Henry Morgenthau

THE Mitchel campaign was an incident—important and affecting, but only an incident—in the stirring summer and fall of 1917, when we had just entered the war. My trip to Europe that summer, on a government mission, fixed a new and broader purpose in my mind. While in Turkey in 1914 to 1916 I had seen only the German machinations and listened to the German apologies. Now I had observed the devastation wrought in France and heard from French and British lips their version of the war. Moreover, my talks with Joffre, PainlevÉ, Sir Douglas Haig, Sir Arthur Currie, and others, showed me how fearfully low the spirits of the Allies had fallen before we entered the struggle. Prussianism had defied and all but conquered the world; its victims were at the very edge of despair; as for America, it was not yet fully cognizant of the sad conditions prevailing in Europe, because censorship, guided by political considerations, prevented the full truth from crossing the Atlantic.

When I returned in September, I was impressed not only with the necessity of continuing my activities to alleviate the suffering of the Armenians and the Jews and of doing all I could to eliminate the cause of that suffering, but I was much more impressed with the bigger thought of also doing all in my power to rouse American sentiment to the fact that this great struggle was dependent upon our activities to replenish the diminishing resources, both physical and moral, of the countries which were immersed in this tremendous conflict. I determined to make use of this special knowledge, which it had been my fortune to acquire, to help defeat the Germans.

This dual determination made the ensuing period one of intense activities, varied, yet not conflicting. Things happened pell-mell, but are more coherent if grouped topically rather than chronologically.

The Armenian outrages were constantly in my mind, and I wrote for the Red Cross Magazine an article on the Turkish massacres concluding:

I wonder if four hundred million Christians, in full control of all the governments of Europe and America, are again going to condone these offenses by the Turkish Government! Will they, like Germany, take the bloody hand of the Turk, forgive him and decorate him, as Kaiser Wilhelm has done, with the highest orders? Will the outrageous terrorizing—the cruel torturing—the driving of women into the harems—the debauchery of innocent girls—the sale of many of them at eighty cents each—the murdering of hundreds of thousands and the deportation to and starvation in the desert of other hundreds of thousands—the destruction of hundreds of villages and cities—will the wilful execution of this whole devilish scheme to annihilate the Armenian, Greek, and Syrian Christians of Turkey—will all this go unpunished? Will the Turks be permitted, aye, even encouraged by our cowardice in not striking back, to continue to treat all Christians in their power as “unbelieving dogs”? Or will definite steps be promptly taken to rescue permanently the remnants of these fine, old, civilized, Christian peoples from the fangs of the Turk?

That was a tragic story, but it had its lighter phase. Following a common custom, the editors of the Red Cross Magazine printed on the front cover of their publication my name and the title of the article. The juxtaposition was unfortunate and startling:

“Henry Morgenthau—The Greatest Horror in History!”

“That’s pretty rough,” wrote the New York Sun. “We always realized fully that the former Ambassador to Turkey was not a handsome man, but the Red Cross Magazine really has gone too far.”

The Jewish question interested me quite as deeply, and on December 12, 1917, I published in the New York Times a carefully considered statement.

This was the fruit of my thirty months’ experience with the problem of the Jews in Turkey and of my observations at first hand of their status and projects in Palestine, and was in line with my purpose to do more than alleviate the present sufferings of the Jews. Because this statement is important in its bearing upon my chapter on Zionism, I am reproducing it here in full. As my present opinion on Zionism is the outgrowth of years of sympathetic reflection, continuous observation, and conscientious personal study of the facts, I should like to emphasize the date of this publication, and thus indicate the progress of my views toward their settled conviction regarding Zionism:

To the Editor of the New York Times:

The fall of Jerusalem, its recapture by Christian forces after twelve centuries of almost uninterrupted Mohammedan rule, is surely an event of the greatest significance to us all. American Christians, and indeed Christians everywhere, will rejoice that the Holy Land, so well known to them through both the Old and New Testaments, has been restored to the civilized world.

I, with my co-religionists, rejoice not only as an American but as a cosmopolitan who recognizes the fertile seeds of civilization in all truly religious faith and experience. For the whole civilized world, the 10th of December, 1917, will be remembered as a day of profound historical interest, and, I hope also, of large meaning for the future.

During my recent visit to Palestine, I was greatly impressed by the progress made by the Jewish colonies. These colonies had developed under most adverse circumstances, and had demonstrated fully that, when real opportunity is given, the people of the Jewish faith can create most creditable self-governing units. With Palestine liberated from the curse of Turkish misgovernment, this work will go on with ever greater success. All Jews, both the Zionists and those of us who do not take part in the advocacy of the entire programme of the Zionists, rejoice at the prospect which is now open. Many Jews will wish to settle in Palestine. Many others, as well as great numbers of Christians from all lands, will wish to visit the Holy Land, and there undertake studies in history and religion. Many of us hope that the Hebraic language and the elements of the Hebraic culture will develop there sufficiently to be again, in a new way, of genuine service to the moral and cultural life of the world.

But at this point I wish to sound a note of warning to my coreligionists on the one hand, and on the other strongly emphasize to all my American fellow-citizens that certain positive facts should not be overlooked at this time. I believe that the leaders of the Zionists have always perceived that it would be impossible to have all the Jews return to Palestine, and that the others who hold to that Utopia will soon be disillusioned. It is almost unnecessary to refer to the fact that it is economically impossible to settle 13,000,000 people upon the narrow and impoverished lands which were the ancient soil of our people. But this is not what I wish to emphasize chiefly. The fact that has vital significance to me, and, I believe, to a majority of those of my faith in America, is that we are 100 per cent. Americans, and wish to remain so, irrespective of the fact that some of our blood is Jewish and some of our clay is German, Russian, or Polish. To us and our children America, too, is veritably a Holy Land.

It has been a great mission of the Jewish people, through their religious faith, to teach the whole Western world that there is one God. The great moral and spiritual mission of the American people, in my opinion, is to teach the world that there must be one brotherhood of humanity. I hold that it has been nothing short of providential in the history of the human race to have had America preserved as an undeveloped continent until this later period. We are making it the experimental station for the intergrafting of various peoples. The ideal of America is, through freedom and equal opportunity, to permit the complete physical, intellectual, and spiritual development of all our citizens. The American people are not the descendents of the original English, French, Dutch, or Spanish settlers. The American people to-day are composed of every inhabitant within our borders who loyally supports the principles which form the roots of our national life and well-being. To me it seems clear that the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the laws and, above all, in the moral attitude of mind which marks the true American, require much of us. Above all, they require mutual service, equality as regards the highest as well as the less important goods of life, and, high above all, complete toleration and mutual respect. These are the veritable foundations of human brotherhood. This is America’s fundamental contribution to the world’s civilization. It is not essential in this connection, even if space permitted, for me to indicate and emphasize the part which the Hebraic laws, Hebraic morals, and the Hebraic religion, through the Old and New Testaments, have had upon the American mind and the American soul. I leave that to the historian. I am here referring to the present and the future, rather than to the past.

We have now come to a great crisis in the history of the world. The essential thing for us is to fight for universal peace as a basis for a practical world brotherhood. This great result is not only possible, it is necessary if civilization is to endure. Let me ask my co-religionists, face to face and heart to heart, how many of you would be willing to forswear the great duty we have here and the great task which history gives us of being true, real, unalloyed American citizens in this time of resplendent ideals and momentous deeds, in order to devote your entire lives to the upbuilding of Hebraic institutions in Palestine. I, for one, do not see that it is at all necessary to ignore the lesser in order to serve the greater purpose. But let me repeat most emphatically, we Jews, in America, are Jews in religion and Americans in nationality. It is through America and her institutions that we shall work out our part in bringing better ideals and morals and sounder principles of policy to the whole world. Likewise the Jews of the British Empire, that is probably 99 per cent. of them, have not the slightest intention of deserting their British fellow-citizens. The same holds good as to France and Italy. If Russia maintains, as we all hope and pray that she may maintain, a republican form of government in which the elements of liberty are saved to her people, the Jews of Russia will very soon come to feel the same fellowship with all their Russian neighbours that we now have as regards our fellow-Americans.

And yet Zionism is more than a mere dream. Its theories, upon which so much emphasis has been placed during the last generation, contain practical elements which are not above realization. I have reflected much upon this matter and I have had the privilege of discussing it with leading Jews the world over. I most sincerely trust that those of my religious faith who are now imbued with this idea will not permit impracticable schemes to make impossible the realization of the good that is in Zionism. The Jewish communities in Palestine should be given every opportunity for development. Some Jews now in America will wish to live there permanently; many others, who have not the slightest intention of surrendering their citizenship in the countries where their children are to live and work, will still wish to have a share in the preservation and development of a free, Jewish Palestine. But not only Jews are interested in Palestine; every truly educated and liberal-minded person in the world will wish to see the ancient Jewish culture given an opportunity for expression and growth. Furthermore—and this is what I beg my Jewish fellow religionists not to lose sight of for a moment—all Christendom, too, looks upon Palestine as the Holy Land, in which every believing Christian has a deep religious interest and a right to share. The thousands of Christians who will annually visit Palestine will wish to feel that they have a part in all the holy traditions which cluster about the sacred localities and the remaining monuments.

As regards the administration of Palestine, this phase of the subject does not seem to me to present any insurmountable difficulties. Under an international and inter-religious commission there could be a very large measure of self-government on the part of the local citizenship. The whole world is now moving away from the emphasis hitherto placed upon extreme nationalism. The forces of internationalism must be developed practically and systematically. What an error it would be, at the very time when the primary message to the world of the Jewish people and their religion should be one of peace, brotherhood and the international mind, to set up a limited nationalist State and thereby appear to create a physical boundary to their religious influence. Let us give the strictly Hebraic culture a better chance than this would imply. Let us permit it in its original form and purity to test out its strength with other religions amid twentieth century surroundings. Whatever value it may have for the world’s civilization will thus be fully realized. Meanwhile nothing should draw our attention from the infinitely greater opportunities of the age in which we live. After the many centuries of restrictions, persecutions and cruelties suffered by our people we are at last sharing the blessings of freedom and of universal fellowship in all the great democratic countries of the world.

Henry Morgenthau.

New York, Dec. 11, 1917.

Sunday, March 3, 1918, was the last day for me to function as presiding officer of the Free Synagogue. Dr. Wise had asked me to occupy his pulpit on that date, because he had to go to Washington on business of the nature of which I was then unaware. The next day, the New York Times contained the following statement, telegraphed from Washington, March 3rd:

Approval of the plans of the Zionist leaders for the creation of a national Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine was given to-night by President Wilson to a delegation of representative Jewish leaders who spent an hour at the White House in conference with the President over the international status of the Jews around the world. The delegation was headed by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of New York....

It affected me strangely to think that while I was taking Dr. Wise’s place in the pulpit, he should be helping to secure the approval of the President of the United States for a plan of which, because of my knowledge of conditions in Palestine, I totally disapproved. I telephoned Dr. Wise that this occurrence determined me to resign the presidency of the Free Synagogue. He called at my house and tried to dissuade me, but my duty seemed clear.

In effect, I said to the doctor: “You are entitled to your views, and I to mine, which I propose to express as forcibly as I know how, whenever I think they will do the most good for the welfare of the Jews. I still hope it will never fall to my lot to attack Zionism in public, but I assure you now that I will not shirk the responsibility if the time ever comes when it seems right that I should handle it without gloves. It would then be a great embarrassment for me to be president of your Synagogue.”

The resignation read thus:

March 3, 1918.

Executive Committee,
Free Synagogue.

Dear Sirs:

After twelve years of incumbency of the office of President of the Free Synagogue of New York, I am impelled to resign that office. Much as I have enjoyed the honour of filling this position and the happy and inspiring association with its Rabbi, Dr. Wise, I feel that our views of Zionism, in the advocacy of which he is one of the leaders, are so divergent and apparently irreconcilable, that it seems necessary for me to withdraw from what may be called the lay leadership of the congregation.

I would have no question arise as to Dr. Wise’s freedom or my own freedom regarding Zionism.

With the sincere hope that the friendly and cordial relations which have long obtained between Dr. Wise and myself will be unaffected by this decision, I am

Yours cordially,
Henry Morgenthau.

On March 10th, at a dinner given by the Executive Committee of the Isaac M. Wise Centenary Fund, which was attended by about fifty rabbis, I made the following speech, which was published in the next day’s Times:

The greatest fight in history has just been fought between democracy and autocracy. It was so important that we should centre our attention upon it. We should give all the consideration we can to awaken ideals.

You have that chance now. Zionism is going to do you some good. It is going to arouse you from your complacency. You must realize that it will turn you back a thousand years. Why surrender all you have gained during that time? Reformed Judaism must assert itself. If American democracy can annihilate autocracy and anarchy, we Jews cannot accept the foolish argument that you must have Zionism to keep the Jews as Jews. We must have something, but it is not Zionism. The Rabbis and people must spread Judaism in America and they must be militant.

I believe that to-day there is a religious revival in the world. Why should our patriotism be doubted if at the same time we are to have a moral awakening? I have been delighted as I have travelled over this country in order to promote various causes, such as the Jewish Welfare Campaign, to find the Rabbis honoured in their communities, and that everywhere they held important positions. We can have a Jewish revival in this country, which is our Zion, and not Palestine.

I have no objection to the founding of a Jewish university in Palestine. I think it is a fine thing. But when we realize the opportunities that the men who sit at this table have had in this country, it seems a stupid and ridiculous notion not to admit that this is the Promised Land. Let us wake up and, as the Christians have done, be a militant religion.

Everywhere I have been, people have told me that they were not for Zionism, but that they were afraid to assert themselves. All the Zionists want they have gotten. President Wilson has assured us that full civil and religious rights would be granted to the Jews everywhere. It did not require Zionism to get that. They will get it as the result of the conduct of the Jews throughout the world. The League of Nations would be imperfect if it did not include it.

You cannot make a good American out of anybody unless he is religious; and as we want a fine morality, we are looking to you ministers of the Jewish faith to give it to us.

To the moral strength of our nation, American Judaism must contribute in the greater measure. In times of adversity and prosperity the moral and spiritual courage of the Jew has become proverbial. Now, in this new era for America and for the world, this strength and courage, the roots of which are imbedded in our religion, must be fostered and made a living force more than ever before. The Isaac M. Wise Centenary gives us the opportunity to establish the institution of American Judaism on a firm foundation. This we must do, lest we fail to contribute in the fullest measure our share to the spiritual rebuilding of the world.

Extended trips for the Near East and Jewish Relief Committees, and also for the Liberty Loan and United War Work Drive, had taken me during these months into almost every part of the country, addressing gatherings in cities as far scattered as Lewiston, Me., Atlanta, Ga., and Portland, Ore. The itinerary included most places of any size in the Middle West and frequently demanded speeches for two or three of the causes the same day.

The meetings were usually preceded by dinners or luncheons or followed by receptions, at which the leading men of the cities gathered. A more inspiring experience it would be hard to imagine than seeing every prejudice and hatred laid aside for labour in a common cause. Wherever my way led there were revealed, as national characteristics, an intense moral enthusiasm, warm-hearted response to human suffering, open-handed generosity, and mutual tolerance.

Nevertheless, contact with voters in these drives had intensified my realization that a large number of our citizens were still Pacifists and that many of the German-Americans and their friends were protesting that the German Empire, innocent of having caused the world struggle, was fighting in self-defense. As I had positive information through Baron Wangenheim and the Marquis Pallavicini, my German and Austrian colleagues at Constantinople, that the war was premeditated, I consulted my friend, Frank I. Cobb, of the New York World, how best to make this fact public. The result was his collaboration and the appearance in that paper on October 14, 1917, of an article in which it was declared:

This war was no accident. Neither did it come through the temporary break-down of European diplomacy. It was carefully planned and deliberately executed in cold blood.... It was undertaken in the furtherance of a definite programme of Prussian imperialism.

Proceeding to give my reasons for such a statement, as cause and effect had been revealed to me by Von Wangenheim himself, the article included the first authoritative confirmation of the rumour that the Kaiser had indeed held the now famous Potsdam Conference, at which the German financiers, as early as the first week of July, 1914, had been instructed to complete the concentration of the Empire’s resources for war. The disclosure of these facts, copied in newspapers throughout the country, created a sensation and profoundly influenced American public opinion.

A number of friends urged me to write a book, giving my evidence more fully and revealing how Germany had dominated Turkish policy and forced the Sublime Porte into the war. Hesitancy as to the propriety of an Ambassador using his information publicly led me to consult President Wilson. In doing so I expressed the opinion that the Congressional election of 1918 was in grave doubt and that everything should be done to prove that the Executive had been right in entering the war. The following letter resolved my doubts and confirmed my inclination:

The White House
27 November, 1917.

My dear Mr. Morgenthau:

I have just received your letter of yesterday and in reply would say that I think you get impressions about public opinion in New York which by no means apply to the whole country, but nevertheless I think that your plan for a full exposition of some of the principal lines of German intrigue is an excellent one and I hope you will undertake to write and publish the book you speak of.

I am writing in great haste, but not in hasty judgment you may be sure.

Cordially and sincerely yours,
Woodrow Wilson.

I then wrote “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story.”

On September 30, 1917, I had contributed to the New York Times an article headed, “Emperor William Must Go.” Then followed the World interview already referred to, and, on October 18th, less than a month before the Armistice, I delivered at Cooper Union an address in which I said:

On March 8, 1918, I had a meeting with Lord Reading, Lord Chief Justice of England, whom Lloyd George had sent as special Ambassador to this country. In our conversation, he revealed a fact of great historic interest.

The day before, at a luncheon given him by the Merchants’ Association of New York, Lord Reading had used what seemed a singular expression for an official representative of Great Britain. Referring to the gravity of the military situation and the necessity for America to exert her full strength, he described the tremendous sacrifices of his own people and then declared:

“You must take up the burden. We have done all we can do.”

Recalling this in our talk, I suggested that it must have been a slip of the tongue, and asked: “Did you not mean to say, ‘We (Great Britain) are doing all we can?’”

“Quite the contrary,” Lord Reading instantly replied. “I said it deliberately, and it is the fact. Every Englishman that is fit for military service has been called to the colours; we have even combed our civil service. We have no reserve man-power left.”

Nevertheless, public utterance of such a statement at such a time revealed a misconception of our national psychology. I pointed out to Lord Reading that we Americans were not yet far enough advanced in experience of war to react favourably to such a message.

Nor were the women that we met in these war activities less interesting than the men. Mrs. Emma Bailey Speer, president of the Y. W. C. A., sent a car to take me over to Tenafly, N. J., to make the dedicatory address at a new hostess house. In the car was a lady wearing the Y. W. C. A. uniform. She said that Mrs. Speer, being unable to come herself, had sent her as a substitute—and it was splendid to see how this, the daughter of Senator Aldrich, and the wife of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., could be just a good private in the Y. W. C. A. ranks, taking her position and doing her duties with seriousness and efficiency.

Soon after this, we gave a dinner in honour of Dr. Henry Pratt Judson, president of Chicago University, who had recently returned from Persia on behalf of the Near East Relief Committee. An amusing incident occurred which partly spoiled the evening for Mr. Schiff, the great financier and much beloved leader of the Jews, and recognized as one of the most eminent citizens of America. He sat next to Mrs. Rockefeller and accidentally caused the spilling of a cup of coffee over her dress. She tactfully said that the dress had been cleaned before and could be cleaned again. Nevertheless, it depressed Mr. Schiff to think that he should have been so awkward as to raise his elbow while the coffee was being passed. A week later he showed me with great satisfaction a letter from Mrs. Rockefeller, accepting the beautiful lace scarf which he had sent her with the explanation that it was to cover the spot on her dress. The incident again proves that the biggest men devote the required time and thought to straightening out even such little mishaps as that here related.

The signing of the Armistice abruptly terminated hostilities a year earlier than most people had expected. Public opinion was far from clarified upon the question as to the kind of peace treaty which should be drawn up. The public did realize, however, that it was confronted with an issue perhaps even more vital than the issues of war. A peace must be devised to end this war and prevent a recurrence of so terrible a disaster. At this time, the only powerful and organized body of men which had studied this subject and had a solution to offer was the League to Enforce Peace. The leaders of this league felt that it was a public duty to place their solution before the nation, and give it the utmost publicity in the hope that it might be serviceable in directing the course of investigations at Paris into channels of permanent benefit to humanity.

They worked out an ingenious and effective plan. Not content with merely announcing their ideas through the press or on the platform, they organized nine “congresses” in as many cities, each the centre of an important section. They arranged to have district delegates sent to the sessions of the congresses, and from five thousand to ten thousand delegates attended every one; besides, numerous audiences flocked to overflow meetings. A group of public men, headed by ex-President Taft, was organized to address the sessions, as representatives of the League. I was asked to be one of that group.

Mr. Wilson was in Paris. Fearing that this campaign might in some way embarrass him, or conflict with his plans, I consulted several Cabinet members: Secretaries Lane and Houston applauded the wisdom of the proposed campaign. Secretary Baker wrote:

I was assured that I was expected to speak only in the general terms of an association of nations without outlining any detailed plan therefor. On receipt of this assurance, I decided to go.

The party comprised ex-President Taft, President Lowell of Harvard; Dr. Henry van Dyke of Princeton; Dr. Elmer R. Brown, Dean of the Yale Divinity School; George Grafton Wilson, Professor of International Law at Harvard; Edward A. Filene, of Boston; and Mrs. Philip North Moore, of St. Louis, president of the National Council of Women. The three weeks, passed in a tour of the country with such able and delightful people, was thoroughly enjoyed.

On this journey, my acquaintance with Mr. Taft was transformed into a genuine friendship. On the first day out, it was “Mr. Morgenthau”; on the second, “Henry Morgenthau”; and on the third it became, and has since remained, “Henry.” He was a most delightful travelling companion and fellow-worker, good-humoured under all circumstances, uncomplaining under the heaviest tasks, the soul of friendliness and consideration: “To know him was to love him.” One day, as we were sitting in his compartment, discussing some details of the trip, he broke into one of his characteristic little chuckles:

“Here you have been opposing me politically all these years,” he said, “and now we’re together on the same platform for the good of the whole world. Doesn’t public service make strange compartment companions?”

Our trip was filled with hard work, exhausting hours, and not a few discomforts, but it brought us many moments of inspiration and some of amusement. Of the latter, one stands clear in my memory. We were standing unobserved at the railroad station of a small town in the Dakotas, when President Lowell thought we ought to do something “to get our blood in circulation” and challenged me to a foot race on the station platform.

“I’ll take a handicap—I’ll run backwards.”

His challenge was accepted, and he won the race. Then he confessed that running backwards was one of his accomplishments from undergraduate days.

The outstanding moments of the trip were those which immediately followed our receipt of the first draft of the League Covenant. We were steaming through Utah, when it was handed aboard. At once it was given the stenographers for manifolding, and none of us is likely to forget the impatience with which each awaited his copy, the eagerness with which each took it to his own compartment for study.

That evening President Lowell, Dr. Van Dyke, and myself were called to Mr. Taft’s compartment. He sat there, his face all aglow with satisfaction. He put his hand on his copy of the Covenant, which was lying on the table, and said:

“I am delighted to find it has teeth in it.”

We had a long discussion, concluding that we ought to prepare a pronouncement for publication. Mr. Taft asked us three to draw up a statement. We complied and called in Professors Brown and Wilson, who were very useful in condensing it. Mr. Taft read the result, approved of it, but added the concluding sentence:

That addition made, the signatures were affixed, and the train stopped at a little station to telegraph our statement to the Associated Press. The local telegrapher doubted his ability to transmit accurately a message that he considered so important as this one, but he notified the operator at the next town to be ready for us, and from there the statement was sent out in the following terms:

Mr. Taft’s endorsement of the Covenant as then drawn moved me, at our journey’s end, to telegraph to Washington suggesting that he join President Wilson in an exposition of the League before a great mass meeting. The reply came back that such a plan was already being put into execution. It was carried out at the gathering on March 4, 1919, in the Metropolitan Opera House, New York, on the eve of Mr. Wilson’s return to Paris.

That night, when the Democratic President of the United States walked on the stage with the Republican ex-President, the audience seemed almost justified in thinking that the Covenant had been lifted above partisanship and that the Magna Charta of the Nations was secure.

This conviction was strengthened by Mr. Taft’s address. He delivered it without any apparent exertion. He had thoroughly mastered the general subject during his long connection with the League to Enforce Peace, he had secured the draft of the Covenant, locked himself up with it, analyzed and digested it. He had “tried out” the subject in conferences with specialists, and presented it before popular meetings across the Continent. Now, for one hour and a half, he discussed this historic document in all its national and international phases. His address, given with natural and admirable simplicity, the quintessence of deep thought, was complete, technical, erudite, judicial: the reading of a momentous interpretation by the future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The speaker injected some of his native geniality into his delivery; but not for that reason alone did the vast audience listen ninety minutes without a sign of restlessness: the believers, the doubters, and the active opponents were spellbound by his logical and convincing argument.

During all this time it was more than interesting to watch the fixed attention that the President was giving to the address. We all wondered what was going on in his battling brain. Some of us noticed for the first time a nervous twitching in his cheek, undoubtedly a reflex of the tremendous harassment that he had undergone in Washington.

He had come back to America to sign some bills before the expiration of Congress on March 4th, and brought with him this Covenant. Now, before his departure for Europe, he listened to the fine approval of his ideal by his predecessor, who, though prominent in his party and highly esteemed by all Americans, was not speaking with final authority: the Senate had to approve the Covenant before it could become binding on the United States.

So Woodrow Wilson, whom the peoples of the world were ready to accept as their leader, had to return to Paris knowing that the thirty-seven Senators who had signed the “round robin” were pledged against him in terms which could have no other purpose than to notify our Associates at the Peace Conference that the Senate would not confirm any League of Nations projected by him. With this fear in his heart, he was on his way to resume his participation in the greatest diplomatic struggle of modern times. This evening, he saw again unmistakable evidence that if the American people possessed the authority and could express it, they would undoubtedly grant him the necessary power, without restrictions or reservations, to enter into an agreement, which would help to lift the world out of the mire of militarism to a higher plane, where wars would disappear, where international peace and justice would prevail, and where the combined efforts of mankind, purified and energized by its moral elevation, would be diverted from its destructive pursuits and concentrated on the promotion of happiness.

That evening I brought Homer Cummings home with me. We were both buoyed up, tingling from the enthusiasm of that great meeting, yet fearing that this League of Nations might be shattered by partisan politics.

As we settled down in my library, I said to Cummings:

“Homer, you are really neglecting your duty as National Chairman unless you undertake immediately to present to the American people the attitude of the Democratic Party toward this League of Nations, and denounce, in the unmeasured terms that it deserves this violent opposition that has developed against it.” I told him that it required a real Philippic, and then related to him my own recent experience with Demosthenes, which occurred at a dinner given to some Greeks, when Dr. Talcott Williams told an anecdote of Hellenic influence on modern life.

Williams said that some twenty-five years ago he had asked a Princeton college professor whether there was, in his opinion, any way of affecting current thought except through the pulpit or the press. The professor replied that there was the forum, and that, for his own part, he was fitting himself for the forum by a careful study of Demosthenes. Years passed, and Dr. Williams met the professor again and reminded him of his youthful conviction.

“I haven’t changed my opinion,” said the Princetonian, “and only recently I had to brush up my Greek to enable me to refresh my recollection of some of the Philippics.”

The Princeton professor was Woodrow Wilson.

When I told this story to my wife, who was both my kindest and severest critic, she immediately secured and placed on my desk, without any comment, a translation of Demosthenes. Inspired by its perusal, I dared to face a great audience in Buffalo and deliver an opening address for the Liberty Loans.

I said to Cummings: “Now, as President Wilson is returning to Europe, you, Homer, ought to be the Demosthenes of the Democratic Party.”

Cummings took fire. “I believe I can do it,” he cried.

He was the man for it. Physically big, with a commanding presence and a good delivery, his experience as a member of the Democratic National Committee, his campaigns for Mayor of Stamford and Senator from Connecticut, and his successful service as state’s attorney for Fairfield County in that state, had qualified him long since for brilliant public speaking, and latterly for public speaking of the denunciatory sort.

We consulted Demosthenes. We analyzed the Fourth Philippic.

Cummings’s eyes flashed, as he exclaimed:

“I can do it! I can do it!”

The opening was to be a vindication of the Democratic Party throughout the war and the subsequent peace negotiations: the peroration, a denunciation of the opposition.

The question remained: what forum should be selected? We canvassed the possibilities: the Economic Club, of which I was then president, and a number of others. One by one, all were dismissed. Finally, it was decided to give a small dinner at the National Democratic Club on the evening of March 14th, and to follow that immediately by a large reception, at which the speech in its first form was to be delivered.

This plan was carried to a successful conclusion, and what Cummings said that night was the basis or skeleton of his soon-famous speech at San Francisco. “The rest is history.”

Meantime, my period at home was drawing to a close. I had written for the New York Times “A Vision of the Red Cross After the War.” On March 7th, I received a cablegram from Henry P. Davison. It asked me to serve as delegate to the Conference at Cannes for the formation of the International League of Red Cross Societies. Mr. Taft and Jacob Schiff both gave me advice that matched my inclinations. On March 15th, the Times published an interview giving my point of View in regard to this trip:

I came home from the Democratic Club’s reception to Cummings, snatched a few hours’ sleep, and, on the following morning, boarded the ship that was to take me on the journey which began with the International Red Cross Conference and ended in my investigation of the Jewish massacres in Poland.