harper's Weekly_, 113.

  Harpoot, massacres at, 139, 141;
    building at, rebuilt, 142.

  Harriman, E. H., 264.

  Harrison, Benjamin, President, appoints commission on condition of Jews
        in Russia, 106-108; 101, 164, 165, 208.

  Harrison, Charles C., 160.

  Haupt, Professor, 157.

  Havelock, Sir Henry, 120.

  Hawaii, use of, by Japanese immigrants, 217, 218;
    visited by _S._, 222-225; conditions in, 223;
    distribution of population of, 225.

  Hay, John, _S._ confers with, in London, 130;
    and _S._'s resignation, 159, 161;
    letter of, to _S._, 161, 162;
    his Roumanian note, 168, 169;
    and the Kishineff protest, 171, 172;
    and the treaty with New Granada, 175, 176;
    and the arbitration treaties, 329, 330; 129, 140, 143, 144, 146, 150,
          160, 174, 209, 331.

  Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, 338.

  Hayward, William, 205.

  Head-tax, representatives of foreign governments relieved from, 230, 231.

  Heard, John, 299.

  Hedges, Job E., 320.

  Heilprin, Michael, 95, 96.

  Henderson, Mrs. John B., 214.

  Henry, Prince (Holland), 357.

  Henry, Sir Charles, entertains _S._, 350, 351, 352.

  Henry, Lady, 350, 352.

  Hepburn, A. Barton, 35, 308.

  Hepburn Committee, 35.

  Herrick, Myron T., 122, 359.

  Hertzl, Theodor, on Zionism, 156, 157;
    his character, 157, 158; 81.

  Hervey, Charles E., 205.

  Herzegovina. _See_ Bosnia.

  Hetzler, Theodore, 372.

  Hewitt, Abram S., 121.

  Hill, David J., 287, 288, 331.

  Hill, J. Wesley, 274.

  Hinricks, Frederic W., 126.

  Hirsch, Baron Maurice de, Turkey's claim against, 92-94;
    his philanthropy, 95, 96.

  Hirsch, Baroness de, 94, 95, 96, 132, 133.

  Hitchcock, Frank H., 256.

  Hitchcock, Gilbert N., 427, 428, 429.

  Hitt, Robert, 210.

  Hockstader, Leonard, 337.

  Hodge, William H., 205.

  Hofmann, Josef, 55.

  Holls, Frederick W., 331.

  Holt, Hamilton, 397, 398, 400, 401, 403, 408, 409, 415.

  Holt, Mrs. Hamilton, 409.

  Holt, Henry, 331.

  Homer, 57.

  Homestead (Pa.) riots, responsibility for, 197.

  Honolulu, 222 _ff._

  Hoover, Herbert, his plan for sending food into Russia, 423;
    374, 411.

  Hoover, Mrs. Herbert, 374.

  Horowitz, Leopold, 133.

  Hotchkiss, William H., 314, 315, 319, 324.

  House, Edward M., at the Paris Conference, 400, 401, 403, 404, 410,
        412, 413, 419, 420, 421, 424, 425, 426.

  House of Lords, proposed reform of, 351.

  Howick Castle, 354, 355.

  Hudson, James A., first law partner of _S._, 32, 34.

  Hudson and Straus, 32.

  Huerta, President of Mexico, 340.

  Hughes, Charles E., 34, 247, 255.

  Hughes, Mrs. Charles E., 248.

  Hughes, William Morris, 407.

  Humphreys, Andrew B., 121.

  Hunt, Gaillard, 232.

  Hussein Hilmi Pasha, Grand Vizier, 277, 278;
    Lynch affair causes his resignation, 280-282.


  Iddings, Mr., Consul-General at Cairo, 287, 291.

  Iddings, Mrs., 287.

  Ignatieff laws, 80, 95.

  Immigration, questions relating to, 216, 217. And _see_ Head-tax,
        Japanese immigration.

  Immigration acts: of 1903, 216, 230;
    of 1906, questionnaire of aliens under, 231;
    1907, "limited passports" provision of, 219;
    anarchists defined in, 234.

  Imperiali, Marquis, 278.

  "In God We Trust," omitted from gold coins, and restored, 262, 263.

  Ince, Howard, 120.

  Industrial Conference (1919-20), work of, 203, 204.

  Industrial peace, and the National Civic Federation, 195 _ff._;
    Roosevelt dedicates Nobel Prize to promotion of, 239, 240.

  Ingersoll, Raymond V., 415.

  International arbitration, results of Hague Conferences concerning,
        328, 329. And _see_ Lake Mohonk.

  International Court of Justice, 357, 358.

  International law, naval officers should be conversant with, 333.

  International peace congress, conference regarding, 178.

  Interstate Commerce Commission, 35.

  Interstate Commerce law, and the trusts, 186.

  Ireland, John, Archbishop, 240.

  Isaacs, Isaac S., 33.

  Isaacs, Meyer S., 33;
    96.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus, 352. And _see_ Reading, Earl.

  Isaacs, Lady, 352.

  Ishii, Viscount, _S._'s interview with, 224.

  Ismail Pasha, Khedive, 78.

  Italy, and A. M. Keiley, 46;
    neutral attitude of, in 1909, 279;
    her purpose in declaring war on Turkey, 340, 341;
    and Prof. Luzzatti, 347. And _see_ Great Powers.


  Jackson, Andrew, 87.

  James, Darwin, 121, 122.

  Japan, and Russia, Roosevelt negotiates peace between, 188, 189;
    "Gentlemen's Agreement" with, 218, 227;
    nullified by legislation in California, 266;
    danger of strained relations with, 220, 221;
    proposed treaty with, 226, 227;
    present relations of U.S. with, 229, 230;
    voyage of U.S. fleet, how interpreted by, 338;
    amendments of League Covenant desired by, 407, 413.

  Japanese, in California, question of naturalization of, 219, 221, 225,
    226, 227;
    outbreak against, in San Francisco, 220;
    transit of, between Mexico and Canada, 226.

  Japanese immigration to Pacific coast, 217-221;
    the "Gentlemen's Agreement," 218;
    executive regulations concerning, 219;
    question of, studied by _S._ in Hawaii, 222 _ff._;
    further consideration of, 225 _ff._;
    statistics of (1907), 228, 229.

  Jefferson, Joseph, 115.

  Jefferson, Thomas, 258, 388.

  Jerusalem, _S._'s visit to, 82-84;
    restrictions on sojourn of Jews in, 84, 85.

  Jessup, Henry H., _Fifty-Three Years in Syria_, 75.

  Jewish Colonization Association, 167.

  Jewish question in Roumania, King Carol on, 303.

  Jews, persecution of, in Alsace, etc., 2;
    council of, convened by Napoleon I, 3, 4;
    foreign, in Turkey, negotiations concerning, 80 _ff._;
    in Russia, persecution of, 106-108;
    and the Kishineff massacre, 170-173;
    Count Witte and, 189, 190, 191;
    troubles of, in Roumania, 167;
    and emigration of, to U.S., 167-169;
    immigration of, into Palestine, 156, 157;
    Roosevelt's attitude toward, 179, 180, 182, 183;
    Victor Emmanuel on, 344;
    Zangwill's project concerning, 359;
    expulsion of, from Spain, 366, 367;
    in U.S., unjustly charged with being anti-Ally, 390, 391;
    Balfour Declaration regarding home in Palestine for, 399;
    threatened persecution of, after the war, 418, 419.
    And _see_ American Jews.

  Johnson, Hiram W., nominated for Vice-President by Progressives, 313,
        317, 318, 319; 361.

  Johnstown flood, Abdul Hamid contributes to relief fund, 103.

  Jones, George, 43, 107.

  _Journal of Race Development, The_, 146, 147.

  Judaism, Disraeli's loyalty to, 364.

  Judson, Frederick N., 200.

  Jussen, Edmund, 56.

  Jussen, Mrs. Edmund (Schurz), 56.

  Jusserand, Jules, and mediations by U.S., 380, 381; 390.


  Kaufmann, Isidor, 133.

  Kaufmann Brothers, 5.

  Keefe, Daniel J., 239, 240.

  Keiley, Anthony M., and the Austro-Hungarian mission, 46, 47;
    in Egypt, 78.

  Keiley, Mrs. A. M., 46, 78.

  Kellogg, Frank H., 427, 428, 429.

  Kempster, Walter, 107.

  Kennedy, Monsignor, 289.

  Kent, Frederick I., 372.

  Kerensky, Alexander, interview with, 425, 426.

  Kiamil Pasha, Grand Vizier, and the mission schools, 71, 72;
    and the Bible society agents, 74;
    unofficial negotiations with, 77;
    and foreign Jews in Turkey, 80, 81, 83;
    and the proposed Bagdad railroad, 96, 97;
    and the excavations in Babylonia, 98, 99;
    his character and political views, 153; 92.

  King, Henry C., 415.

  King, Pendleton, 57, 58, 71, 99.

  King, W. L. Mackenzie, 339.

  Kipling, Rudyard, quoted, 359.

  Kipling, Mrs. Rudyard, 359.

  Kirchwey, George W., 334.

  Kishineff massacre, and its sequel, 170-173;
    and lynchings in U.S., 185.

  "Kitchen cabinet," the, 207, 208.

  Knapp, Martin A., 200.

  Knox, Philander C., letter of, to _S._, 273;
    _S._ offended by instructions from, 297, 298; 183, 186, 227, 295,
          306, 330, 340.

  Kohlsaat, H. H., 174.

  Kolschak, General, 426.

  Kraus, Adolph, 189.

  Kuhn, Arthur, 400, 401, 409, 415.

  Kuroki, Tamemoto, entertained in New York, 219, 220.


  La Follette, Robert M., 122.

  Labor, Roosevelt's attitude toward, 181, 182, 186.

  Labor, Department of, created, 239.

  Labor representatives, conference with, 238, 239.

  Labor unions, and the teamsters' strike, 188.

  Lake Mohonk Conferences on international arbitration, 333, 334.

  Lamont, Daniel S., 48.

  Langley, S. P., and his flying machine (1900), 159.

  Lansing, Robert, side-tracked, 412;
    his objections to the Covenant, 412, 413;
    334, 405, 428.

  Larnaud, M., 420.

  Lauzanne, Stephane, 390.

  Lavanburg, Hannah S., mother of Mrs. Straus, 37, 50.

  Lavanburg, Sarah, marries _S._ And _see_ Straus, Sarah (Lavanburg).

  Laveleye, Emile L. V. de, 41, 42.

  Law of Associations (Turkish), all foreign institutions subject to, 296;
    _S._ secures certain exemptions from, 296.

  Lazar, Jacob. _See_ Straus, Jacob I.

  Lazard, Eli, 56.

  Lazard Frères, 56.

  League to Enforce Peace, committee to represent, at Peace Conference,
       397;
    meetings of, in U.S., approve League Covenant, 413;
    seeks to secure ratification of the treaty, 426-429.

  League of Nations, a, American desire for, 397;
    initial discouraging outlook for, at Paris, 400.

  League of Nations, the, and the Peace Palace, 357;
    "Draft of, as Provisionally Approved," 400;
    additional clauses insisted upon by France, 400;
    and discussed by Bourgeois, 401-403;
    Covenant of, discussed in Plenary Conference, 405-407;
    Lansing's objections to Covenant of, 412, 413;
    no provision concerning civil and religious liberty, and why, 413;
    Article X, objections to, 410, 419;
    Article XXI, revised by Wilson, 420;
    these two articles in U.S. Senate, 427.

  Lebowich, Mr., 183.

  Lecky, W. E. H., _Democracy and Liberty_, 107.

  Lee, Robert E., 19.

  Lee, Sir Sidney, his lives of Shakespeare and Edward VII, 350.

  Leishman, John G., 142, 289, 290.

  Leo, Simeon N., 33.

  Leopold II, of Belgium, death of, 282.

  Levi, Leo N., 167, 171, 172.

  Levy, Samuel, 367.

  Lewes, George H., 51.

  Lewis, William D., _Life of Theodore Roosevelt_, quoted, 311, 312.

  Lewisohn, Adolf, 189.

  Lichnowsky, Prince, _My London Mission_, the most convincing indictment
        of Germany, 342.

  Lidhold, Dr., on William II, 133, 139.

  Lieber, Francis, his life and character, 30, 31.

  Lieberman, Mr., 426.

  Liliuokalani, Queen, 222.

  Lincoln, Abraham, 180, 193, 269.

  Littauer, Lucius N., 168.

  "Little White House," at Lakewood, 112, 118.

  Lloyd George, David, on divers Liberal measures, 351;
    397, 405.

  Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of, 199, 200.

  Lodge, Henry Cabot, 308.

  Loeb, William, Jr., 178, 212, 254, 256, 269, 394.

  London, _S._'s visits to, 50-52, 304, 305, 350-354, 359;
    from Paris to (July, 1914), 370, 371;
    August 2 in, 371.

  Long, Albert L., 76, 77.

  Long Island Historical Society, _S._'s address before, 41.

  Longworth, Alice (Roosevelt), 222, 360.

  Longworth, Nicholas, 179, 209, 222.

  Low, Seth, 170, 177, 240, 331.

  Lowell, A. Lawrence, 397, 402, 421, 427, 428, 429.

  Lowther, Gerard, British Ambassador to Turkey, 278.

  Lubin, David, character and career of, 349, 350;
    346.

  Lusitania tragedy, the, 389.

  Luther, Martin, 247.

  Luzzatti, Luigi, _S._ and, 346, 347;
    his _Liberty of Conscience_, 347;
    349.

  Lynch, Frederick, 415.

  Lynch Company, affair of, and its result, 280-282.

  Lynchings in the U.S., and Kishineff, 185;
    remonstrance against, from Great Britain, 185.


  McCarroll, William, 272.

  McCormick, Vance, 411, 427.

  McCumber, Porter J., 427, 428.

  McGee, John C., nominates _S._ for Governor, 314-316.

  Mack, Julian W., 418.

  McKelway, St. Clair, 126, 160, 272.

  Mackenzie, P. R., 347, 348.

  McKinley, William, President, advises
    with _S._ on Cuba, 123, 124, 126;
    and on Turkey, 124, 125;
    letter of _S._ to, 123;
    appoints _S._ ambassador to Turkey, 124, 125;
    quoted, on the appointment, 127, 128;
    and _S._'s resignation, 159, 162;
    commends his services, 160, 162;
    thinks of offering him State portfolio, 160;
    on granting independence to the Philippines, 161;
    why he did not appoint _S._ on Hague Tribunal, 164, 165;
    appoints a commission on naturalization, 232; 122, 128, 134, 135,
          147, 149, 150.

  McLane, Robert M., 52.

  MacNamara, Thomas J., 351.

  MacVeagh, Wayne, 184.

  McVickar, Rev. Dr., 26, 27.

  Madison, James, 389.

  Madrid, Kermit Roosevelt married at, 362.

  Mahmoud Chevket Pasha, Turkish Minister of War, impressions of, 292,
        293, 295;
    on conditions in Turkey, and her foreign relations, 293;
    and the Crete affair, 293;
    urges sale of warship by U.S., 295;
    assassinated, 295.

  Maine, battleship, blown up, 124.

  Makino, Baron, quoted on the League Covenant, 407.

  Manning, Mrs. Daniel, 299.

  Marash, massacres at, 141.

  Margherita, Queen of Italy, 158, 159.

  Maria Christina, Regent of Spain, 122.

  Marix, Adolph, 337.

  Marks, Marcus M., 240.

  Marschall von Bieberstein, Baron, _S._'s relations with, 278, 279;
        135, 342.

  Marshall, Louis, 251.

  Marshall, Thomas R., 394.

  Martens, Fedor F., 190, 356.

  Martin, J. C., letter of Roosevelt to, on Taft's religion, 258-262.

  Masaryk, Thomas G., 419.

  Maspero. Sir Gaston, 289.

  Massingham, H. W., 350.

  Matthews, Brander, 25, 26, 28.

  Maurer, Señor, 361.

  Mavroyeni Bey, 84.

  Mazzini, Giuseppe, 346.

  Mediation of neutral powers and the Hague Conferences, 329, 340.

  Mehmet, _cavass_, 58.

  Merry del Val, Cardinal, 349.

  Mesopotamia, as a place for colonization of Jews, 157.

  Metcalf, Victor H., 212, 213, 227.

  Methodist missions in Rome, 289, 290.

  _Metropolitan Magazine_, 388.

  Mexico, relations of U.S. with, 339, 340.

  Meyer, Eugene, Jr., 390.

  Meyer, George von L., U.S. Ambassador to Russia during Japanese war,
        Roosevelt quoted on, 191; 254.

  Mezes, Dr., 426.

  Mezes, Mrs., 426.

  Miller, Charles R., 44.

  Miller, David H., 133, 424, 425.

  Miller, Joaquin, 37, 301.

  Miller, non-union printer, discharge of, 180;
    reinstated by Roosevelt, 180, 181.

  Mission schools in Turkey, negotiations concerning closing of, 70 _ff._;
    visited by _S._, 73.

  Missionaries, relations of, with Turkish government, 71, 73, 74;
    ground of government's hostility to, 74, 75;
    and Turkish passport regulations, 139, 140;
    question of indemnities due to, 141, 142.

  Mitchell, John, 240, 272.

  Mitchell, S. Weir, in Constantinople, 150, 151;
    attends Mme. Tewfik, 151;
    his "Ode to a Lycian Tomb," 151.

  Mitchell, Mrs. S. W., 150.

  Mohammed V, Sultan, receives _S._ in audience, 276;
    described, 276, 277; 282, 344.

  Mohammedans, and Christianity, 75;
    funerals of, 284.

  Mohammedans in the Philippines. _See_ Sulu Islands.

  Mohsin Khan, 101.

  Monroe, James, 41, 388, 389.

  Monroe Doctrine, why specifically referred to in Covenant of League,
        420, 421, 427.

  Montebello, Comte de, 72, 85.

  Moody, William H., 186, 230.

  Moore, Charles A., 195.

  Moore, John Bassett, quoted, 176; 47, 48, 127, 128, 334.

  Moore, J. Hampton, 241.

  Morgan, J. P., & Co., 116.

  Morocco. _See_ Algeciras.

  Morris, E. J., 88.

  Morrissey, P. H., quoted, 182; 200, 203.

  Morrow, W. W., 334.

  Morse, Samuel F. B., 24.

  Moses, Adolf, 171.

  Moses, George H., 286.

  Munir Pasha, Grand Master of Ceremonies, 58, 99.

  Munkacsy, Mihaly, 55, 56.

  Munkacsy, Madame, 55.

  Münz, Sigmund, 304.

  Murphy, Charles F., 117.

  Murray, Gilbert, 415.

  Murray, Lawrence O., 213, 234.


  Nagel, Charles, 238.

  Nansen, Dr., 416.

  Napoleon I, and the Jews, 2;
    convokes council of Jews at Paris, 3, 4, 412.
    Nathan, Ernesto, Mayor of Rome, relations of _S._ with, 345, 346;
    his descent, career, and character, 346; 349.

  Nathan, Mr., father of Ernesto N., 346.

  Nathan, Mr., brother of Ernesto, 345.

  National Association of Manufacturers, 241.

  National Civic Club, 126.

  National Civic Federation, conference of, 194, 195;
    industrial department of, its scope, and plan, 195;
    its work, 195 _ff._

  National Council of Commerce, 237, 238.
    And _see_ Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.

  National Insurance Act (Great Britain), 351.

  National Primary Election League, 121, 122.

  Nationalists, Egyptian, 288, 291.

  Naturalization, careless administration of laws relating to, 231, 232;
    report of commission on, 232;
    treaties of, 333.
    And _see_ Turkey.

  Naval War College, 332, 333.

  Navoni, dragoman, 87.

  Negro question, the, Roosevelt on, 104.

  Negulesco, Professor, 415.

  Neill, Charles P., 200, 214, 240.

  New Granada, treaty of U.S. with (1846), construction of, 175, 176.

  New York Chamber of Commerce, annual meeting of (1910), 308; 35.

  New York Peace Society, reception to _S._, 330, 331.

  New York Public Service Commission, _S._ chairman of, 204-206.

  New York _Sun_, 347.

  New York _Times_, 43, 44, 107.

  New York _World_, 114.

  Newberry, Truman H., 394.

  Nicholas II, Czar, 171, 173, 282, 328, 377, 392, 411, 417.

  Nicholas, Grand Duke, 411.

  Nicolaiovitch, Grand Duke, death of, 282.

  Nicoll, Sir W. Robertson, 350.

  Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to Roosevelt, 239;
    his disposition of the fund, 239, 240;
    the foundation dissolved, and the fund distributed, 240, 241.

  _North American Review_, "The First Year of Taft's Administration," 288.

  North German Lloyd S.S. Co., 152.

  Nubar Pasha, 79.


  Oahu Island, 224.

  O'Brien, Thomas J., 344.

  Ochs, Adolph S., 391.

  Ochs, Mrs. A. S., 391.

  Ochs, George W., 121.

  O'Conor, Charles, 32.

  O'Conor, Sir Nicholas R., British Ambassador to Turkey, asks aid of
        _S._ in protecting orphanages, 148; 135, 140, 149.

  Offley, David, 87.

  Ohio Society of New York, Taft's address to, 264.

  Olmet, Fernando del, writes on birthplace and nationality of Columbus,
        368, 369.

  Olney, Richard, 253, 335.

  Orlando, Signor, 406.

  Orphanages, British, in Turkey, closing of, 148.

  Osman Pasha, 63, 68, 134.

  Ottendorfer, Oswald, 44.

  Otterberg, ancestral home of the Strauses, 1, 8, 9.

  Ottolenghi, Israel, 3.

  Ottolenghi, General, 344.

  Ottoman American Development Co., 300.

  _Outlook, The_, 290, 310, 341.


  Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, convention for, 328, 329.

  Page, Catherine, 359, 360.

  Page, Walter Hines, on _S._'s activities in project of mediation, 384;
    Bryan's instructions to, 385; 359, 372, 373.

  Paine, Robert Treat, 178.

  Paine, Thomas, _Common Sense_, 41.

  Palestine, restriction on residence of Jews in, 80 _ff._, 84 _ff._;
    immigration of Jews into, 156, 157;
    the Balfour Declaration, 399.

  Panama, revolution in, and the treaty of 1846 with New Granada, 174-176;
    question of freedom of transit, 175, 176;
    army of, 185.

  Panama Canal, question of remission of tolls, 338, 339;
    tolls-exemption bill repealed, 339; 237.

  Pangrati, E., 415.

  Pansa, Signor, 135.

  Paris, _S._'s visits to, 52-56, 275;
    in July, 1914, 370.
    And _see_ Peace Conference.

  Parker, Alton B., 299.

  Parker, Mrs. A. B., 299.

  Parliamentary systems of Great Britain and U.S., compared, 352.

  Parsons, Herbert, 209.

  Peace Conference at Paris, proceedings of, 400 _ff._;
    failure of, to condemn Bolshevism, 417.
    And _see_ League of Nations, Plenary Conference.

  Peace Palace, at The Hague, opening of, 356, 357;
    future of, 358.

  Peck, Ferdinand W., 131.

  Pepper, William, favors retention of _S._ as minister to Turkey, 101,
        102; 97.

  Pera, conditions in, 61, 62.

  Perkins, George W., 205.

  Pershing, John J., 410.

  Persia, Shah of, 101.

  Persian ambassador to Turkey, 61.

  Persian ambassadress, a former Circassian slave, 61.

  Persian Gulf, proposed railroad to, from Constantinople, 96, 97.

  Persons, Henry, 243.

  Peter the Cruel, 367.

  Peters, John P., and the proposed excavations in Babylonia, 97 _ff._;
    _Nippur_, 100.

  Pettibone, I. F., 103.

  Phelan, James D., 121.

  Phelps, Edward J., 50, 151.

  Philip, Hoffman, 300.

  Philippines, _S._'s advice concerning, 127;
    Mohammedans in the, 143 _ff._;
    ignorance in U.S. concerning, 144;
    proposed punitive expedition against Mohammedans, 165, 166.

  Pillsbury-Washburn Flour Co., 147.

  Pineapples, in Hawaii, 224.

  Pius IX, 46.

  Pius X, why he did not receive Roosevelt, 289, 290, 348, 349.

  Platt, Frank H., 378.

  Platt, Thomas C., 211, 309.

  Plenary Conference, sessions of, 405-408, 423, 424.

  Pogroms in Poland, 426.

  Politzer, Adam, 133.

  Polk, Frank L., 421.

  Porter, David, 87.

  Porter, Horace, 131, 132, 255, 331, 336.

  Porter, Governor James Davis, 46.

  Portsmouth Conference (1905), 189, 190, 191.

  Powderly, Terence V., 239, 251, 252.

  Prague, attacks on Jews in, 418.

  Prendergast, William A., 314, 315, 317.

  Preston, Frances (Folsom-Cleveland), on Cleveland's character, 358.

  Primaries. _See_ Electoral reform.

  Pringle, J. Lynch, 58.

  Progressive Party, genesis of, 309 _ff._
    National Convention of, nominates Roosevelt and Johnson, 313;
    New York State Convention of, nominates _S._ for Governor, 313-317;
    poorly organized, 325;
    not a party, but a crusade, 325;
    Roosevelt on the future of, 360, 361; 351, 395.

  Progressive Republicans seat a candidate for nomination in 1912,
        309, 310.

  Pulido, Angel, 366, 368.

  Pullman Car Co., strike of employees of, 194.


  Quail, Egyptian, 79.

  Quincy, Josiah, 121, 122.


  Radowitz, Herr von, 363.

  Rafail Meir Panisel, 83.

  Railroads, complaints against, of
    discrimination, etc., investigated by Hepburn Committee, 35;
    and the Interstate Commerce law, 186, 187.

  Railway Labor Arbitration Board, jurisdiction of, 199;
    membership of, 200;
    _S._ chairman of, 200;
    hearings and decision of, in matter of Eastern roads and their
          employees, 200-203.

  Ramazan, month of, 59, 276, 277.

  Rampolla, Cardinal, 347, 348, 349.

  Reading, Rufus D. Isaacs, Earl, 410.

  Reclus, Jean Jacques, 144.

  Reconstruction, why being halted, 429, 430.

  Reed, Mr., at Madrid, 365.

  Reid, Whitelaw, 128, 304.

  Reis Effendi, 87.

  Republican Party disrupted in 1910, 309.

  Republicans of New York offer to nominate _S._ for Governor, 319;
    why they did not, 319, 320.

  Revolution of 1848, 4.

  Reynolds, James B., 393.

  Rhind, Charles, 87.

  Ribot, Alexandre, 409.

  Riddle, John W., 133, 134, 172, 173.

  Riega, Celso G. de la, on the birthplace and ancestry of Columbus,
        368, 369.

  Rifaat Pasha, Minister of Foreign Affairs, 276, 277, 278, 283, 294.

  Robert College, _S._ presides at Commencement exercises of, 66, 67;
        57, 76, 77, 297, 299.

  Robinson, Corinne (Roosevelt), 247.

  Robinson, Geoffrey, 374.

  Robinson, Stewart, death of, 247.

  Rockwood, photographer, and Cleveland, 117.

  Rodin, Auguste, 360.

  Rome, _S._'s visits to, 158, 159, 344-349;
    modernization of, by Mayor Nathan, 346.

  Roosevelt, Alice, quoted, 179; 209.
    And _see_ Longworth, Alice (Roosevelt).

  Roosevelt, Mrs. Alice Lee, 179.

  Roosevelt, Archie, 188, 275, 394.

  Roosevelt, Mrs. Edith Carow, her character, 177;
    and the Kaiser's invitation, 287, 288; 174, 188, 209, 244, 245, 247,
          255, 274, 275, 323, 387, 395.

  Roosevelt, Ethel, 188, 275.
    And _see_ Derby, Ethel (Roosevelt).

  Roosevelt, George E., 323.

  Roosevelt, Kermit, _S._ attends his marriage to Miss Willard at
        Madrid, 362; 188, 244, 249, 358, 394.

  Roosevelt, Philip, 360.

  Roosevelt, Quentin, death of, 245; 188, 244, 275.

  Roosevelt, Theodore, appoints _S._ to Hague Tribunal, 164, 165, 208;
    and the Kishineff massacre, 171-173;
    and the Alaskan boundary question, 173, 174;
    and the Venezuelan dispute, 174;
    and the Panama revolution, 174-176;
    divers personal traits and characteristics, 176, 177, 179, 180,
          181, 192, 193, 208, 215, 256, 289, 309;
    quoted on _S._, 178;
    his attitude toward Jews, 179, 180;
    quoted on discharge of Miller, 181;
    his policy with regard to labor, 181, 182, 186;
    quoted on religious freedom, 182, 183, 347;
    and on Americanism, 183;
    on the negro question, 184, 187;
    his Annual Message of 1904, 185-187;
    favors eight-hour law, 186;
    on trusts, 186;
    negotiates between Russia and Japan, 188 _ff._;
    letter of, to Count Witte, on plight of Jews in Russia, 191;
    letter of, to _S._, on Germany's attitude and purposes, 192;
    his "kitchen cabinet," 207, 208;
    his miscalled "impulsiveness," 208, 256;
    preparedness his outstanding characteristic, 208, 256;
    his public addresses, 208, 209;
    makes _S._ Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 210, 211, 212;
    and Japanese immigration, 217 _ff._, 221, 225 _ff._;
    reappoints commission on naturalization, 232;
    awarded Nobel Peace Prize, 239;
    his initial and final distribution of the prize fund, 240, 241;
    his parting gift to _S._, 247;
    favors Taft for President in 1908, 248,
      and uses his influence in that sense, 249;
    declines renomination, 249, 250;
    proposed African trip, 252, 255;
    _African Game Trails_, 252;
    invited to lecture at Oxford, 253, 255;
    in Taft campaign, 253 _ff._;
    letter of, to Bryan, 254;
    invited to speak at the Sorbonne, 255, 256;
    preparing his Oxford address, 255, 256;
    his relation to Taft's success, 256;
    his administration again a new era in history of U.S., 257;
    his relations with his cabinets, 257;
    on Taft's religion, 257-262;
    omits motto on gold coins, 262;
    assures _S._ of Taft's purpose to reappoint him, 263;
    one cause of his break with Taft, 263, 264;
    his speech at dinner to Sherman, 265-267;
    at the last Cabinet meeting, 267, 268;
    at inauguration of Taft, 268-270;
    his personal following, 269;
    letter of, to _S._, on his reappointment to Turkish Embassy, 274;
    _S._ on administration of, 274, 275;
    opposition in Congress to his policies, 276;
    at Cairo with _S._, 287 _ff._;
    on Taft's failure to reappoint _S._ and others to Cabinet, 288;
    his address in Cairo, and the murder of Budros Pasha, 288, 289, 291;
    why he was not received by Pius X, 289, 290, 348, 349;
    policies of, and Taft's administration, 306;
    influence of, not dead in 1910, 308;
    his attitude toward renomination, 308;
    and the "bosses," 309;
    appeal of the governors to, 310;
    agrees to accept nomination if demanded by people, 310;
    his speech at Columbus, O., 310, 311;
    did his advocacy of the recall of judicial decisions defeat him?
          311, 312;
    his speech at Carnegie Hall, 312, 313;
    nominated by Progressives, 313;
    letter of, to _S._, and interview, on _S._'s nomination for Governor,
          317-319;
    in the campaign, 322-324;
    his heroism when shot, 322;
    speaks at Madison Square Garden, 323, 324;
    letter of, to _S._, 325;
    believes in the efficacy of strong armaments to ensure peace, 336;
    sends a fleet round the world, 336-338;
    on the future of the Progressive Party, 360, 361;
    on the probability of the U.S. being involved in the World War, 387;
    his offer to raise a division, 388;
    criticizes the President, 388, 389,
      but is ready to coöperate, 389;
    his last illness, death, and funeral, 391-394;
    his Nobel Prize address, 395, 397; 166, 187, 213, 214, 216, 222,
          225, 230, 231, 234, 235, 237, 241, 245, 246, 247, 253, 272,
          285, 291, 292, 320, 325, 330, 351, 358, 359, 362, 390, 397.
    His _Autobiography_ quoted, 177, 191, 337.

  Roosevelt, Theodore, Jr., 188, 394.

  Roosevelt, William E., 360.

  Roosevelt Pilgrimage, the, 394, 395.

  Root, Elihu, and Japanese immigration, 217, 219, 221; 179, 230, 231,
        236, 237, 258, 265, 335, 336, 339, 349, 393, 394.

  Rosebery, Archibald P., Primrose, Earl of, conversation with, 149, 150.

  Rosen, Baron, 189.

  Rothschild, Alfred, on the Triple Entente, 305, 306.

  Rothschild, Alfred Charles de, Baron, 52.

  Rothschild, Lord, on the Triple Entente, 305.

  Roumania, and the Jews, 80, 81, 303;
    restrictions on, and oppression of Jews in, 166, 167;
    emigration of Jews from, to U.S., 167-169;
    Hay's note to the Powers concerning, and its effect, 169;
    relations of U.S. with, 185;
    visited by _S._, 300-304.

  Roumeli-Hissar, 57.

  _Round Table, The_, 374.

  Rowe, Leo S., 334.

  Rush, Benjamin, 41.

  Russia, and Russian Jews in Turkey, 80, 81;
    and the Jews, 106-108;
    laws against Jews in, and the Kishineff massacre, 170, 171, 172, 173;
    relations of U.S. with, 185;
    and Japan, Roosevelt brings about Portsmouth Conference between,
          188, 189;
    Count Witte and the Jews in, 189, 190;
    attitude of, toward Turkey, after 1905, 279, 293;
    duty of, at outbreak of war, 375, 376, 377;
    present conditions in, 411, 417.
    And _see_ Great Powers.

  Russian emigrants, and Baron de Hirsch, 95, 96.

  Russo-Japanese War, 180.

  Rustem Pasha, 50, 51.

  Ryan, Thomas F., 264.


  Sabbataï Zevi, 278.

  Sage, William H., 26.

  Said Pasha, Minister of Foreign Affairs, 58, 85, 86, 99.

  Salant, Samuel, 83.

  Salisbury, Robert Cecil, Marquis of, 123, 148.

  Salmon, Adolph, 52, 53.

  Salmon, Mrs. Adolph, 53.

  Salonica, visited by _S._, 285.

  Samuel, Herbert L., 305, 352, 399.

  Samuel, Mrs. H. L., 305, 352, 399.

  Sapelli, Marquis and Marchioness, 349.

  Savannah Board of Trade, 241, 242.

  Sayce, Archibald H., 289.

  Sazonoff, M., 377, 411, 417, 418.

  Schaeffer, Mr., labor leader, 197.

  Schiff, Jacob H., 96, 106, 168, 189.

  Schurman, Jacob G., 170.

  Schurz, Carl, criticizes appointment of Van Alen, 113;  4, 44, 56, 97,
        122, 192.

  Schuyler, Philip, 150.

  Schuyler, Mrs. Philip, 150.

  Schwab, Gustav H., 237.

  Scipio Africanus, 344.

  Scott, James B., 334, 335, 336.

  Seasongood, Lewis, 106.

  Selamlik, ceremony of, 63, 64, 152.

  Seligman, Isaac, 52.

  Seligman, Isaac N., 189, 345.

  Seligman, Jesse, 96, 106.

  Seligman, William, 55.

  Seligman, Mrs. William, 55.

  Seligman Frères, 55.

  Senate of U.S., refuses to ratify naturalization treaty with Turkey,
        90, 92;
    and the Treaty of Paris, 426-429.

  Serbia, claims towns awarded to Roumania, 414.

  Seward, George F., 178.

  Shakespeare, General, 120.

  Sharp, William G., U.S. Ambassador to France, 411, 412.

  Shaw, Albert, 121, 172, 173, 200.

  Shaw of Dunfermline, Thomas, Lord, 398, 399, 415, 416.

  Sheffield, James H., 209.

  Shepard, Edward M., 170, 331.

  Sherman, James S., Roosevelt's speech at dinner to, 265-267; 251, 269.

  Sherman, William T., 53.

  Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 253.

  Sherman Silver Coinage Act, repeal of, 112.

  Short, Dr., 427.

  Sicily, Greek and Roman remains in, 343, 344.

  Sidon, tombs unearthed at, 151.

  Sieghortner, August, restaurant of, 44.

  Sigel, Franz, 4.

  Simon, Sir John, 3.

  Sinaia, summer capital of Roumania, 300 _ff._

  Sinzheim, Joseph, 3.

  Skibo Castle, 355.

  Slaton, John M., 391.

  Slaton, Mrs. John M., 391.

  Slavery, question of, 12, 13.

  Slaves, condition of, 13.

  Slicer, Thomas R., 331.

  Smiley, Messrs., 333.

  Smith, Charles Emory, 122.

  Smith, Hope, 241.

  Smuts, Jan, sketch of, 408;
    _The League of Nations_, quoted, 409.

  Smyrna, 153.

  Solomon, Solomon B., 33.

  Sonnenthal, Adolf von, 133.

  Sorbonne, the, Roosevelt invited to lecture at, 255, 256;
    _S._ delivers address at, 421, 422.

  South, the, conditions in, in 1850's, 11 _ff._;
    in the Civil War, 15 _ff._

  South American republics, development of U.S. relations with, 238.

  South Carolina, imports skilled labor, 216.

  Southern Commercial Congress, 244.

  Southerners, white, Roosevelt's attitude toward, 184.

  Spain, strained relations of U.S. with, 122-124;
    U.S. at war with, 124;
    political conditions in (1910), 361.

  Spanish American Peace Commission, 128.

  Sperry, Admiral, 337.

  Speyer, James, 378, 379.

  Speyer, Mrs. James, 378.

  Spooner, John C., criticizes Roosevelt's policies, 264; 209, 330.

  Spring-Rice, Sir Cecil, and proposed mediation of U.S., 380, 381,
        382, 390.

  Stahl, General, 4.

  Steamboat inspection, 234, 235.

  Stedman, Edmund C., 300.

  Steed, H. Wickham, 415.

  Steele-Maitland, Sir Arthur, 399, 415.

  Stefanovich-Schilizzi, Dmitri, 153.

  Stefanovich-Schilizzi, Paul, _S._ visits, at Athens, 152-154.

  Stein, Adolph, 133.

  Sterne, Simeon, law partner of _S._, 34;
    counsel for N.Y. Chamber of Commerce before Hepburn Committee, 35.

  Sterne, Hudson & Straus, 34.

  Sterne, Straus & Thompson, 34, 35.

  Stiassny, Wilhelm, 133.

  Stimson, Henry L., 308, 394.

  Stone, Melville E., 122.

  Stone, Nahum I., 236.

  Stone, Warren S., 239, 240.

  Stratton, Samuel W., 214.

  Straus, Aline, _S._'s daughter, 49, 50, 131, 242, 272, 317.

  Straus, Hermina, _S._'s sister, 9, 10, 14.

  Straus, Isidor, _S._'s brother, in Congress, 112, 115; 2, 9, 10, 11,
        14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 31, 36, 43, 48, 96, 117,
        118, 131, 154, 155, 211, 286, 306.

  Straus, Mrs. Isidor, 115, 154, 155, 286.

  Straus, Jacob I, _S._'s great-grandfather, 1, 2, 4, 412.

  Straus, Jacob II., _S._'s paternal grandfather, 1, 2.

  Straus, Lazarus I., _S._'s uncle.

  Straus, Lazarus II., _S._'s father, in the troubles of 1848, 4;
    comes to America, 5;
    a peddler in Georgia, 5, 6;
    settles in Talbotton, Ga., and opens shop there, 6, 7;
    joined by his family, 9;
    a student of the Bible, 10;
    views of, on slavery, 12, 13;
    in business in New York, after the Civil War, 20, 21;
    his high sense of honor, 21, 22;
    quoted, 144; his death, 144; 1, 2, 15, 16, 18, 24, 29, 36, 43.

  Straus, Mildred, _S._'s daughter, 50, 131, 155, 274, 317.

  Straus, Nathan, _S._'s brother, 9, 10, 11, 18, 21, 29, 43, 111, 112,
        118, 131, 374.

  Straus, Oscar S., ancestry, 1, 2;
      joins his father at Talbotton, Ga., 8, 9;
      religious instruction, 10, 11;
      at Collinsworth Institute, 11;
      memories of life in the South, 11 _ff._,
        and of the Civil War, 15 _ff._, 19;
      early schooling in Columbus, Ga., 17, 18;
      in New York City, 21 _ff._;
      at Columbia Grammar School, 22, 23;
      at Columbia College, 25 _ff._;
      and Dr. McVickar, 27;
      class poet, 28; decides to study law, 29;
      in Columbia Law School, 30, 31;
      practicing law, 32 _ff._;
      helps to organize Young Men's Hebrew Association, 33;
      an original poem, 33;
      friendship with J. H. Choate, 36;
      abandons the law to enter his father's firm, 36;
      marries Sarah Lavanburg, 37;
      enters politics in N.Y. mayoralty campaign, 38;
       in Cleveland-Blaine campaign, 38, 39;
      address on the "Origin of the Republican Form of Government," 40,
            41, 120,
        published in book form, and translated into French, 41, 42, 365;
      suggested for appointment as Minister to Turkey, and recommended to
            President Cleveland, 42-44;
      favorable attitude of Protestant bodies, and of H. W. Beecher,
            45, 46;
      nominated by Cleveland, 46;
      impressions of the Clevelands, 48, 49.
    The journey to Turkey: in London, 50-52;
      interview with Rustem Pasha, 51;
      in Paris, 52-56;
      General Boulanger, 52-54;
      and Munkacsy, 55;
      in Vienna, 56;
      arrival in Constantinople, 57, 58;
      many postponements of audience with the Sultan, 58, 59;
      official calls among the diplomatic corps, 60, 61;
      life in Constantinople, 61 _ff._;
      Selamlik, 63, 64, 152;
      and Sir H. D. Wolff, 64;
      at Therapia, 65;
      presides at commencement of Robert College, 66, 67;
      his first audience with the Sultan, to present credentials, 67-69;
      negotiations concerning the Mission schools, 71, 72;
      visits Palestine, 73;
      and the agents of Bible societies, 74;
      unofficial dealings with Kiamil Pasha, 77;
      in Egypt, 78, 79;
      Khedive Tewfik, 78,
        and Nubar Pasha, 79;
      question of expulsion of foreign Jews from Jerusalem, 80, 81, 82;
      and the vali, 82, 84;
      at Jerusalem, 82-84;
      procures release of Jewish immigrants, 83;
      memorial presented to, 83;
      question of limitation of sojourn of Jews in Jerusalem, 84-86;
      question of Turkish jurisdiction over American citizens under treaty
           of 1830, 87-90;
      fails to obtain ratification of Treaty of Naturalization and
            Extradition, 91, 92;
      and Turkey's claim against Baron de Hirsch, 92-94;
      declines honorarium, 94;
      friendship with the de Hirsches, 95;
      assists de Hirsch in organizing his philanthropic work in N.Y., 96;
      and the proposed Bagdad railway, 96, 97;
      and the proposed excavations in Babylonia, 97-100;
      the Sultan's obligation to, 100, 101;
      resigns, after Cleveland's defeat, 101, 102;
      the question of salary, 102;
      farewell audience, 102, 103;
      expressions of regret on his leaving his post, 103;
      farewell to Turkey, 104.
    Reënters business in N.Y., 105;
      on committee of protest against treatment of Jews in Russia,
            106, 107;
      delegate to Democratic State Convention (1891), 108, 110;
      stands for sound-money plank in platform, 110;
      letters of Cleveland to, 110, 111; relations with Cleveland, 110;
      on the appointment of Van Alen to Italian mission, 113, 114;
      letter of Cleveland to, 113;
      entertains Cleveland, 114-118;
      _Roger Williams, the Pioneer of Religious Liberty_, 119, 120,
            121, 347;
      _Development of Religious Liberty in the United States_, 119, 120;
      his interest in Roger Williams, 120;
      places tablet to him in Charterhouse School, 120, 121;
      president of National Primary Election League, 122;
      why he voted for McKinley (1896), 122;
      consulted by McKinley on Spain and Cuba, 123, 127;
      the suzerainty plan, 124;
      consulted by McKinley on affairs in Turkey, 124;
      appointed Minister to Turkey by McKinley, 124-126;
      the appointment favorably received, 126, 127;
      and John Bassett Moore, 127, 128;
      disapproves sending warships to Turkey, 128; McKinley's confidence
            in, 128, 129.
    The second mission to Turkey, 130 _ff._;
      confers with Hay and others in London, 130, 131;
      suggests need of coördination and coöperation among representatives
            of U.S. in Europe, 132;
      and Baroness de Hirsch, 132, 133;
      in Constantinople, 133;
      his return welcomed by Government officials, 134;
      received by the Sultan, 134, 135;
      diplomatic colleagues, 135;
      and the visit of the Kaiser, 136 _ff._;
      negotiations concerning right of American citizens to travel in
            Turkey, 139, 140;
      and the question of naturalization, 140;
      and the question of indemnities due to missionaries 141, 142;
      and the Mohammedans of the Sulu Islands, 143 _ff._;
      and the admission of American flour, 147;
      assists British ambassador in matter of closing of orphanage
            schools, 148;
      conversation with Lord Rosebery, 149, 150;
      secures Dr. Mitchell's services for Madame Tewfik, 151;
      visits Stefanovich-Schilizzi, in Athens, 152-154;
      at Therapia, 154;
      on leave of absence, 155 _ff._;
      conversation with Dr. Hertzl on Zionism, 156, 157;
      visits Rome, 158, 159;
      and Queen Margherita, 158, 159;
      reports to Secretary Hay, 159;
      resigns his post, 159-161;
      commended by McKinley, 160,
        who contemplates offering him the State portfolio, 160;
      on the granting of independence to the Philippines, 161;
      on the open-door policy in China, 161;
      commendatory letter of Hay, 162.
    His address on "The United States Doctrine of Citizenship and
          Expatriation," 163;
      appointed member of Hague Court of Arbitration by Roosevelt, 163,
            165, 208;
      why he was not appointed by McKinley, 164;
      opposes sending punitive expedition against Mohammedans in
            Philippines, 165, 166;
      prepares brief on condition of Jews in Roumania, 168;
      discusses situation of Jews in Russia with Roosevelt and others,
            172, 173;
      advises against arbitration of Venezuela dispute by Roosevelt, 174;
      interprets the treaty of 1846 with New Granada, 175, 176;
      impressions of Mrs. Roosevelt, 177;
      the conference societies in Washington, and Roosevelt's
            complimentary address, 178;
      Roosevelt on attitude of, on Jewish questions, 180;
      in the campaign of 1904, 182;
      at the conference on Roosevelt's Annual Message (1904), 184-188;
      on the eight-hour law, 186;
      at conference with Witte and Rosen, at Portsmouth, on the
            condition of Jews in Russia, 189, 190;
      conversation with Martens, 190;
      impressions of Roosevelt's political action, 192, 193;
      and the work of the National Civic Federation, industrial
            department, 195 _ff._;
      on the method of securing permanent industrial peace, 196;
      and the Homestead troubles, 197;
      result of his studies of the relations between labor and capital,
            etc., 199;
      on Board of Railway Labor Arbitration, 200-203;
      member of Wilson's Industrial Conference (1919-20), 203;
      chairman of New York Public Service Commission, 205;
      services of, in that capacity, in adjusting labor difficulties, 206.
    A member of Roosevelt's "kitchen cabinet," 207, 208;
      on Roosevelt's "impulsiveness," 208, 256,
        and his public addresses, 208, 209;
      invited by Roosevelt to join the Cabinet, 210;
      a personal selection, 211;
      prepares to quit business, 211, 212;
      appointed Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 212;
      plans conduct of the Department, 213;
      his official staff, 213, 214;
      social life in Washington, 214;
      his first official dinner-party, 215;
      and the importation of skilled labor into South Carolina, 216;
      action of, on divers questions relating to immigration, 216 _ff._;
      and Japanese immigration on the Pacific coast, 217;
      on the naturalization of Japanese, 218, 221;
      confers with Root on revision of Executive regulations, 219, 226;
      and the visit of General Kuroki, 220;
      on anti-Japanese agitation in California, 220;
      visits Hawaii, to study the Japanese question, 221-224;
      replies to Japanese editors, 223;
      confers with Viscount Ishii, 224;
      suggests negotiation of new naturalization treaty with Japan,
            226, 227;
      gives out statistics of Japanese immigration, 228;
      and the head-tax, 230, 231;
      and the naturalization laws, 231, 232;
      and the exclusion and deportation of criminals and anarchists,
            233, 234;
      Roosevelt's comment on leanings of, 234;
      and the inspection of passenger steamboats, 234, 235;
      orders closing of rivers to salmon fishing, 235, 236;
      seeks to establish closer relations between commercial bodies
            and the Government, 236;
      organizes National Council of Commerce, 237;
      recommends extension of Postal Subsidy Act, 237;
      complimentary resolution of the Council, 238;
      calls conference on coöperation between his Department and labor
            organizations, 238;
      draws preamble and bill for creating foundation to administer
            Roosevelt's Nobel Prize, 240;
      made a trustee of the foundation, 240;
      addresses on divers subjects, 240;
      revisits early homes in the South, 242, 243;
      his change of politics, 241;
      addresses Southern Commercial Congress on the old and the new
            South, 244;
      and Quentin Roosevelt, 244;
      gives last Cabinet dinner to Roosevelt, 247;
      Roosevelt's parting official gift to, 247;
      impressions of Taft, 250;
      interview with Taft on articles in his brother's paper, 251;
      takes part in campaign of 1908, 253, 255;
      answers Olney on question of prosecution of trusts, 253;
      on sectarian and hyphenated politics, 255;
      Roosevelt on Taft's declared purpose to retain _S._ in Cabinet,
            263, 264;
      Taft writes of his uncertainty as to retaining him, 267;
      at the last Cabinet meeting, 267, 268;
      at Taft's inauguration, 268-270.
    Banquet to, on returning to New York, 271, 272;
      Turkish Embassy offered to, by Taft, with promise of transfer,
            272, 273;
      letter of Knox to, 273;
      operated on, for appendicitis, 273;
      letter of Roosevelt to, on his appointment, 274;
      address on "The Spirit of the Roosevelt Administration," 274, 275;
      purpose of the address, 275;
      in Paris with Mrs. Roosevelt, 275;
      in Constantinople, 276;
      received by Sultan Mohammed, 276, 277;
      diplomatic colleagues, 278, 279;
      observes signs of development of Triple Entente, 279;
      goes to Cairo, to meet Roosevelt, 285;
      at Salonica, 285;
      at Athens, 286;
      received by King George, 286, 287;
      in Cairo with Roosevelt, 287-292;
      consulted by Roosevelt on his remarks about the murder of Budros
            Pasha, 288;
      entertained by Sir E. Gorst, 290, 291;
      and Princess Eitel Friedrich, 292;
      relations with Chevket Pasha, 292, 293;
      advises sale of warship to Turkey, 295;
      on Venizelos, 296;
      secures exemption of certain institutions from the Law of
            Associations, 296;
      obtains charter for Syrian Protestant College, etc., 297;
      Knox's offensive instructions regarding a shift of activities
            from educational to commercial ends, 297, 298;
      entertains Vice-President Fairbanks and others, 298, 299;
      requests leave of absence, intending to retire, 300;
      at Sinaia in Roumania, 300;
      conversations with "Carmen Sylva," 300-302, 303, 304;
      discusses Roumanian Jewish question with King Carol, 302, 303; in
            Vienna, 304;
      entertained by Ambassador Reid and others in London, 304, 305;
      interview with the Rothschilds, on the Triple Entente, 305, 306;
      resigns, 306;
      purpose to transfer to another post dropped, 306.
    Speaks on "American Prestige" at dinner of N.Y. Chamber of Commerce,
          308;
      arouses enthusiasm by mention of Roosevelt, 308;
      consulted by Roosevelt on his proposed speech, "The Charter of
            Democracy," 310;
      objects to recall of judicial decisions, but not to the
            breaking-point, 311;
      believes that that statement caused Roosevelt's defeat, 311, 312;
      made permanent chairman of N.Y. State Progressive Convention, 314;
      impressions of the body of delegates, 314;
      nominated for Governor by "Suspender Jack," 314-316;
      the nomination made unanimous, 317;
      letter of Roosevelt to, on his nomination, 317, 318;
      Roosevelt's interview on the same topic, 318, 319;
      is offered the Republican nomination, but declines for cause,
            319, 320;
      in the campaign, 320-322;
      fills some of Roosevelt's engagements after the shooting at
            Milwaukee, 322;
      Roosevelt's commendatory speech at final rally, 324;
      letter of Roosevelt to, 325;
      on the Progressive organization, 325, 326,
        and the result, 326;
      attempts to improve arbitration treaties, 330;
      speaks on "The Threatening Clouds of War," at reception given him
            by the N.Y. Peace Society, 331;
      speaks on "World Peace" at dinner of Authors' Club, 331;
      at peace meeting in Carnegie Hall, 332;
      on the right of expatriation, denied by European countries, 332;
      addresses at Naval War College, 332, 333;
      chairman of conference at Lake Mohonk (1905), 334;
      which resulted in the formation of the American Society of
            International Law, 335, 336;
      favors repeal of act exempting U.S. coastwise shipping from tolls
            on Panama Canal, 338, 339;
      urges sending commission to Mexico, 339, 340;
      writes in _The Outlook_ on the Italo-Turkish War and the Hague
            Treaty, 341;
      motor-tour in Algeria and Tunis, 343;
      in Sicily, 343;
      in Rome, 344-350;
      received in audience by Victor Emmanuel, 344, 345;
      friendship with Mayor Nathan, 345, 346;
      Professor Luzzatti, 346, 347;
      interviews with Cardinals Falconio, 347, 348,
        and Rampolla, 348, 349;
      relations with D. Lubin, 349;
      in London, 350-354;
      entertained by William Watson, 350,
        Sir Charles Henry, 350, 351, 352;
      meets Lloyd George, 351;
      Sir Rufus Isaacs, 352,
       Herbert L. Samuel, 352,
        and John Burns, 352, 353;
      entertained by the Brittains, 353,
        and Earl Grey, 353, 354, 355;
      visits the Hampstead Garden Suburb, 353, 354;
      entertained by Mr. Carnegie at Skibo Castle, 355;
      attends opening of Peace Palace at The Hague, 356, 357;
      journeys to Madrid for the marriage of Kermit Roosevelt, 358 _ff._;
      meets Kipling in London, 359,
        and I. Zangwill, 359;
      with Roosevelt in Paris, and travels to Madrid with him, 360;
      declared by Roosevelt to be the type of man for U.S. Senator, 360;
      on the prospects of the monarchy in Spain, 361;
      renews acquaintance with Sir H. D. Wolff, 366,
        and von Radowitz, 367;
      interview with E. Castelar, 365, 366;
      visits Toledo, 366-368.
    In Paris, in July, 1914, 370; the difficult journey to London, 370;
      the demand for gold, 371;
      assists in relieving Americans stranded in London, 371 _ff._;
      chairman of the embassy committee, 372;
      at Cliveden, with the Astors, 374;
      impresses on Sir E. Grey the necessity of making clear Great
            Britain's reasons for entering the war, 375;
      on Russia's duty to her subjects, 375, 376;
      gives out an interview to American correspondents, 376, 377;
      with Bernstorff at J. Speyer's, 378;
      negotiations with Bernstorff on the possible mediation of the
            United States, 378 _ff._;
      reports to Bryan thereon, 380;
      consults with Spring-Rice
      and Jusserand, 380, 381, 382;
      said to have been duped by Bernstorff, 382, 384;
      defended by Spring-Rice, 382, 383;
      Sir E. Grey to, 383;
      negotiations result in exposure of German insincerity, 384, 385, 386;
      New Year's message (1915), 387;
      conversation with Roosevelt on Wilson's course and duty, 387, 388;
      urges Wilson to seek cooperation of Taft and Roosevelt, 388, 389;
      and the report that Jews in U.S. were anti-Ally, 390-391;
      last meeting with Roosevelt, 391-393;
      at Roosevelt's funeral, 394.
    Chairman of overseas committee of League to Enforce Peace, 396;
      confers with Taft, 397;
      his associates on the committee, 397;
      conversation with Lord Chancellor Birkenhead, 398, 399;
      and Sir A. Steele-Maitland, 399;
      interview with Léon Bourgeois on additional clauses to the League
            Covenant, 400-403, 404;
      commended for favorable results of the interview, 403, 404;
      attends sessions of Plenary Conference, 405-407, 423, 424;
      on Wilson's prestige and leadership, 408;
      and General Smuts, 408;
      attends session of French Senate, 409;
      talk with Pershing, 410,
        and with Sazonoff, 411;
      praised by Bourgeois, 412;
      talk with Lansing, 412, 413;
      conferences with divers representatives of Balkan countries, 413,
            414, 418, 419;
      at meeting of allied societies for a League of Nations, proposes
            resolution regarding free exercise of religion, etc., 416;
      reports to Wilson, 416;
      Wilson's reply to, 417;
      discusses with Bourgeois revised draft of Article XXI, 420,
        which is adopted, 421;
      letter of Wilson thereon, 421;
      address at the Sorbonne, on "America and the League of Nations," 422;
      letter of Wilson to, 424;
      requested by House to return to U.S., 424, 425;
      meets Kerensky, 425, 426;
      confers with Wilson on measures to secure ratification of treaty,
            427;
      conferences with Senators on reservations, 427-429;
      reflections on the failure of the U.S. to act her part in
            world-reconstruction, 429, 430.

  Straus, Percy, 131.

  Straus, Roger W., _S._'s son, in Siberia, 392, 397; 131, 152, 299,
        318, 354, 378.

  Straus, Mrs. Roger W., 394.

  Straus, Salomon, _S._'s maternal grandfather, 1, 2, 9.

  Straus, Sara, _S._'s mother, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21.

  Straus, Sarah (Lavanburg), decorated by Abdul Hamid, 104;
    and William II, 137, 138; 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 56, 58, 94, 96, 99,
          111, 115, 131, 136, 211, 214, 215, 242, 245, 247, 274, 275,
          285, 290, 298, 316, 318, 321, 337, 343, 345, 348, 353, 354,
          360, 362, 365, 374, 378, 394, 409.

  Straus, Sissy, 131.

  Straus, L., & Sons, _S._ becomes a member of, 36, 37.

  Straus family, the, comes to America, 9;
    at Talbotton, 9-17;
    at Columbus, Ga., 17-20.

  Strauss, Lewis L., 418.

  Strauss, Paul, 409.

  Striker, Miss, 294.

  Strong, William L., 121.

  Sublime Porte. _See_ Turkey.

  Sullivan, Algernon S., 40.

  Sultan's mosque, the, 63.

  Sulu Islands, Mohammedans of, submit to U.S. army, 143-146.

  Sulzburger, Solomon, 170.

  Sulzer, William, 320.

  Supreme Court of the U.S., and the trusts, 186, 187.

  "Suspender Jack," _See_ McGee, John C.

  Sussex, the, sinking of, 389.

  Suttner, Baroness Bertha von, 304.

  Syria, mission schools in, closed, 71.

  Syrian Protestant College, 36, 297, 299.


  Taft, Charles P., 251.

  Taft, Hulbert, 251.

  Taft, William H., favored by Roosevelt for President, 248, 249;
    nominated, 250;
    his qualifications, 250;
    his contagious laugh, 250;
    overshadowed by Roosevelt in campaign, 254, 255;
    elected, 256;
    his chief source of strength, 256;
    his religion, attempt to make it an issue, 257;
    Roosevelt's letter to Dixon thereon, 258-262;
    his failure to reappoint _S._, and others to the Cabinet, 263, 264,
          267, 288, 292;
    his address to Ohio Society, 264;
    signs of departure from Roosevelt's policies, 264;
    suggests to _S._ embassy to Japan, 267;
    his inauguration, 268-270;
    offers _S._ Turkish mission, 272, 273;
    _S._'s relations with, 272;
    rumors of break with Roosevelt, 275;
    growing rift between his administration and Roosevelt's policies, 306;
    his position in 1912, 309;
    the Winona speech and the Norton letter, 309;
    and a League of Nations, 397;
    and the Covenant of the League, 413; 166, 183, 185, 186, 222, 231,
          239, 253, 265, 309, 394, 402, 419, 421.

  Taft, Mrs. W. H., 270.

  Talaat Bey, 278, 282.

  Talbotton, Ga., _S._'s father settles in, 6 _ff._;
    the Straus family at, 9 _ff._;
    revisited by _S._, 243.

  Tammany Hall, 320.

  Tanaka, Captain, 220.

  Tardieu, André, 414.

  Tchaikovsky, Nicolas, on sending food into Russia, 422, 423;
    on Lenin and Trotzky, 423.

  Tcheragan (Turkish Chamber of Deputies), burning of, how regarded, 299.

  Tewfik Pasha (Mohammed), Khedive, 78, 79.

  Tewfik Pasha, Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, 134, 140, 141, 142;
    and the closing of British orphanages, 148; 151, 173.

  Tewfik, Madame, attended by Dr. Mitchell, 151.

  Tezkirahs (passports), 139, 140.

  Thackeray, W. M., 120.

  Theotocopuli, Dominico, 367.

  Therapia, 65.

  Thomas, J. H., 415.

  Thompson, Daniel G., law partner of _S._, 34.

  Tilden, Samuel J., 33.

  _Times, The_, on _S._ as mediator, 382; 148.

  Toledo, Spain's objects of interest in, 367, 368.

  Tombs unearthed at Sidon, 151.

  Toombs, Robert, 19, 20.

  Trade unions, organization of, 194.

  Treaty of Paris, measures to secure ratification of, by Senate, 46-49;
    reservations offered, 427, 428.

  Trent, William P., 331.

  Triple Entente, development of, 279; 305, 306.

  Tripoli, treaty of U.S. with, 145.

  Trotzky, M., 423.

  Trumbull, Frank, 378.

  Trusts, question of, 186, 187.

  Tucker, Henry H. G., 178.

  Tunis, 343.

  Turkey, mission to, 42 _ff._;
    _S._ thrice appointed minister or ambassador to, 46, 124 _ff._,
          272, 273;
    his arrival in, 57-59;
    negotiations about mission schools in, 70 _ff._;
    hostility to missionaries in, 74, 75;
    negotiations concerning persecution of Jews in, 83 _ff._;
    permanent settlements with impossible, 86;
    interpretation of treaty of 1830 with, 87 _ff._;
    treaty of 1862, 88, 89;
    slight regard of, for terms of treaties, 89;
    Treaty of Naturalization and Extradition, 90-92, 140, 141;
    claim against de Hirsch, 92-94;
    proposal to send warships to, 128;
    U.S. mission to, authorized to be raised to embassy, 134, 135, 150;
    _S._'s negotiations concerning passport regulations in, 139, 140;
    and the question of indemnities to missionaries, 141, 142;
    question of shipments of flour to, 147, 148;
    _S._ resigns as minister, 161, 162,
    his reception on his third appointment, 276, 277;
    the government of Young Turks, 277, 278;
    German influence in, 279;
    promises Germany the concession for building railroad to Bagdad, 279;
    attitude of Russia toward, 279;
    effect on, of mutual jealousy of the Great Powers, 280;
    Chevket Pasha on conditions in, and attitude of Powers toward, 293;
    and the Crete affair, 293 _ff._:
    U.S. refuses to sell warship to, 294, 295;
    buys one from Germany, 295;
    Italy's war on, 340, 341;
    proposed mandate of U. S. over, 410.
    And _see_ Law of Associations, Young Turks.

  Turks, the, characteristics of, 62.

  Turull, Enrique de Arribas y, on the ancestry and nationality of
        Columbus, 369.


  Uhler, George, 234.

  "Union and Progress," party of. _See_ Young Turks.

  United States, treaty of 1830 with Turkey, interpretation of, 87 _ff._;
    treaty of 1862 with Turkey, 88, 89;
    treaty of Naturalization and Extradition, 90-92, 140, 141;
    attitude of, toward Sulu Mohammedans, 144, 145;
    Roosevelt's administration the beginning of a new era in history
          of, 257;
    attitude of toward international affairs, 327, 328;
    and the Hague Peace conferences, 328;
    effect on, of sending fleet round the world, 337, 338;
    proposed mediation of, at outbreak of World War, 378 _ff._;
    hopes of bringing about a peace conference between belligerents,
          386, 387;
    and the mandate for Turkey, 410;
    responsibility of, for withholding coöperation in
          world-reconstruction, 429, 430.

  University of Pennsylvania, confers honorary degree on _S._, 160.

  Ure, Sir Alexander, 351.


  Vacaresco, Helene, 405.

  Vali, the, of Jerusalem, 82, 83, 84.

  Van Alen, James J., and the Italian mission, 113, 114.

  Van Dyke, Henry, 119, 331.

  Van Hise, Charles R., 200, 201.

  Van Karnebeek, Dr., 357.

  Van Karnebeek, Jonkheer, 357.

  Van Rensselaer, Henry, 25.

  Van Swinderen, Mr., 357.

  Van Tetz, Baron and Baroness, 65.

  Van Valkenburg, E. A., 395.

  Vanderbilt, William K., 97.

  Vanderlip, Frank A., 378.

  Vanderlip, Mrs. F. A., 378.

  Vandervelde, M., 416.

  Varna, to Constantinople, 56, 57.

  "Venetian Palace," _S._'s home in Washington, 214.

  Venezuelan controversy (1902), 174.

  Venizelos, Eleutherios, his rank as a statesman, 296;
    maltreated by Greeks, 296; 153, 407, 411, 414, 415, 416.

  Venizelos, Mme., 153.

  Vermilye, Joseph F., 26.

  Very, Rear-Admiral, 224.

  Vesnitch, M., 411, 414.

  Victor Emmanuel II, 46.

  Victor Emmanuel III, Roosevelt received by, 290;
    _S._ received by, 344, 345, 349.

  Victoria, Queen, Jubilee of, 66.

  Vienna, _S._'s visits to, 56, 156, 304.

  Villard, Henry, 97.

  Vivian, Henry, 354.


  Wadhams, William H., 400.

  Wadsworth, James W., 209.

  Wald, Lillian M., 393, 425.

  Wallace, Lew, 43.

  Ward, John E., 31.

  Ward, William H., 97.

  Washburn, George, President of Robert College, 66, 69;
    _Fifty Years in Constantinople_, 76; 75.

  Washington, Booker T., entertained by Roosevelt, 184, 187.

  Washington, George, 41, 183, 258.

  Washington, Rev. George, 66.

  Washington Conference on Limitation of Armaments (1921), 229, 230.

  Watchorn, Robert, 168, 216.

  Watson, William, why he missed the laureateship, 350.

  Weardale, Philip J. Stanhope, Baron, 377.

  Weber, John B., 107.

  Webster, Charles B., 115.

  Webster, Daniel, 17, 258.

  Westminster, Hugh R. A. Grosvenor, Duke of, 148.

  Westminster Hall, John Burns on, 353.

  _Westminster Review_, 51.

  Wheeler, Everett P., 334.

  White, Andrew D., _Autobiography_, 328 _n._, 356; 132, 138, 237,
        331, 334.

  White, Edward D., 128, 300.

  White, Henry, 405, 423.

  White, Horace, 308.

  White, Sir William A., British ambassador to Turkey, 60, 65, 72, 74,
        85, 132.

  White, Lady, 60.

  White House, luncheons at, in Roosevelt's day, 176, 177;
    Christmas tree at, 245;
    New Year's reception at, 245, 246;
    official functions at, 246.

  Whitman, Charles S., 205.

  Whitney, Traverse H., 205.

  Whitney, William C., 113, 114.

  Wighe, Mr., labor leader, 197.

  Wilhelmina, Queen, 356, 357.

  Willard, Daniel, 200, 203.

  Willard, Joseph, 358, 362.

  Willard, Miss, marries Kermit Roosevelt, 358, 362.

  Willcocks, Sir William, 299.

  William II, German Emperor, visit of, to Constantinople, 136-139;
    his visit resented by Christians in Turkey, 139;
    and Zionism, 157;
    and Mrs. Roosevelt, 287, 288; 247, 279, 291, 328 _n._, 363, 385.

  Williams, Aneurin, 415.

  Williams, Roger, _S._ places memorial tablet to, in Charterhouse
        School, 120, 121, 347.

  Wilson, George G., 334.

  Wilson, James, 240.

  Wilson, James H., 19.

  Wilson, William L., 112, 126, 127.

  Wilson, Woodrow, reappoints _S._ on Hague Court, 165,
      and Panama Canal tolls, 338, 339;
    his offer to act as mediator at outbreak of war, 378, 379, 384, 387;
    Roosevelt on his proper course, 388, 389;
    _S._'s relations with, 338;
    _S._ advises him to invite coöperation of Taft and Roosevelt, 389;
    objects to proposed additions to draft of League Covenant, 400;
    opposes French demand for international army to guard frontier, 403;
    address to American correspondents, 404;
    in the Plenary Conference, 405-407, 423, 424;
    early adoption of Covenant due to, 408;
    returns to U.S., 414;
    letters of, to _S._, 421, 424;
    on the treaty debate and reservations, 427; 203, 322, 402, 416, 417,
          420, 425, 426.

  Wilson, Judge, 56.

  Wise, Stephen S., 390.

  Witte, Count Sergius, and the question of Jews in Russia, 189, 190;
    letter of Roosevelt to, 191.

  Wolf, Simon, 171, 173.

  Wolfe, Catherine L., 97.

  Wolff, Sir Henry D., career of, 64;
    advises _S._, 65;
    in Madrid, 122;
    reminiscences of Disraeli, 363-365; 86, 362.

  Wolff, Lady, 362, 363.

  Woodford, Stewart L., U.S. Minister to Spain, and Sir H. D. Wolff, 122;
    seeks to avert war, 124.

  Woodruff, Timothy L., 316, 317.

  Woolsey, Theodore S., 334.

  Wordsworth, William, "The Happy Warrior," 119.

  World War, the, outbreak of, 371 _ff._;
    Sir E. Grey on Great Britain's reasons for entering, 375, 376;
    proposed mediation of U.S., 378 _ff._

  Wright, Luke V., 264.

  Wu Ting Fang, 160.


  Yahuda, A. S., 366.

  Yale College Kent Club, 119, 120.

  Yates, William F., 239.

  Yenikeui, _S._'s residence at, 154.

  Yildis Palace, _S._ received in audience at, 66, 67.

  Young Men's Hebrew Association, founded by _S._ and others, 33, 40, 41.

  Young Turks, government of, 277, 278;
    fall of their first ministry due to Lynch affair, 280-282.

  Young Women's Hebrew Association, 33.

  Yovanovich, M., 415.


  Zangwill, Israel, his project concerning the Jews, 359.

  Zionism, Hertzl on, 156, 157.

  Zorn, Professor, 328 _n._


       *       *       *       *       *


Transcriber's note: Punctuation has been normalized and obvious printer
errors have been corrected. Variations in spelling and hyphenation have
been retained.





End of Project Gutenberg's Under Four Administrations, by Oscar S. Straus