THE CIVIC CHURCH
~
Choral Service, Sunday Evening, April 14, 1907. Carnegie Hall.[1]
On April 14, 1907, the civic leader of New York were preparing for the great National Arbitration and Peace Congress, an event largely sponsored by Industrialist-Philanthropist, Andrew Carnegie. During the day there were gatherings devoted to peace throughout the city, and many clergymen made the theme the topic their morning sermons. Alexander Irvine was among those who devoted a podium to the topic. There were afternoon gatherings at Carnegie Hall, the Majestic Theatre, Christian Science Church, and Broadway Tabernacle.[2]
Oscar Straus.[3]
The following day, Monday, April 15, 1907, at Carnegie Hall, the event proper began. The Third Session began at 8 p.m., but we’ll begin with the second speaker, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Oscar S. Straus. Like his brothers, Isidor and Nathan (owners of Macy & Co. department stores,) Straus received excellent business training.[4] He sharpened his political acumen in 1887, when he became the first Jewish U.S. Minister to Turkey. [5]
“Nations, like individuals, pass through stages of development, and each stage of that development is characterized by different and often varying aspirations,” said Straus. “Beginning with modern times, with the Reformation, the nations were held under the spell of ecclesiastical domination, which produced the so-called religious wars which culminated with the Thirty Years’ War and the Treaty of Westphalia. This was followed by the hunger for power, which rose to its height under the infuriated heroism of the Napoleonic wars; after this followed the period of industrialism and trade expansion, at the height of which we now find ourselves. (Straus’s great-grandfather, Jacob Lazar, was one of the deputies to the Sanhedrin convened by Napoleon in 1806.[6]) This last period, which has witnessed the development of great industrial combinations, has also witnessed the development of the powers of the wage-earners under organized labor. This development, to which the most advanced nations of the world owe the wonderful growth of their material prosperity, brings with it many advantages, also serious dangers, which, if not regulated by humane considerations and by the spirit of equity and justice, threaten the most serious domestic conflicts.”[7]
“Now, Ladies and Gentlemen,” said Carnegie, “we are to hear from Professor Münsterberg, whose writings most of you are familiar with. He comes tonight to address us and give us the German view of things.”
Hugo Münsterberg, a German-born psychologist, came over to America in 1893 to teach at Harvard University at the request of colleague, William James.[8] “If a sculptor were to create today a statue of the Goddess of Peace,” said Münsterberg, at the conclusion of his talk, “he might safely choose as his model fair Germania, with the Emperor’s crown on her head, with a pure sword in her hand, and with mild eyes calmly looking on a serious yet happy nation of laborers who work for the eternal good of peaceful civilization.”
Münsterberg was to followed by Dr. Richard, the first President of a Peace Society in New York (the German Peace Society,) and then William T. Stead.
“There is some complaint from the gallery that they do not hear these speakers well,” said Carnegie. “Now, we have an original in the gallery, Mr. Stead, and he suggests that he will speak from where he stands and enable his neighbors to hear the weighty message he is going to deliver. I have great pleasure in introducing to you one of the most ardent spirits I know among all my friends.”[9] (Great Applause.)
W. T. Stead, editor of The Review of Reviews, and the occult journal, Borderland, was international advocate of peace. He arrived in New York on the Caronia on the evening of April 3, 1907, at the personal request of Carnegie, who wanted him to attend the opening of the Carnegie Institute (Pittsburg, Pennsylvania) and speak at the Arbitration and Peace Congress. Before checking-in at the Hotel Belmont, Stead granted an interview to a correspondent from The New York Times. “I have known Mr. Carnegie for more than twenty years,” said Stead, “it was in The Pall Mall Gazette that his Gospel of Wealth was first made famous in Europe, and since then down to the publication of his manifesto, My Partners, The People, I have always been in touch with him.”[10] Stead first met Carnegie in May 1884, when he was an editor of the Pall Mall Gazette. They had attended a “muscle-reading” by Stuart Cumberland in London along with Oscar Wilde, and Henry S. Olcott.[11]
Stead was an intrepid journalist, whose investigative reporting brought about tangible change in the world. Not long after he met Carnegie, Stead published his1885 article, “A Maiden Tribute To Modern Babylon,” which shined a light on child prostitution in England (and consequently influenced the legislation which raised the age of consent.)[12] The article also landed him in Britain’s Holloway Jail. While imprisoned, Stead began to envision a “Civil Church,” that would include people from all walks of life. “The Church is, or ought to be, a community of living men who are associated together with a distinct altruistic purpose,” he would say.[13]
In 1893 Stead paid a visit to America, where he lectured in Chicago, using themes that he wished to manifest in his “Civic Church.”[14] His experience in Chicago would lead him to write the Social Gospel novel, If Christ Came To Chicago.[15] Stead’s lectures, in turn, would inspire Ralph M. Easley, a reporter and editor for the political economics department of The Chicago Inter-Ocean, to developed a scheme for organized social reform (which he discussed with Stead.) This plan became the Civic Federation, an organization with six committees (philanthropic, municipal, political, industrial, moral, and educational) that quickly went to work reforming Chicago.[16] (Oscar Straus, the first speaker of the session, would become one of the main leaders of the National Civic Federation.)[17]
Stead’s Photographs Of Twain’s Hands.[18]
It was on his return to England that Stead met Mark Twain, as both were passengers on the City of New York.[19] The third issue of Stead’s new quarterly journal, Borderland, hit the stand a month earlier. With this new enterprise, Stead endeavored to popularize Psychical Research by publishing articles in that field which married the optimistic enthusiasm of religious sentiment with the scrutiny of empirical science.[20] Twain, who was also interested in “psychical research” agreed to participate in a palm-reading experiment for the benefit of the readers of Borderland. The two men became quick friends.[21] Regarding corruption, Twain told Stead on the steamer:
You see, they have such a hold upon all the agencies by which you can express public opinion. There is a great deal of cowardice, if you like to call it so, but cowardice is not the right word. It is a great principle in the human heart. I am not going to do anything that will deprive my wife and children of their daily bread, and as long as men are not willing to sacrifice their wives and children—as well as themselves in denouncing millionaires, the millionaires will have things pretty much their own way. There are some things upon which you can get public opinion roused. For instance, if it were to be proved that gas were so deadly as to poison people, nothing would be easier than to get up an agitation to pass a law sentencing any man who had a gas-jet in his possession to instant death. That would be easy enough, but the case of the monopolist is very different, and it is very difficult to see what can be done.[22]
(Left) Felix Moscheles.[23] (left) & (Right) W.T. Stead.[24]
Stead was an enthusiastic supporter of the Hague Peace Conference of 1899.[25] When a project for world disarmament was suggested by the Czar of Russia, Stead cabled Twain for his opinion on the matter.[26] It is no surprise that days after arriving for the American Peace Conference, (April 7) Stead would meet with Twain, who, at the time, was dictating his memoir in his home, at 21 Fifth Avenue.[27] Stead came to nominate Twain for his plan for selecting “one or two widely known men in each country and band them together in a commission, which shall visit all the presidents and crowned heads and persuade them to endorse and support a proposition to be laid before this year’s Hague Tribunal.” Twain declined the invitation. [28]
“Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,” Stead began, “I don’t know whether everyone in this great hall can hear my voice, speaking as I do, but if I should, by any accident, to drop my voice so that you cannot hear it, will you be good enough to shout out quick and sharp ‘speak up.’ (Laughter.) I have ten minutes allotted to me in which to speak to you, so I beg you sincerely not to rob me of any of my ten minutes by any applause. Now, Mr. Chairman, will you kindly look at your watch and if they take any of my ten minutes, will you add that on?” (Laughter.)
“I am here, in a certain sense, not as the representative of the British government; I never represented a government in my life, and I hope sincerely I never shall (laughter,) preferring, as I do, the position of much greater freedom than that which belongs to any representative of any government. No , I speak not for the government, I speak for the people. (Applause.) I stand here as an Englishman to appeal to you who are all or almost all English-speaking people, to join hand in hand with my countrymen to make this next Hague Conference even more memorable in the history of the world than the first Hague Conference, which owed its success, not its initiative, but its success to the fact that the United States and Great Britain stood together hand in hand as brothers true and tried before the nations of the world.
“The first thing to be done is to have a program. Although I was delighted with the Chairman’s fraternal rebuke to Professor Hugo Münsterberg, nevertheless I was extremely glad to hear what Professor Münsterberg said, because he reminded you of some facts, which, in a meeting like this where we are all very enthusiastic and very much of one mind, we are apt to forget—he reminded you, for instance, that in a meeting which wishes to do anything practical, the word ‘disarmament’ should never be spoken at all. (Applause.) I have been around Europe, and I have talked in every capital of Europe, and I came to hate the word disarmament as a devil hates holy water (laughter,) because the moment you talk about disarmament, people think you are going to ask them to disband their armies and stand defenseless against their neighbors whom they do not trust. I suppose no government in the world is going to propose this at the Hague Conference, no government in the world, certainly not our own, is going to be so foolish as to run its head against a stone wall by proposing that any power should disarm. Now, you don’t like that, some of you (laughter,) but it is a hard, cold fact. What are we, then, going to propose?—not that there should be any disarmaments, not that there should be any reduction of armaments; but simply that we should attempt to agree to prevent the continual, the mad, reckless increase of armaments which goes on year after year. (Applause.)
“It was proposed at the last Hague Conference that the Powers should arrest their armaments ; everyone agreed that it was very necessary, but they could not agree as to the form in which it was to be arranged, so it was referred to each of the governments to decide, to discuss, and to arrange. Ever since, the cost of armaments has gone up steadily, averaging for the last eight years fifty million dollars a year increase over and above that which was regarded in 1898 as an intolerable burden. Professor Münsterberg said that the Germans regarded the cost of the army and navy as insurance against fire risks. I agree, but is it rational that when a fire risk has gone down, the insurance premium should go up? (Laughter and applause.) Are we not as businessmen, practical men, entitled to ask that we should at least discuss whether in proportion as the world grows more peaceful, we might not at least arrange to stand by the maximum we have at present arrived at and agree for the term of the next five years that we will not exceed it? Believe me, for two months there has been very little else debated and argued between the great powers of Europe, except whether or not we should have permission even to discuss that, because Professor Münsterberg’s country did not think it was a practical proposition. Now, so much for argument.
“There is another question. Professor Münsterberg told us, and I believe, quite truly, that the German Emperor is a friend of peace. I know that when I was in Germany, I found the opinion of the Germans upon that subject absolutely unanimous ; and many of the Germans with whom I talked admitted it rue- fully, not liking it at all, saying that they thought that their Emperor’s peace-loving character was so well known by other nations that they traded upon it. (Laughter.) But all the same, Professor Münsterberg will admit that twelve months ago this very time there was hardly a Frenchman in all France who did not open his newspaper every morning expecting to find that the peace-loving Emperor had landed his indomitable army across the French frontiers. And why was there that dread? Why was there that great fear? I was talking to the most capable Foreign Minister of the German Empire. He admitted it was perfectly true the French did fear war was coming with Germany, that the German troops were meditating full march on Paris at any moment ;but he said there was no ground for that because he said he had been with the Emperor during the whole of that three months and never by word or sign did the Emperor ever show to even his most trusted Minister that he regarded war with France a possibility. (Applause.) If there could be that great misunderstanding and dread, that great horror of a possible war, which was not by any means confined to France, but existed in many other countries—My time is up. (Cries of “Go on! Go on!”)
“That man Stead could keep you here an hour,” interjected Carnegie. “He is wonderful, and he has been speaking ever since he landed in this country; and some of us, careful of his health, are taking care to limit him. Besides, we have other speakers, and I would like very much to hear him myself, but I must really ask you to allow the other speakers to speak; it is now after 10 o’clock, and all well-regulated families should have the heads of the families at home before 11 o’clock. We will now hear—”
“Mr. Carnegie, just one word more,” said Stead. “I have obeyed and am always ready to obey the ruling of the Chair, but I wish to make a suggestion to the Chair that when he exercises his rulings and insists, quite properly, upon the time table being adhered to, he should not apply it so hard upon me as to put it upon his regard for my health; and I have further to say to you that as he has done so, I only think it right to make this fair offer to him and this meeting, that after you have gotten through with the other speakers tonight, if you would like to stop and hear me, I am game to speak as long as you will listen.”
“Mr. Stead is going to have numerous opportunities to speak at other meetings,” said Carnegie. “We are holding him in reserve.”[29]
Andrew Carnegie as Chairman.[30]
SIXTH SESSION
April 16, 1907.
On April 16, 1907, the Sixth Session of the Conference was held. The first address was delivered by the Rabbi Stephen Wise, who opened the Free Synagogue in Manhattan just a few days earlier. He began his career as assistant Rabbi of Congregation B’nai Jeshurun in New York’s Upper West Side.[31] From 1900-1906 he served as Rabbi of the Congregation of Beth Israel in Portland, Oregon.[32] He was outspoken on child labor, and one of the founders of the A.C.L.U.[33] He was friends with Alexander Irvine, whom he considered “splendid.”[34]
Rabbi Stephen Wise.[35]
“In 1492, in a little town in Germany,” Wise began, “there lived a schoolmaster, who, every morning, as he crossed the threshold of his classroom, very reverently bowed before the assembled children. When he was asked the reason for his act, he replied: “Because the young boys now seated before me will in the years to come be the physicians, the lawyers, the priests, the burgomasters, the chancellors of the nation.” One of the boys to whom John Trebonius was wont to bow became one of the great figures of history—Martin Luther.
“Today, in the spirit of John Trebonius, we, the teachers, and parents of the Republic, by delegates assembled, turn to you young Americans, to you who are the heirs of the ages, to you standing in the foremost files of time, to you who will be the masters of tomorrow as we are the arbiters of today. Reverently we bow before you, and, knowing that our hopes will be in vain unless you choose to continue and magnify the work of this hour, we ask you, we adjure you to help the cause of the world’s peace, which is the cause of international justice and international right-doing. (Applause.) We, the elders here gathered, will soon be gone, but you, our children, will long survive us. and as we think of our high cause and look upon you, younger brothers and sisters of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, we are moved to exclaim with the poet: ‘For earth’s best hopes rest all with thee.’
“No need to ask you to be true to the flag, for you are American girls and boys. For the same reason, because you are representatives of young America, we expect you to be true to the sacred trust to which you are committed by the word and song of this hour.
“To you, the youth of America, we address our appeal, because to-morrow you will be the sovereigns of this democracy which knows no other sovereignty than its citizenship. (Applause.)
“You may ask me this afternoon: ‘What can we young Americans do on behalf of peace? Is not World Peace merely a dream?’ I answer: America, this American democracy, was a dream until your fathers made it real. You ask me: ‘Can the way leading to Peace be traveled without arduous pioneering?’ I answer : ‘The American is a pioneer by virtue alike of the heritage of his history and his destiny.’ The Pilgrim Fathers were pioneers. The men who settled Jamestown three hundred years ago were pioneers. Lewis and Clark, who won a continent for their country without shedding one drop of human blood, were pioneers. Young Americans, yours it is to be pioneers in every true and high cause of the world.
“You ask me finally: ‘What can we, Young America, achieve in the cause of Peace?’ Let me remind you that this is not the first International Peace Congress held upon American soil. There was another Peace and Arbitration Congress held two years ago at Portsmouth, which ended one of the bloodiest wars in history and brought Peace to two hundred millions of people in Russia and Japan. That Arbitration Congress and that Peace were made possible by the courage and statesmanship of a one-time New York boy—Theodore Roosevelt. (Cries of Hip! Hip! Hurrah! were echoed by the boys in the chorus.)
“Again, I say unto you that you can do everything in the cause of Peace. Remember that in this land of ours all the races, all the peoples, all the faiths of the world are being brought together and are being fused into one great and indivisible whole, as if to prove that, if men will but come near enough together to know one another, whatever their nationality, their race, their religion, hatred and ill-will and prejudice and all uncharitableness are sure to pass away. Herein let America pioneer. Our country seems destined in the Providence of God to be the meeting place of all the peoples, to be the world’s experimental station in brotherhood—all of us learning that other nations are not barbarians, that other races are not inferior, that other faiths are not Godless. War will be and must be as long as we hate the stranger. We are to teach the world that moral, not military, preparedness makes war inevitable, as moral preparedness for Peace makes war impossible. He is no true Christian who harbors hatred of a Jew in his heart. (Applause.) He is no true American who cherishes ill-will toward German or Frenchman or Englishman or Austrian.
“I turn to you, teachers of the land, and urge your higher duty. You are not to teach history as if the American Revolution had not yet ended or had ended yesterday. It ended more than one hundred years ago. Instead of execrating King George and Lord North in our classrooms, let us in the great American cities raise monuments in gratitude to Pitt, who in the House of Lords, said: “I contend not for indulgence but for justice to America” (applause,) and to Edmund Burke, who thundered at the House of Commons, “I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people.” Let us forget with charity the Union’s foes across the sea in the days of civil strife, and remember with gratitude John Bright, friend of the Union, and Queen Victoria, our truest friend in the dark years of ‘61-65. (Applause.)
“I close by reminding you that, after the Battle of Koeniggrätz had been won by the Germans, Bismarck said: “The school-master has conquered.” I say to you today that the greater conquest of the school-master begins in this hour. The school-master and his pupils have nobly conquered when the Peace of justice and righteousness shall obtain in the world. Beautiful ever is our flag, but never, never, never has our flag seemed as beautiful as today, surrounded by the flags of the nations and bordered by the stainless white of Peace and love and brotherhood. Under the inspiration of this hour, do you, young America, highly resolve touching the flags of the nations, in the words of Tennyson: “Our flags together furled, Henceforward no other strife, Than which of us most shall help the world, Which lead the noblest life.”[36]
Young People’s Meeting, April 16, 1907. Carnegie Hall.[37]
Stead was the fourth and final speaker that evening.
“Ladies and Gentlemen,” said Chairman Buchanan. “The next and last speaker of this evening will be one who brings the message of Peace from a foreign land. Our speakers so far this evening have all been from our own country. The next speaker is a gentleman who has been identified with the International Peace Movement since its inception. I refer to Mr. William T. Stead, the editor of the London Review of Reviews. (Great applause.) I have been requested to announce that Mr. Stead will speak from this platform on Friday evening under the auspices of the People’s Institute, I believe.”
“Yes,” said Smith.
“On What topic?” Buchanan asked.
“Mr. Stead will tell,” Smith replied.
“Mr. Chairman—”
“You’re alright, William!” shouted a voice from the audience.
“I am all right!” said Stead. “There is nothing the matter with me. (Great applause.) But you are not alright! (Renewed applause and laughter.) I must speak plain to you. I don’t think you are a satisfactory audience at all. (Great applause and laughter.) I am ashamed of you. (Renewed laughter.) And I tell you why I am ashamed of you because you seem to be perfectly ready to agree to absolutely contradictory doctrines from the speakers on this platform. When I came in, I heard Mr. Gompers declaring that disarmament was absolutely impossible, and criminal, unless we all disarmed together, and you cheered that. Then I heard Mr. Crapsey saying, that is not right, and you cheered that. (Renewed applause and laughter.) Now I do not think that is sensible. (Applause.) And you cheered that. (Renewed applause and laughter.)
“Now I think there cannot be a greater mistake than to be too peaceful. It is because the peaceful people are so horribly peaceful that the warlike people get it all their own way. You remember that Archbishop Paley one time was told by a clergyman as follows: ‘My wife and I have been married for twenty-five years and we have never had a row.’ And Archbishop Paley said to him: ‘M y dear sir, what an awfully dull life you must have had!’ (Great laughter.) I tell you another reason why I don’t like you. (Great laughter.) At all the peace meetings I have been at since I came to New York there was no kick back from any of you. Now what I feel is that when you get close to a man, he ought in some way or another to indicate that he does not agree with you. Now, you don’t ever say anything in America no matter what the speaker says. He may talk the greatest tommyrot in the world (laughter), and you are all so polite you let him go on talking. (Laughter.) Now what you want to do in this world, when a fellow makes a fool of himself, is to tell him so; and if you find that I am making a fool of myself, why for God’s sake tell me so and quick. (Applause and laughter.)
William T. Stead.[38]
“Now, I want you to understand, after having made these preliminary complimentary observations (laughter), which I hope will have the desired effect of inducing you to express your dissent with appropriate emphasis when you differ from me, I want to say one or two words to you, as representatives of American labor.
“I bring to you a message from Mr. W. R. Cremer, one of the oldest workingmen members in Parliament. (Applause.) He has often been to America. He was the man who first originated the idea of the Interparliamentary Union, and he received the Nobel prize and immediately gave it away for the purpose of promoting peace and arbitration, although he was only a working man. (Applause.) He desires me to say to you that he sends a message of heartfelt sympathy, and regrets very much that he cannot be here to speak to you himself. He would have been very glad to have been here, but Parliament is in session, and he is an old man, going on eighty, but in heart and soul he is with you today. So much for the message with which I am charged.
“Now, I want to say a few practical things. We have heard a great deal this evening of ideas that deal with war in the abstract, and peace in the abstract, and various other things. That part of the subject has been so very well and fully dealt with, you will perhaps pardon me if I venture to say one or two practical things.
“We in England look to you in America to redeem your character and reputation, which have been very much battered of late years. (Laughter and applause.) There was a time, when I was a boy, when we looked to the great Republic of the West as the home of freedom, as the place where every working man had a fair chance to get to the top, where there were no great fortunes, where there were no peers, where there was no established Church—a land which was the home of liberty, the home of opportunity, the place for the laboring men of the world. Well, of late years that is not the kind of idea we have had of America. We may be mistaken, but what we have in our country as the idea of America is that you have developed bigger fortunes than anybody else in the world; and judging from the speeches which I have heard from the lips of Mr. Carnegie, there is no greater misfortune that can befall any man than to be a millionaire. (Laughter.) And the growth of these enormous fortunes has made it very difficult for the small man to get to the top. The equality of opportunity which we used to think belonged to you, seems to have dwindled away; and in place of the passionate enthusiasm for liberty and freedom which we used to identify with your people, your sympathy for liberty and freedom throughout the world, we hear a great deal about graft—curious word that! (Laughter.) A word which I will not attempt to translate into my ordinary English, for fear I might make a mistake. (Laughter.)
“We hear a great deal concerning the extraordinary methods of getting rich. what may be called, I suppose, legalized highway robbery. ( Great laughter and applause.) In short, the fine old American ideal, in which I was brought up when I was a boy, has been very largely overclouded and eclipsed by things which I do not think you like any better than we do, but still there is in the American heart and in the American brain a great belief in the common man, the ordinary man, the ordinary woman.
“There is one thing, almost the only thing that I find in your country in which you preserve somewhat the old idea of democracy; and that is this, that your waiter and your shoeblack, and your barber and your chambermaid all shake hands with you and talk to you as if you were all Dukes and Counts and Countesses together. (Laughter.) That is very pleasant to me, for it is a very fine lingering relic of the traditions of the good old time. But I must say that when many Americans come_ over to our country, they drop that good tradition very precious short and are much more exclusive than the English aristocracy itself. (Laughter and applause.)
“What we want to do and what I am over here largely to ask you to do, is to ascertain whether it is possible for the American enthusiasm, the distinctly American democratic enthusiasm that believes in equality of opportunity, that believes in democratic government, that is not run entirely by bosses and governed by graft, which believes that all men are equal and that all men should have a fair chance, and that differences, instead of being settled by the methods of the battlefield should be referred to courts-whether it is possible for that element to be brought into activity again. We want to revive the old American ideals before the peoples of Europe.
“I can assure you, speaking from very wide experience in European nations, that the general opinion of Europe is that the American is a dreadfully smart man who has got a great deal of money, a man who is very unscrupulous as to the way in which he makes this money and very lavish in the way in which he spends it, and that his great object is to have a good time. That is the American in England, the American in Europe, the pleasure-seeking American, the American who has money to burn, who goes to Monte Carlo and Paris and all that—and that is the last man in the world to whom you should look for any ideal or any great enthusiasm.
“I believe there is still enthusiasm, there is still faith in humanity on the part of the American people, and I want to get it manifested. I want it brought home to. the people in Europe. Now, there is one particular proposal with which I have been identified in England and which I wish to recommend to you as a sample of what we want to get done at the Hague Conference, and I want you to help to get it done. You know at the present moment that Monarchies—which you all despise, of course, I presume—as free-born Republicans—Monarchies have at least more common sense than Republics in one thing, and that is that Monarchies recognize the Monarchs. They recognize that because they are governing countries side by side with each other, it is very important they should be on neighborly terms; that they should not quarrel more than is absolutely necessary; that they should be a little chummy among themselves, visit each other, dine with each other, correspond with each other, and in short show hospitality to each other. Now, Democracies have never learned that fundamental lesson. We have democratized many things in the Old World, and you have been a Democracy from the first, but you have never democratized hospitality; neither have we, but we hope to begin.
“We have heard a great deal concerning the various Squires upon this platform tonight. (Laughter.) We in England always consider when a man sticks “Esquire” after his name, it is a kind of intimation-unless the man is legally entitled to the word Esquire-that it is the mark of a snob. Plain ‘Mr.’ is all right. Now you have crowned a lot of spurious Esquires; you will be getting some Knights, Dukes, Counts and Princes before long. But you have in your Labor Unions men who correspond to the old Dukes and Feudal Princes of old times. They are not hereditary leaders. but they are leaders. (Applause.) And they have got thousands and hundreds of thousands of men at their backs. But where is there a government in the world that will recognize Mr. Gompers as a Prince? Yet he is far more important than many of the tuppeny ha’penny Princes we have. (Applause.) We maintain that if we are going to inaugurate an era of democracy based on fellowship and Peace among the nations, we must practice hospitality to the leaders of democracy and especially to the leaders of organized labor.
“You say, how can you do that? Very simply, my friends, if you’ve got two things: First, common sense and good-will: secondly, the money with which to do it. It is precisely to that question of money that I am coming now. Do you think it is reasonable that a government should try to maintain Peace only by preparing for war, instead of endeavoring to work for Peace by promoting peaceful sentiments among its people? We on England have studied this matter carefully, and we have come to the conclusion practically, that the time has arrived when every government in the civilized world should make an appropriation every year for the purpose of showing hospitality to other nations, and for the purpose of promoting Peace and good-will among- its own people. And by way of beginning, it has been proposed that we should ask the governments of the civilized world at the Hague Conference to set aside, say, one red cent for Peace and hospitality for every ten dollars that they spend upon powder and shot. (Applause.) One red cent—decimal one percent of the army and navy appropriations—to be spent in promoting good feeling among the peoples by an interchange of hospitality.
“Do you know how much that would mean in our country? It would mean that we should have about three hundred thou sand dollars a year to spend in promoting Peace by promoting good feeling, good neighborliness, showing hospitality to the representatives of the people, whether they be Trade Union leaders, Members of Congress, distinguished artists, men of science, any person who serves his country. These people ought to be received, ought to be welcomed, ought to be entertained. Now we want your support in your country to the proposition that instead of spending all your money to preserve Peace by making preparation for war, you should spend one dollar in every thousand upon the more practical methods of promoting brotherly love and kindly feelings among the peoples. (Applause.)
“We want to get you to be really aroused on this question-which I am very sure of, because when a man gets really aroused, there is always more fight in him than there seems to be in the kind of meetings I have addressed. You know in war one of the things you have to do is to get in touch with your enemy by making a reconnaissance in force. By that means you feel out your enemy and know where to plant your shot in the midst of him. We have been making. a great many reconnaissances in force, but I do not think we have drawn anybody’s fire anywhere upon our movement except one miser able tupenny ha’penny person who seemed to think it was much better to use the soldiers against his own country than against a foreign foe. (Cries of “Hear, Hear.”) I am glad that one person approves energetically, but will nobody disapprove as energetically?
“Now, if you are really going to work this business, you have got to set to work practically. How can you bring your feeling, your opinion, your convictions to bear upon the government? Only in one way, my friends. You must band yourselves together and make yourselves an intolerable nuisance to everyone who does not do what you want. (Laughter.) There is but one way of getting anything from any government and that is by making it uncomfortable for them not to go your way. (Laughter and applause.) Then make it more uncomfortable for them to go other peoples’ way than yours. All the people who make money out of war, and supply war material, have an enormous mass of family interests in the army, in the navy, in those who are building ships—the bread and butter of these people depend on army expenditures, on navy expenditures, going on and going on; and if you do not band yourselves together and make it very hot for people who do not do what you want, the organized interests which represent the expenditures will down you every. time.
“Now, there has been a great deal said about organized labor banding together. I am very glad that I can bear witness tonight that in England organized labor has stood the test and stood it very well on the subject of Peace and war. It is all very well to throw our caps up into the air when there is no war thunder heard, no madness in the population, but when we are in a war, where our own countrymen are fighting against a foreign foe, it takes a good deal of grit, a good deal of earnest ness to stand up against your own government and denounce it, and expose yourself to the accusation of denouncing your own countrymen who are dying on the field of battle for the honor of your flag. (Great applause.) But all labor men—we did not have very many in Parliament then—were, with one solitary exception, I believe, absolutely as a unit against that abominable South African war. They stood as a rock, and they had their reward. They went back to their constituencies, some twenty or thirty, and they came back nearly a hundred strong—a hundred labor members there are at present in the House of Commons—and Peace men every one of them. That is a good record. (Applause.)
“But what we want you to do, the organized labor men of this country, is to back up the organized labor of European countries. We have a far greater burden of armaments than you have. The war pressure is far more keenly felt by us than it is by you. You are a great, free and practically unlooted country; your great treasures are unappropriated. You have only scratched the surface of the treasure house of the world in which you live. We are living in an old world. We want a fresh breath of the American enthusiasm to encourage us to keep on fighting. And so it is that I propose, and I hope on Friday night, when I am here to discuss more at length with you and in a more informal fashion than I am doing now, the proposal that representative Americans of international reputation—including a fair proportion of the representatives of organized labor, men whom I will venture to name in the provisional list which I submit, including Mr. Gompers, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Terence Powderly—should be sent by peace-loving American citizens as a deputation to Europe to appeal to the peoples of Europe, especially appealing to the organized labor of Europe, to join with them in making an appeal to every government in the Old World, to support a strong and a peaceful and a progressive program at the Hague Conference.[39] (Applause.) I believe it would be a useful thing and a very admirable thing, if, instead of confining your export of traveling Americans to wealthy millionaires and society women, you would send some of the representatives of labor to meet the representatives of labor in other countries-I believe that if such a deputation made a pilgrimage, as I might call it, it would shake society and give new hope and courage to all those who are struggling for the right in the Old World.
“The route that has been mapped out, for the delegation is to start from New York, after having waited upon the President and the Secretary of State at Washington; go to England, where they would be joined by twelve British pilgrims, see our King and our Government, see our representative men, and make them see and understand that America is in earnest about this question. Then, adding the twelve British pilgrims to their number, they would go over to France and repeat the same operation there; and from France go on to Rome ; from Rome to Vienna; to Budapest; from there to St. Petersburg; and then return, stopping at Berlin, Brussels, and then on to The Hague, where the International Deputation, consisting of one hundred of the best and brainiest and most peace-loving citizens of the world, would lay before the President of the Hague Conference the prayer of all peace-loving citizens regardless of nationality. And at this great meeting of the Parliament of the world, the first Parliament of the world ever assembled, good use could be made of that deputation. Definite steps would be taken first to establish the principles of a peace budget, by which there should be a small appropriation made every year for the active work of the Peace Movement and the promotion of hospitality; secondly, for the excommunication, the placing under the ban of the world, every nation which went to war without first asking special mediation to see whether the quarrel could be adjusted amicably-allowing these special mediators thirty days’ time in which to make Peace; thirdly, for an arbitration treaty to cover every question not of primary importance, but for secondary questions not affecting vital interests, not affecting national honor, a treaty by which all nations shall bind themselves to refer all such questions to arbitration. Then lastly, they could appeal to the Conference to do something practical to stop the headlong race to ruin and perdition that is going on in the continual increase of the armaments of the world.
“I know that there are some people who want to go in for a program of disarmament. My dear friends, I have no objection to anybody who wants to bring the Kingdom of Heaven down to this world by return of post. (Laughter.) It is an admirable thing to want to do, but a difficult thing to get done. And so the question of disarmament will not be discussed at this Hague Conference. If it had been proposed to discuss disarmament, many of the great powers would not have put their foot inside the Hague Conference. What will be discussed, thanks to the persistence both of Great Britain and America, will be the question whether or not it is possible for the next term of, say, five years, for the nations to agree not to increase their armaments beyond the point which they have at present reached. (Applause.) That would be the beginning, the first practical halt-step; after that, if we find that in five years, we have not increased our armaments, that we have kept faith with each other, then we might perhaps simultaneously reduce our armaments, so that we would not alter the relative fighting strength between one power and another. But one thing at a time. Creep before you walk, walk before you run, and run before you fly; and if you will try, as the former speakers at this Peace Congress seemed to want to do, to start flying right straight up at once, you will only break your neck and you won’t get a bit farther. (A Voice: Good!)
“Now, my friends, I am very glad that I have had the opportunity of speaking to you just a little to-night, because I think I have given you a taste of my quality. (Applause and laughter.) My quality is the quality of a man who goes straight to his point, trailing his coat for somebody to tread on and very much disappointed when he cannot get anybody to disagree with him (laughter), because it is horribly monotonous talking to people that hold the same opinions.”
A Peace Congress Audience. Carnegie Hall.[41]
“I disagree with you,” shouted a man in the audience.
“You do?” said Stead.
“I do.”
“Good, good, good,” said Stead, “come along.” (Applause.)
“I maintain, that in spite of all that you have said, there can never be permanent Peace under the present I system of exploitation for profit. (Applause.) We know that. There is another thing in which I disagree with you.”
“May I just say one word before you go to the second point? May I ask you—”
“If you want, I will sit down.”
(Cries of Order! Order!)
“Go on,” said Stead.
“I did not mean to break up the meeting,” the man replied.
“You are not breaking it up,” said Stead. “You are livening it up!”
“The second thing, you want Mr. Gompers and these men when they go to England to be honored. Why do you say that those men who are upon the backs of labor are the leaders of labor? So far. the leaders of labor are not yet here. These men take advantage of our brutal ignorance to work upon it with their speeches. We are very ignorant and do not know our real leaders, yet you encourage us to show respect to these leaders you have spoken of. You talk about genius We made the geniuses. (Cries of Order, Order). One of the speakers has mentioned Carlyle. But she did not read what he; says about hero-worship. There is one more thing where I disagree with you. You have all ignored tonight what International Socialism has done toward Peace.” (Applause, and a voice “Good Boy!”)
“Now we are going to have some fun!” said Stead. (Applause. Laughter.) “Now, in the first place the speaker who has just sat down said he disagreed with me. (Tumult and cries of “Order I Order!”) I take one at a time. (Laughter.) He said that he disagreed with me because he said that nothing could be done to secure permanent Peace until the present organization of society for the exploitation for profit was done away with. I should like to ask that speaker, how he knows that I do not agree with him. I said nothing to show that I did not. (Applause. Laughter.) Secondly, he says that Mr. Gompers and Mr. Powderly and Mr. Mitchell—”
“I did not mention Mitchell.”
“Well, I will accept the correction—that the people I mention are not the real leaders of the working classes of America.”
“No.”
“Well, my friends,” said Stead, “I have a good deal of what you may call confidence, and I am ready to do a good many things, but I should not want to attempt to nominate the men who are the leaders of the working classes of America. The men composing the American Federation of Labor are capable of choosing the right kind of men, are they not? I wouldn’t have the impudence to say that they were not, for I am a foreigner; I don’t know. If you think that that organization of laborers of America are fools, you are entitled to your opinion, but, as an Englishman, I would not dare to say so. (Laughter. Applause.) There is a gentleman over there,” said Stead, pointing to another man.
“Answer the third question,” said the man. “The Socialist Movement.”
“Yes, I beg your pardon. I understood you to ask me whether International Socialism had done anything to promote Peace? I think that International Socialism has distinctly been a good influence in putting the fear of God into the hearts of the various nations. (Applause.) I think that the dread of the growth of Socialism is the one terror which appeals to some persons who are very strongly in favor of going on with more and more military expenditures, to think once and twice and even thrice before they go farther in that direction. But may I give you one word of advice? I give it to you with the best good will in the world. Do not assume that a man disagrees with you until you have proof that he does. (Applause and cries of “Hear! Hear!”)
“You’re all right, Billy!” shouted a man in the left-hand corner of the hall.
“As Chairman of this meeting I want to lay down the rules which govern these questions,” said Buchanan. “Mr. Stead very graciously is willing to face any questions, and he has shown his ability to answer, but in the absence of the officials of the American Federation of Labor here, I will not tolerate any assault upon their reputations or character. (Applause. Cheering.) If you desire to ask any questions that involve principle, I am satisfied Mr. Stead will answer them, but you must not insult the American labor movement by impugning the motives of its leaders. (Applause.) I won’t have it.”
“These men that Mr. Stead wants to send to Europe are, as a matter of fact, the leaders of the working men in America today,” said another man in the audience. “We know that. Whether they should be or not is another question. I am not going to say anything about that. I want to say that I differ with you, Mr. Stead. When you got up there at first, you said you were surprised that you could have talked so much at all these Peace Meetings, and nobody ever come back at you. If you came to the Cooper Union meetings held here every week, you would find that at all these meetings we always get back at the speaker. And the only reason that you and the rest of the speakers up there to night have it all your own way was because there were so many of you there. (Laughter.) We had to give you a chance. But I want to say this: that I thoroughly agree in some respects with my friend on the left. There is a force making for International Peace in the world today, and it has done more for International Peace than all the Hague Conferences held for the past seventy-five years. (A voice, “Good Boy!”) Chancellor von Buelow, of the German Empire, has stated distinctly that the greatest force making for International Peace in the world today is the international movement of the Socialist party of the world. (Applause, and a voice, “Good Boy!”) Chancellor von Buelow ought to know, because he was preceded by Bismarck, the man of “blood and iron,” and that man of blood and iron tried to stop the Socialist movement for ten years but came to the conclusion that the best thing to do was to conciliate the Socialist movement; and so he tried to conciliate it then, but it kept growing and growing all the time. And notwithstanding—the fact that the International Socialist movement has done more for Peace than all the Hague Conferences that ever were held, there was not a single word said about it here tonight upon the- platform. There was not a single person invited to speak who was known to be a Socialist and who would speak upon International Peace from a Socialist standpoint. (Applause and cheering and cries of “Good Boy!”) I will tell you one more thing, and then I will be through. (Cries of “Order! Order! Sit down! Sit down!”) Can I say (A voice, “Say it !”) they were going to send an expedition from the German Empire to help the Czar of Russia to put down a rebellion in Russia, but the leader of the Social Democracy, August Bebel, told the German Emperor that if that fleet was sent, he would have trouble in his own domain. (Applause.) Almost the same thing happened in your own country when they were going to send a fleet out to shake hands with Russia, and if I recollect aright, your own labor members told them to keep that fleet away. Those are the things that are making for International Peace, and I tell you that they will make for International Peace. If that committee you speak about, that you would like to have visit England, if they were to visit there, they would not be much needed, because we are going to send over about fifty now, and if those fifty men cannot do it, then your sixty men cannot do it. If those sixty that you have spoken about will go to President Roosevelt and in the name of organized labor of the United States demand that he shall not build any more battleships for another year and a half, until 1909, then they would have something to present to the other nations, who might follow in our wake. Unless something of that kind is done, nothing substantial will take place.”(Great applause.)
Another man in the audience chimed in. “I want to say with reference to the speaker of the evening and the first question, Mr. Stead wrote a book in which he described Chicago and the great Pullman Strike. Mr. Stead stated in that book that capitalism was not the evil from which the workingman suffered. So Mr. Stead cannot agree with the first questioner in regard to the first question unless he has changed his mind since those days. I don’t know. Mr. Stead stated plainly in that book that it was not capitalism from which the working class suffered. That was during the great Pullman strike in Chicago. I still have the book in my possession.”
“I should like very much to see that book,” said Stead. “I do not remember the passage you refer to. I should be very glad to see it.”
“I want to say that my attention has been called to the fact that the time at which the trustees of this institute expects these meetings to close has passed,” said Buchanan. “Now, if this is permitted to go on, we shall be here until morning, because some people are willing to stay until morning to get in their questions and talk on the floor. We cannot permit this. Mr. Stead has been very generous in giving up his time in this way.”
“I like it, my friends,” said Stead.
“Mr. Stead likes it, and we are glad he does like it, and we do not dislike it ourselves,” said Buchanan, “but Mr. Smith will explain the situation.”
“The janitors of the building live at a considerable distance from the building,” said Smith, “and they want to go home and get sleep so as to get up and do a day’s work tomorrow.”
“One thing before you go,” said Stead.
“Mr. Stead wants a word in conclusion,” said Buchanan.
“On Friday night I am going to be here again—”
“Silence, so you can hear Mr. Stead,” shouted Smith.
“I am going to be here on Friday night at eight o’clock,” Stead continued, “and I will give you a talk of an hour, and then we will have two hours of hoggey-boggey, and I hope that you won’t be deterred by having so many on the platform. In fact, if you like, there shall be nobody on the platform but myself and the chairman. That will give you an opportunity for questioning, but I do hope that when we come to the questioning you will stick to the point and put definite questions, asking for information, and I will answer to the best of my ability. I look forward with great joy to our having a really good time Friday night.”[42]
The Banquet. April 17, Astor Hotel.[43]
PEOPLE OF THE UNDERWORLD
I. INTERCOLLEGIATE SOCIALIST SOCIETY.
II. THE CRY OF PEONAGE.
III. MUCKERS.
IV. GALLAGHER’S HELL.
V. PUNK.
VI. SOUDAN.
VII. BOWERY.
SOURCES:
[1] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 10.
[2] “Choral Service Ushers in the Peace Sessions.” The Post-Standard. (Syracuse, New York) April 15, 1907.
[3] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 47.
[4] “The Progress of The World.” The American Review of Reviews. Vol. XXIII, No. 1. (January 1901): 3-23; Van Norman, Louis E. “Ambassador Straus, The Man for the Emergency in Turkey.” The American Review of Reviews. Vol. XXXIX, No. 6. (June 1909): 685-688.
[5] Griscom, Lloyd C. Diplomatically Speaking. The Literary Guild of America. New York, New York. (1940): 136.
[6] Johnston, Charles. “The New Secretary of Commerce and Labor.” Harper’s Weekly. Vol. L, No. 2604. (November 17, 1906): 1647, 1651; Adler, Cyrus. “Oscar S. Straus: A Biographical Sketch.” The American Jewish Yearbook. Vol. XXIX. (1928): 145-155.
[7] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 62.
[8] Sommer, Andreas. “Psychical Research and the Origins of American Psychology: Hugo Munsterberg, William James and Eusapia Palladino.” History of the Human Sciences. Vol. XXV, No. 2 (2012: 23–44.
[9] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 74.
[10] “W.T. Stead Here to Talk Peace.” The New York Times. (New York, New York) April 4, 1907.
[11] “Muscle Reading By Mr. Stuart Cumberland. ” The Pall Mall Gazette. (London, England) May 24, 1884; Dibb, Geoff. “Oscar Wilde and The Mystics. Thought Transference, The Detection Of Crime And Finding A Pin.” The Wildean. No. 42 (January 2013): 82-99.
[12] Gorham, Deborah. “The ‘Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon’ Re-Examined: Child Prostitution and the Idea of Childhood in Late-Victorian England.” Victorian Studies. Vol. XXI, No. 3 (Spring 1978): 353–379.
[13] “The Church of the Future” in: Blathwayt, Raymond. Interviews. A.W. Hall, “Great Thoughts” Office. London, England. (1893): 59-67.
[14] Smith, Gary Scott. “When Stead Came To Chicago: The ‘Social Gospel Novel’ And The Chicago Civic Federation.” American Presbyterians. Vol. LXVIII, No. 3 (Fall 1990): 193-205.
[15] Stead, William T. If Christ Came To Chicago! The Office Of The Review Of Reviews. London, England. (1894):
[16] Smith, Gary Scott. “When Stead Came To Chicago: The ‘Social Gospel Novel’ And The Chicago Civic Federation.” American Presbyterians. Vol. LXVIII, No. 3 (Fall 1990): 193-205.
[17] Straus, Oscar Solomon. Under Four Administrations. Houghton Mifflin. Boston, Massachusetts. (1922): 102, 120, 123-128.
[18] Stead, W.T. “A Remarkable Double Test In Palmistry.” Borderland. Vol. I, No. 5 (July 1894): 460-463; Stead, W.T. “Character Reading By Palmistry And Otherwise: The Story Of The Tell-Tale Hands Of Mark Twain.” Borderland. Vol. II, No. 1 (January 1895): 60-65.
[19] “Mark Twain Interviewed.” The Boston Globe. (Boston, Massachusetts) April 1, 1894.
[20] Stead, W.T. “How We Intend To Study Borderland.” Borderland. Vol. I, No. 1 (July 1894): 1-6.
[21] Stead, W.T. “A Remarkable Double Test In Palmistry.” Borderland. Vol. I, No. 5 (July 1894): 460-463; Stead, W.T. “Palmistry: Test Readings Of Mark Twain’s Hands.” Borderland. Vol. I, No. 6 (October 1894): 558-560; Stead, W.T. “Character Reading By Palmistry And Otherwise: The Story Of The Tell-Tale Hands Of Mark Twain.” Borderland. Vol. II, No. 1 (January 1895): 60-65; Stead, W.T. “Psychic Healing.” Borderland. Vol. I, No. 4 (April 1895): 323-326.
[22] Stead, W.T. “Character Sketch: Mark Twain.” The Review Of Reviews. Vol. XVI, No. 2 (August 1897): 122-133.
[23] “[Blavatsky’s house was a] center of attraction and of thought, and one would meet at times almost every ‘notable’ of the London world, religious, political, or artistic. Felix Moscheles, Robert Browning, Whistler, and Alma Tadema were among those of my own especial friends whom I have seen at Mme. Blavatsky’s, and of course there were distinguished visitors from other countries almost without number.” “Mme. Blavatsky.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch. (St. Louis, Missouri) May 13, 1891.
[24] Stead, W.T. “Some Pages of a Busy Life.” The Review Of Reviews. Vol. XIX (January-June 1899): 537-543.
[25] “Peace Congress Opens Tomorrow.” The New York Journal and Advertiser (New York, New York) May 17, 1899.
[26] In the beginning of 1899 Twain’s family were living in Vienna. Their rooms were so often thronged with distinguished people, it was sometimes called the “Second Embassy.” Twain was the central figure of these assemblies, and of all the foreign visitors in the Austrian capital, he was the most notable. Everywhere he went he was surrounded by crowds of listeners, and his opinions were widely quoted. Twain replied to Stead that same day: ““Peace by compulsion. That seems better idea than the other. Peace by persuasion has a sound, but I think we should not be able to work. We should have to tame the human race first, and history seems to show that that cannot be done. Can’t we reduce the armaments little by little—on a pro rata basis—by concert of the powers? Can’t we get four great powers to agree to reduce their strength 10 percent a year and thrash the others into doing likewise? For, of course we cannot expect all of the powers to be in their right minds at one time. It has been tried. We are not going to try to get all of them to go into the scheme peaceably, are we? In that case I must withdraw my influence; because for business reasons I must preserve the outward signs of sanity.” [Twain, Mark; Pain, Albert Bigelow (ed.) Mark Twain’s Letters: Arranged with Comment, Volume II. Harper & Brothers Publishers. New York, New York. (1917): 672-674.]
[27] “H.W. Fisher Addresses Chamber.” The Orlando Evening Star. (Orlando, Florida) November 10, 1925.
[28] Twain, Mark (author); Griffin, Benjamin; Smith, Harriet Elinor (editors.) The Autobiography of Mark Twain: Vol. III. The University of California Press. Berkeley, California. (2015): 20-22.
[29] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 74-77.
[30] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 26.
[31] “For Free Synagogue.” The New York Tribune. (New York, New York) April 15, 1907; Medoff, Rafael. The Jews Should Keep Quiet. University Of Nebraska Press. Lincoln, Nebraska. (2019): 2-3, 117.
[32] “Rev. Dr. Wise Surprises Emanu-El Trustees.” The New York Times. (New York, New York) January 7, 1906.
[33] “Praise For Dr. Wise.” The New York Tribune. (New York, New York) December 21, 1908.
[34] Wise, Stephen S., Polier, Justine Wise; Wise, James Waterman (eds.) The Personal Letters of Stephen Wise. The Beacon Press. Boston, Massachusetts. (1956): 127.
[35] Harris & Ewing, photographer. Wise, Stephen. Rabbi. , None. [Between 1905 and 1945] Photograph. https://www.loc.gov/item/2016860243/.
[36] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 180-183.
[37] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 162.
[38] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 77.
[39] Samuel Gompers was the President of the American Federation of Labour. [Whittaker, William George. “Samuel Gompers, Anti-Imperialist.” Pacific Historical Review. Vol. XXXVIII, No. 4 (November 1969): 429–445.] John Mitchell was a United States labor leader and President of the United Mine Workers of America from 1898 to 1908. [Phelan, Craig. “The Making Of A Labor Leader: John Mitchell And The Anthracite Strike Of 1900.” Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies. Vol. LXIII, No. 1 (Winter 1996): 53–77.] Terrence Vincent Powderly was the Grand Master Workman of the Noble Order of the Knights of Labor from 1879 to 1893. His influence led to the passing of the Alien Contract Labor Law (1885) and the creation of Labor Bureaus and Arbitration Boards in many states. [Carman, Harry J. “Terence Vincent Powderly—An Appraisal.” The Journal of Economic History. Vol. I, No. 1 (May 1941): 83–87.]
[40] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 245.
[41] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 245.
[42] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 252-266.
[43] Ely, Robert Erskine (ed.) Proceedings of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress. American Peace Congress. New York, New York. (1907): 394.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In