NAWSA     Subject File    New York State Suffrage Assocs.
                                                     

DO YOU WANT THE "SPECIAL AND 
INTIMATE SERVANT" OF BOSS 
BARNES FOR NEW YORK'S 
SENATOR?
 
If you do not, then Vote Against Wadsworth.  
"Barnes' Special and Intimate Servant" 
was the way Colonel Roosevelt described 
Senator Wadsworth in a speech in 
New York City on October 30, 1914. Few 
men knew more about New York politics 
than Theodore Roosevelt.  One of his greatest 
contributions to clean politics was the 
breaking of the Barnes Machine in New York 
State.  Now that ROOSEVELT is dead
Barnes is determined to come back through
Wadsworth. BLOCK HIM.

The Highest Party-Loyalty Consists in
Protecting the Party's Honor.

When a Party Nominates a Man Whose 
Record Makes Him an Unfit Candidate, 
it is the Duty of the Loyal Members of 
That Party to Bring About His Defeat.

Pg. 4


1920 [Handwritten]

HERE'S A MAN TO VOTE AGAINST
He Has Been Senator From New York 
State for Six Years
He Is Asking You to Re-Elect Him
READ HIS RECORD
He Favors the Privileged Interests at 
the Expense of the People and Constantly 
Ignores the Expressed Wishes 
of His Constituents
THEN VOTE AGAINST HIM
CAMPAIGN SERIES
NUMBER TWO
Non-Partisan Senatorial Committee
37 West 39th Street
New York


IF YOU ARE AGAINST GRAB BILLS
Then Vote Against Wadsworth. As
Speaker of the Assembly he left the chair,
while the roll call was actually in progress, 
to plead for the West Side Grab Bill, introduced
by Senator Grady at the request of the
New York Central.
In the United States Senate he voted for the 
Shields Water Power Grab Bill.

IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF GOVERNMENT
REGULATION OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES
Then Vote Against Wadsworth. It was
due to his efforts as Speaker that the attempts to bring the telegraph and telephone
companies within the operation of the Public
Service Commission law were held up for at
least two years.

IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF FIVE
CENT FARS
Then Vote Against Wadsworth. As
Speaker of the Assembly he helped stifle the
five cent fare bill in the Legislature in 1908,
when the question was not arguable from the 
viewpoint of the cost of the operation but was a
question of more profit for the transit magnates.

IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO COVERING
UP OFFICIAL CORRUPTION
Then Vote Against Wadsworth. As
Speaker of the Assembly he opposed the
resolution to investigate the corrupt conditions
in the Legislature revealed by the Allds
Scandal, even leaving the Chair to make a
speech against it.

[1]


IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE DIRECT
PRIMARY
The Vote Against Wadsworth. As 
Speaker of the Assembly, he fought it, brought
pressure to bear on Assemblymen, and finally
accomplished the defeat of both the Hinman-Green
Primary Bill and the compromise 
bill favored by President Roosevelt and
Governor Hughes.

IF YOU BELIEVE IN KEEPING PUBLIC
PROPERTY OUT OF THE HANDS
OF COMMERCIAL INTERESTS
Then Vote Against Wadsworth. He is 
one of those who are continually trying to
steal the water power from Niagara Falls for
commercial uses.  He introduced in the 
Senate a resolution increasing by 25 per cent
the amount of water to be diverted from the 
Falls for manufacturing purposes.

IF YOU BELIEVE IN FARM LOANS
Then Vote Against Wadsworth. He voted
against the Rural Credits or Federal Farm
Loan Bill.

IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO RACIAL 
DISCRIMINATION IN APPOINTMENT
TO OFFICE
Then Vote Against Wadsworth. On June
1st, 1916, he was paired against the confirmation
of the appointment of Justice Brandeis
to the Supreme Court.

[2]

IF YOU WANT HONEST ENFORCEMENT
OF PROHIBITION
Then Vote Against Wadsworth. He has
been an enemy of prohibition throughout his
whole political career.  He was one of the
early advocates of a nullification Beer Act
in New York State.  He stands for weakening 
the Volstead Enforcement Act and because 
of that is supported by the Wets
generally and particularly by the Association
Opposed to National Prohibitions.

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT A REPRESENTATIVE
SHOULD REPRESENT
Then Vote Against Wadsworth. After his
State had adopted Woman Suffrage by a 
majority of 103,000; after the New York 
Legislature had twice asked him to cast New
York's vote for the Federal Suffrage Amendment;
after the Republican National Committee
and the Republican State Committee 
had urged the passage of the Amendment
he continued to oppose it in the Senate.
Even after the Federal Amendment had
passed both Houses of Congress, he carried
his opposition into state after state. NOW 
having exhausted every effort to prevent the
women of the country from having the vote,
he is insulting the women of his state by
asking them to vote for him as THEIR
REPRESENTATIVE in the United States 
Senate.

[3]



The Anti-Saloon League does not attempt to
dictate to any voter.  The liquor interests and the
reactionary machine politicians have a monopoly
of the following that can be dictated to.  The
Anti-Saloon League furnishes the facts and
leaves it to the individual voter to apply those
facts in harmony with his own conscience and
judgment to the solution of the specific problem
of good citizenship that may be the issue at the
particular time.  If Senator Wadsworth, with his 
liquor record, affiliations and attitude, represents
your moral convictions, then by all means you
should vote to re-nominate and re-elect him. But
if he is not an actual representative of your 
intelligence and principles then the obviously
sensible thing to do is to support somebody who
will in fact represent you.

This leaflet is furnished FREE for distribution on application
to the Anti-Saloon League of New York.  However,
if you will send something to pay the cost or to furnish
some to somebody else for distribution it will keep the
presses running.  If you are opposed to Senator Wadsworth
and want the other leaflets in the series send in
your name and address.


NOT VENGEANCE BUT SELF-DEFENSE
Senator Wadsworth's Re-Election
Would Be Claimed by the Wets
As a Repudiation of
Prohibition
1926 [handwritten]
Campaign Series - Number Three
A TOOL OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
-PAST, PRESENT AND
PROSPECTIVE.

Anti-Saloon League of New York
906 Broadway, New York City

NOT POLITICS BUT PRINICPLE


A TOOL OF THE LIQUOR
TRAFFIC-PAST, PRESENT
AND PROSPECTIVE
The opposition of the Anti-Saloon League to 
Senator James W. Wadsworth is based upon
fundamental League principles. It has noting
to do with partisan or factional politics or personalities, 
or any other issue than Prohibition.

It has been a fundamental proposition of the
Anti-Saloon League that the only way the people
could secure the reflection of the their convictions
through public officials was to protect the men
who actually represented them and repudiate the
men who did not. This is merely the application
of ordinary business sense to public business.

Senator Wadsworth through his whole political
career has lined up with the liquor traffic and the 
politicians who were hand-in-glove with the
liquor traffic. They pushed him to the front.
They have been back him in the past. They
are back of him now. His recent vote to override
the veto of the President representing another 
political party (his vote coming after he saw the
wets were whipped anyhow) can not wipe out a
lifelong liquor record, including a vote against
the submission of the Prohibition amendment to
the states.  It merely aggravates his offense by
its reflection upon  the intelligence of the moral
element in assuming it could be so easily fooled.

It was Senator Wadsworth who went to
Albany on Lincoln's Birthday last year with the
tidings that the Federal Government would stand
for "liberal" enforcement and that the states
could go as far as they liked. The attempted



Walters nullification 3 per cent, beer bill was
inspired by his visit, as was Speaker Sweet's 
attempt to "hedge." It is Wadsworth supporters
who are back of nullification today in New York.
The liquor interests want him back in Washington
to vote for their legislative program and
against honest enforcement bills.

Under the circumstances, if Senator Wadsworth
should be renominated and re-elected, the
wets not only of New York but of the entire
country would herald it as evidence of a reaction
against Prohibition, or repudiation of Prohibition.

The Haskell case is a sample of what would be 
done.  It is this very Haskell situation, distorted
and falsified by the papers, which has encouraged
some of the machine politicians to try to put
Senator Wadsworth over again.  This sort of
thing grows like a snowball.  If they succeed in
the Wadsworth case, they will think they can put
over something on a still bigger scale, and it 
might result in Congress or a President lining up
for weakening, or at least against strengthening,
the Federal enforcement laws.  

If the liquor interests can elect Senator Wadsworth,
it will be necessary for the moral element
within the Republican party to whip them again
decisively, crushingly, and overwhelmingly. On
the other hand, if Senator Wadsworth should be
defeated, the machine politicians will understand
that liquor support has ceased to be an asset and
has become a liability politically, and much, if not
most, of the heavy fighting within the ranks of 
the majority party in New York State will be
over.



Where was Wadsworth?
But Lieutenant Wadsworth did not go. He had
resigned his commission.  When his former comrades
were taking part in the defence of the east
Poperinghe line in July, 1918, Lieutenant Wadsworth
was fighting in the Senate against the poposed
war-time control of the Bell Telephone interests.
When the 104th Machine Gun Battalion 
was thrown into the defence of the Lake Dickebeusch
sector in August, 1918, Lieutenant Wadsworth 
was urging in the Senate that the draft
age be lowered to 18, because such youths could
be "spared from industry" and made better soldiers
than their elders. When, in September, 
1918, the weary mud-stained 104th Machine Gun
Battalion was shot headlong into the Somme offensive,
engaging the German troops in the battle
of Zenghuille on September 28, in the "tough 
little scrap" at St. Quentin's tunnel on September
29 and 30, and in the battle of the Mont Brehain from
October 12 to October 16, Lieutenant Wadsworth
was discussing woman suffrage in the Senate!

True, he has a defence!
To be sure, he offers a defence of his course.
His friends said that the people of New York
state needed him in the Senate.  But if he had
resigned, surely some one might have been found 
to take his place in the Senate while he made
good on the soldier's oath taken so lightly four
years before. But he preferred to resign from the
Guard; he preferred the soft and easy course.
Those who had no such pleasant alternative to
the stern call of duty should make up their minds,
quietly and without bitterness, to let James W. 
Wadsworth, Jr., know in November that he is
NOT "needed" in the Senate by the men and
women of the Empire State.
A vote for Harry C. Walker
is a vote against Wadsworth. 

State Headquarters
Private Soldiers and Sailors Legion
Raleigh M. Black, State Organizer
Benjamin Blank, Deputy State Organizer
Bible House, New York City

More of Wadsworth Military Record
by
MARVIN GATES SPERRY
National Presidents, Private Soldiers and Sailors Legion
QUERY:
Where was Lieutenant Wadsworth, Jr.,
when his men of Troop M, First Cavalry,
New York National Guard, went headlong
into the Somme offensive?
ANSWER:
Fighting democracy in the Senate!
Read his "Military Record" in the 
Great War.
VOTE FOR STATE BONUS.
[pg. 142]




Further Facts About Wadsworth's
Military Record
When a military man like Senator James W.
Wadsworth, Jr., seeks election to one of the highest
positions in the gift of the people, ex-soldiers
naturally are somewhat interested to know his
record.
In a letter of recent date I took occasion to
call attention of the ex-service men of New York
to that part of Senator Wadsworth's record which
shows that he resigned from the army and then
voted to enact a draft law to send other men
overseas to war while dodging that service himself.
I now wish to call attention to another part of 
Senator Wadsworth's record which shows what
he was doing while his regiment was on the fighting line;
and again the record shows Senator
Wadsworth in a light that will not win him many
solider votes in this election.
He Joins the National Guard.
In the spring of 1914, when he was a candidate 
for the United States Senate, James W. Wadsworth,
Jr., joined the "crack" First Cavalry of
the New York National Guard and on March 28,
1914, was commissioned a lieutenant in Troop M, 
with headquarters at Avon, near the Wadsworth
ancestral acres. 
Admirable! said everybody. "He is a Wadsworth
and of course he is a soldier." It was regarded
[Vote for Harry C. Walker, 
Democratic Candidate for United States Senator]


as the fit and natural thing.  Mr. Wadsworth
was elected to the Senate.  "An aristocrat
dedicated to the service of the people."
But he dodges service on the 
Mexican Border.
The first test of his soldierly qualities was not
a very hard one.  When the Mexican border was
threatened, Troop M was drafted hastily into the 
Federal service and sent, in July, 1916, to the 
Texas border where, for eight weary months, the
troopers patrolled the dust-swept banks of the Rio
Grande from Fort Ringgold to Arroyo del
Tigre.  But Lieutenant Wadsworth did not go 
along.  On June 23, 1916, Governor Whitman
"detailed" him to "depot duty" in Avon - and he
stayed in Washington!
Acid Test of the Great War.
By the time the United States entered the
Great War, everybody in this country, including 
Lieutenant Wadsworth, knew that war was a 
wearisome, dangerous enterprise.  Troop M, returning
from the Mexican border, knew that it was
a wearisome dangerous enterprise.  For just sixty
days the members of Troop M tasted again civilian
life and freedom, slept on good beds and enjoyed
the homely comforts of the Genesee valley. 
Then came the summons.  Troop M was mobilized 
for the Great War on July 3, 1917, converted into
the 104th Machine Gun Battalion of the 27th
Division and sent over seas to Flanders.
[Retire Wadsworth]


A Few Facts For Republicans 
AN OPEN LETTER TO MRS. ARTHUR L. LIVERMORE 
Chairman of the Republican Women's State Executive Committee. 

I note in the morning papers that you appeal to all 
Republicans to support Senator Wadsworth in the coming campaign, 
and that you do so upon the ground that the Republican 
President you expect to elect should have a Republican Senate 
who will support his "wishes and policies on every occasion." 

It may be true, as the headlines announcing your interview 
state, that women are swinging over to the support of Senator
Wadsworth upon the appeal that a Republican Senator is necessary 
to the Republican scheme of things, but it is also true that 
many Republicans, both men and women, are swinging away 
from his support, because they trust neither his Republicanism 
nor his quality of representation. If the issue is to be intelligently 
dealt with by the voters, they should have all the facts 
from which to draw their conclusions. Here are a few:  

1. If Mr. Harding carries the country he will carry 
the Senate without New York. Since it is easier to vote a 
straight ticket than a scratched one, most voters do it and 
therefore the presidential candidate who carries a state carries 
the entire ticket down to the lowest office, unless there is special 
reason for picking off some individual candidate. In the coming 
election, despite much talk, the calculation is easy, now that 
the primaries have been held and if Mr. Harding carries the 
country he will carry the Senate with New York left out. 

Of the 64 hold-over Senators, 34 are Republican, and 30 
are Democrats. Forty-nine is a working majority and there 
are 32 Senators to be elected. To secure a majority therefore,  
the Democrats must elect 19 out of the 32 while the Republicans 
need only 15. The Democrats with little question will 
win in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North 
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Arizona, Maryland, 
Nevada, Oregon and Idaho, and these 13 will raise the number 
of Democratic Senators and 43 with six to be won in the  
  
 
 

doubtful states.  The Republicans with no question will win
Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington,
Wisconsin, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Utah, Connecticut
and Illinois, and these twelve will raise the list of 
Republican Senators to 46 with three to be won.  The doubtful
states are seven: Missouri, Colorado, Kentucky, California,
Indiana, Ohio, and New York.  If the Republicans sweep the
country they will carry the first six states and gain six Senators, 
thus securing 52 votes or a majority of nine and that without
counting New York at all.  Should the Democrats carry half
of the doubtful six they would only have 46 Senators and the
Republicans would still have a majority of three.  It is clear 
that New York is not needed to complete a Republican
majority for Mr. Harding and the plea to give him Mr. Wadsworth
as a saving grace is more specious than sensible. 
Any Republican man or woman who wants to vote against
Mr. Wadsworth may do so with a free conscience on this score.

2. There is no proof that Senator Wadsworth if
elected would support a Republican. One must look to his
past record to learn the chances of future action, and you know
that in the matter of Woman Suffrage he opposed his National
Republican Convention, his State Republican Convention, his
National Republican Committee, his State Republican Committee,
his National and State Republican Chairmen, the 
Legislature of his State and the personal request of Mr. Hughes,
who might have been president, and Mr. Roosevelt, who had
been president.  There were no other Republican agencies which
could speak to Mr. Wadsworth and yet he declined these and
not only refused facilities for submitting the question to the 
Legislature of the States, but he did what no American can do
and retain the confidence of intelligent.

In the closing days of the 65th Congress the necessary two-thirds
or two to one vote had been secured in both houses, on
the suffrage amendment.  To get the vote taken it was necessary 
to have unanimous consent.  It was then that Senator Weeks
and Wadsworth spelled each other for two days and nights in
order that one of them might be on hand at all times to object 
to unanimous consent.  So devoted to this task was the New
York Senator that he sat on duty the whole of one night. Thus


by a filibuster of two men, two-thirds of the Senate and House
were successfully flouted and action prevented.  Massachusetts
retired Senator Weeks and therefore Senator Wadsworth stands
alone responsible for the fact that 28 Governors have been compelled
to call special sessions at public expense in order that
women may vote in this presidential year.  What Senator Wadsworth 
did in Washington he had previously done in Albany.
Are New York memories so short that they do not recall the 
manner in which he opposed the wishes and efforts of the
Republican Governor, Charles Evans Hughes in the matter of
the Race Tracks, (listening instead to the pleas of the gamblers),
and in the matter of the primaries, listening to the voice 
of Boss Barnes instead of his Republican Governor?  What
Senator  Wadsworth has done he would do again and no loyalty
to a Republican President would change his intention provided
it conflicted with other and more pressing influences.

3. There is no proof that Mr. Wadsworth would be 
present to support a Republican President's wishes and
policies since he absented himself from 81 roll-calls in the last
Congress and was absent without pairing on many of them.
He explains, for example, that he was absent when the vote
on child labor was taken - yes, but he was not paired for it.  Had
he manifested the same determination to succor the children
from unnatural labor conditions as he did to prevent women
from obtaining the vote he would have not overlooked the fact
that pairing was one way to accomplish that end.  By telling
those who want child labor laws that he did not vote for the
one Federal law because he was absent, and by serving the
manufacturers who want no child labor laws through neglect
to pair he stages a successful dupe.

4. A vote for Wadsworth is an endorsement of his
record.  You ask Republicans to repudiate the Wilson administration. 
This is fundamentally a right partisan appeal, 
for each presidential election either endorses or rejects the administration
preceding, but you are yourself befogged by your
own partisanship and stray away from that fundamental
principle when you ask New York to elect Mr. Wadsworth.  You
virtually urge all men and women to forget, forgive and overlook
his record and vote for him on the ground of some imaginary
future support of an unelected president.  A vote for Mr. Wadsworth

worth is far more definitely an endorsement of his record than 
a vote for Mr Harding is a repudiation of Mr. Wilson's record, 
for Mr. Wadsworth made his own record and Mr. Harding is an 
unknown quantity What is that record? A continuous never 
pausing opposition to all measures aiming to restrain, limit, 
or control "special interest" which at the time have been 
oppressing the people by overreaching methods; a never failing
support of invisible government; a support of government by 
filibuster vs. government by majorities. Not one measure drawn 
in the interest of public welfare in his sixteen years of legislative 
office has he introduced and carried through. On the 
contrary, and privilege to the masses and killed by his own hand 
not a few. A close study of this man's record emphasizes 
Theodore Roosevelt's matured judgment of him: 

"It is rarely that a public man champions the right of big 
business to do wrong as openly as Mr. Wadsworth." 

A vote for Mr. Wadsworth is a vote for the Republican 
Party, but for the control of that part by the Big Business 
which is in politics "to do wrong." A vote for Mr. Wadsworth 
is an endorsement of his continuous service to Big Business 
when it has opposed the welfare of the people.   

The people ere now have been known to kiss the hand that 
scourged them and it is possible that the conscience and intelligence 
of the Empire State may be chloroformed into obedience
by the specious plea "vote straight," but, when New York 
knows the truth, it votes right. 

CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT. 

Sept. 20, 1920. 

Campaign Series Number 4

Non-Partisan Senatorial Committee 
37 West 39th Street, New York.           Tel. Murray Hill 6310 
 
142

Wadsworth

BREWING AND LIQUOR INTERESTS AND GERMAN PROPAGANDA.
EXTRACTS FROM UNITED STATES SENATE HEARINGS, 1918-19.
UNITED STATES SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D. C., September 27, 1918.

The subcommittee had under consideration the following resolution, which
was considered and agreed to in the Senate of the United States, on September, 
19, 1918, in pursuance of which is was appointed:
[Senate resolution 307.]
Whereas Honorable A. Mitchell Palmer, Custodian of Allen Property, on or
about September fourteenth made the following statement:
"The facts will soon appear which will conclusively show that twelve or
fifteen German brewers of America, in association with the United States 
Brewers' Association, furnished the money, amounting to several hundred 
thousand dollars, to buy a great newspaper in one of the chief cities of the
Nation; and its publisher without disclosing whose money had bought that
organ of public opinion, in the very Capital of the Nation, in the shadow of
the Capitol itself, has been fighting the battle of the liquor traffic.
"When the traffic, doomed though it is, undertakes and seeks by these
secret methods to control party nominations, party machinery, whole political
parties, and thereby control the government of State and Nation, it is time
the people know the truth.
"The organized liquor traffic of the country is a vicious interest because
it has been unpatriotic, because it has been pro-German in its sympathies and
its conduct. Around these great brewery organizations owned by rich men, 
almost all of them are of German birth and sympathy, at least before we
entered the war, has grown up the societies, all the organizations of this country
intended to keep young German immigrants from becoming real American
citizens.
"It is around the sangerfests and sangerbunds and organizations of that
kind, generally financed by the rich brewers, that the young Germans who
come to America are taught to remember, first, the fatherland, and second, 
America";
And
Whereas it has been publicly and repeatedly charged against the United States
Brewers' Association and allied brewing companies and interests that there is 
in the Department of Justice and in the office of a certain United States district
attorney evidence showing:
That, the said United States Brewers' Association, brewing companies, and
allied interests have in recent years made contributions to political campaigns
on a scale without precedent in the political history of the country and in
violation of the laws of the land;
That in order to control legislation in State and Nation they have exacted
pledges from candidates to office, including Congressmen and United States
Senators, before election, such pledges being on file; 
That in order to influence public opinion to their ends they have heavily 
subsidized the public press and stipulated when contracting for advertising
space with the newspapers that a certain amount be editorial space, the

108776—19—1

2
literary material for the space being provided from the brewers' central office
in New York;
That, in order to suppress expression of opinions hostile to their trade and
political interests, they have set in operation an extensive system of boycotting
of American manufacturers, merchants, railroads, and other interests;
That for the furthering of their political enterprises, they have erected a 
political organization to carry out their purposes;
That they were allied to powerful suborganizations among them the German-
American Alliance, whose charter was revoked by the unanimous vote of
Congress; the National Association of Commerce and Labor; and the Manufacturers
and Dealers' Associations, and that they have their ramifications in other organizations apparently neutral in character;
That they have on file political surveys of States, counties, and districts 
tabulating the men and forces for and against them, and that they have paid
large sums of money to citizens of the United States to advocate their cause
and interests, including some in the Government employ;
That they have defrauded the Federal Government by applying to their
political corruption funds money which should have gone to the Federal
Treasury in taxes; 
That they are attempting to build up in the country through the control of
such organizations as the United Societies and by the manipulation of the
foreign language press, a political influence which can be turned to one or
the other party, thus controlling electoral results; 
That they, or some of their organizations, have pleaded nono contendre to
charges filed against them and have paid fines aggregating large sums of
money; Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, or any subcommittee 
thereof, is hereby authorized and directed to call upon the Honorable A.
Mitchell Palmer, Allen Property Custodian, and the Department of Justice and
its United States district attorneys to produce the evidence and documents relating 
to the charges herein mentioned and to subpoena any witnesses or documents 
relating thereto that it may find necessary, and to make a report of the
results of such investigation and what is shown thereby to the Senate of the
United States as promptly as possible.
Newark, N. J., July 30, 1918.
During the month of June 1917, to the best of my recollection, the matter of The
Washington Times became of mutual interest to Mr. Arthur Brisbane and a number
of brewers.  Mr. Brisbane, as I have been informed by him, had an option
to purchase The Washington Times from MR. Frank A. Munsey for a sum
which I recall as being $500,000. The terms of the sale as I recall them, were
that $250,000 was to be paid down, the balance to be paid in the installments of
$50,000 each every six months.
In order to bring about the purchase of The Washington Times, I at various 
times advanced Mr. Brisbane funds through the Growing Circulation Corporation, 
a corporation which I believe is either owned or controlled by Mr. Brisbane. 
The aforesaid funds were advanced on the dates and in the amounts as 
hereinafter specified, and in the following manner: I first draw a check or checks
on the account at the Federal Trust Company which stood in my name as trustee,
such check of checks being payable to the order of the Federal Trust Company, 
and the Federal Trust Company then would in turn deliver to me a
treasurer's check of the Federal Trust Company payable to bearer, which treasurer's 
checks I in turn delivered to Mr. Brisbane personally.
A statement of the relations which existed in connection with this transaction
are more particularly set forth in a letter which I wrote to Mr. Brisbane,
dated June 29, 1917, which reads as follows:
"I write this note to define a business arrangement existing between us. I
and a number of my friends, all of whom i am authorized to represent, have for
years felt very strongly that the public welfare and our own industry-because
of your well-known convictions-would be benefited by your personal
ownership of a newspaper.
"We agreed to supply you with a capital of five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000) for the purchase and establishment of a newspaper by you.  We
have, at this time, supplied two hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars 
($295,000), although I do not enter into any legal obligation to do so, on behalf 
of myself or others.  The understanding of myself and my friends with you, of
which understanding this is a memorandum, is as follows:


"The money, which we gladly contribute to your enterprise, is to be disposed
of, absolutely at your discretion, for the purchase, maintenance, and establishment
of a daily newspaper.
"It is understood that, after a period of five years, you will repay to me and
my associates at your discretion and convenience, on account of the principal,
so much of the profits as may be derived from such newspaper as may, in your
judgment, be taken out of the business without interfering with its proper operation
and development; and that you shall be under no liability whatsoever for
repayment of the sums contributed other than out of such profits.  It is understood
that no interest shall be paid upon this money, our claim to be satisfied 
in full upon the repayment of the principal without interest.
"You may, of course, repay part or all of the principal at any time and in
any manner that you may choose, and our agreement with you shall not be 
considered as giving me or my associates any interest whatsoever in said enterprise.
Should you sell the paper at any time, you will repay to us, up to the 
full amount of the principal that we may have advanced, any sums received 
by you in payment for the paper."***
The only evidence of the foregoing indebtedness which i hold is a note of
the Growing Circulation Corporation, dated June 21, 1917, for $300,00, upon
which there was advanced the sum of $275,000 only, and a memorandum dated
at Newark, N. J., on June 21, 1917, signed by Mr. Arther Brisbane.  Up to the
present date I have received no payment on account of the foregoing indebtedness.
(Sigd.) C. W. Feigenspan.
Senator KING. The point I had in mind is whether there is any controversy
as to the ownership of the newspaper [The Montgomery Advertiser] at present,
and the contention which I understand you make, namely, that it was acquired
by brewers or the brewery interests.
Maj. HUMES. I know of no dispute.  The records of the other departments of 
the Government show that the ownership is as indicated by these securities.
***
Maj. HUMES. Mr. Feigenspan, what was the business of the publication committee
of the United States Brewers' Association?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. To gather information, generally speaking, pertaining to 
our business, and to endeavor to make publicity of the facts that were ascertained,
with the viewpoint of presenting the favorable side of our question. 
Senator OVERMAN. For the purpose of making public sentiment in the country
in favor of the brewers?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. We were trying to present the good qualities of our product.
Senator NELSON. Was that all - simply the good qualities of your beer? Was
that all you had in view?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. That was the principal object. We tried to preserve our
business. ***
Senator NELSON. Did you not aim to secure newspapers?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. They are mediums of publicity. We did not try to secure
them.  We tried to present certain facts to newspaper editors generally that
would show them what our product was, so as to present a favorable viewpoint
of it.
Senator NELSON. Did you buy space in the newspapers?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. We bought space for advertising purposes; yes ***
Senator NELSON. To advertise the quality of your beer?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. No; not necessarily the quality of our beer, altogether. I 
have not any of our advertisements to show you; but they speak for themselves.
Senator NELSON. Did you hire editorial writers to write articles for the magazines?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. Not editorial writers, but we hired writers to write up
certain subjects.


4
Senator NELSON. Did you employ John Koren to write articles in the Atlantic
Monthly?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. Koren was not engaged by me; but was employed by
the association while I was chairman.  He was engaged as a statistician. 
*** I do not know who originally retained him; but he was retained by
the United States Brewers' Association while I was chairman of the publication
committee.
Senator OVERMAN. How much was he paid?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I think it was $5,000 a year. I would not be positive as to
that amount, but that is my recollection.
Senator NELSON. You recall his articles in the Atlantic Monthly, do you not?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I do not, to tell the truth, because I did not read them; but
I believe he did write them.
Senator NELSON. He had the kindness to send me a marked copy of the
magazine; that is how I come to know. ***
Maj. HUMES. Mr. Feigenspan, what part did you or your people take in reference
to controlling or influencing legislation?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. None that I know of.
Maj. HUMES. I show you a letter on the letterhead of your concern. 
The corporate name is Christian Feigenspan ---
Mr. FEIGENSPAN (after examination of paper). Yes
Maj. HUMES. I show you this letter and inclosure, to refresh your recollection, 
and ask you if you ever interested yourselves in controlling legislative matters
[handing witness Exhibit 772]?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN (after examining paper). That was in 1911. I must say
I had forgotten this. That letter is written not by me.
Maj. HUMES. It is written by one of the officers of your company?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. No; he is not an officer. He is an employee, though.
Maj. HUMES. An employee?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. Yes.
Maj. HUMES. You remember the transaction now, do you?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I know Fitzgerald and Walsh.  They are people that we 
have business with in New Haven, or have had in the past, I do not recollect
this particular thing, but it must be so; there is the letter.
Maj. HUMES. Then it is so that you, in connection with other brewers connected 
with the United States Brewers' Association, spent or expended or
caused to be expended $3,000 in the State of Connecticut in connection with
legislative matters?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I do not want to answer that, if I may be excused, because
I do not know enough about that particular thing to know exactly whether
that is a legislative thing, although it is in that communication.
Maj HUMES. You have been asked, Mr. Feigenspan, with reference to Mr.
John Koren. Did you not also at the instance of the United States Brewers' 
Association write and cause to be printed articles in the National Municipal
Review?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I do not know. I might say, in answering that question, 
that I, as chairman of that committee, in a general sort of way, assumed the
chairmanship and defined, again to a limited extent, its policy.
Maj. HUMES. I call your attention to a report marked "A confidential report
of the publication committee, to be read in executive committee," in 1915, and
cite the following:
We have also conducted the society financially in the advertising campaigns
which have been carried on for political purposes in Georgia, Louisiana, and
Maryland, and during the Michigan campaign we furnished the services of 
three journalists.


5
Maj. HUMES. Did you ever in your activities as a member of the publication
committee, or as a committee, have any connection with the Socialist Party?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. Not to my knowledge.
Maj. HUMES. I call your attention to the same report, which reads as follows:
We are supplying the committee on alcohol of the Socialist Party with much
important data, which will be used in connection with their report next year.
Maj. HUMES. You arranged to secure the publication of articles of supposed
literary merit in many of the periodicals of the country, did you not?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. We endeavored to get certain articles reproduced in some 
periodicals, I believe.
Maj. HUMES. You succeeded, did you not?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. In some instances.
Maj. HUMES. By what method did you succeed?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. The best of my recollection of that is that they were presented
and in some instances paid for by the periodical.
Maj. HUMES. In other words, you employed someone to write an article, and
because of the standing of the author the author was able then to sell the
article to a periodical for publication?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I believe that is true. 
Maj. HUMES. And the author of the article received remuneration both from
your organization and from the periodical in which the article was published?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN.  I believe that is true in some instances.
Maj. HUMES. I call your attention to the confidential report of the publication
committee that was in executive session in 1915, that comes from the files
of the United States Brewers' Association, as follows:
During the past year a large number of articles have been published in many
of the leading newspapers and magazines which have either been suggested by
us or have been based on our investigations, and from the medical viewpoint
articles and editorials have been published in the Medical Record, in the Journal
of the Medical Association, and in the British Journal of Inebriety. ***
Articles have been published in the Survey, Outlook, American Underwriter,
and the journal of the American Statistical Association, and the American
Food Journal, and the National Municipal Review.
Senator WOLCOTT. What was the Andreae bureau? Did that come under
the euphemistic title of the National Association of Commerce and Labor?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. The National Association of Commerce and Labor was, 
I believe, a branch of it. Mr. Andreae, so to speak, hypnotized our convention
one year and received practically carte blanche to conduct certain activities
against prohibition.
Senator WOLCOTT. How much money did you association turn over to him
to finance that propaganda of his, do you recall?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. No, I do not. It was a considerable sum, I believe.
Senator KING. He got a little over $800,000 in three years, did he not?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I would not be surprised.
Senator KING. And he was to use a portion of it through the National
German-American Alliance?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I believe that there was something said about the National
German-American Alliance in regard to that matter. Personally, I do not
know of the transaction. ***
Maj. HUMES. Was there any arrangement or understanding between the 
United States Brewers' Association and the National Wholesale Liquor Dealers' 
Association with reference to financing the political activities of their 
joint interests?

6
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I do not know of any definite arrangement as between the
liquor interests and-
Maj. HUMES. Was there not an agreement by which the two interests would
join in their political activities, and a certain percentage of the expense would
be borne by the brewers and a certain percentage would be met by the Wholesale
Liquor Dealers' Association, or the distillers, as the word was frequently 
used?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I think that years ago there was some such arrangement. 
Maj. HUMES. How many years ago did that arrangement exist?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I should say about up to two years ago. *** I became
president of the association about two years ago - a year and a half
ago, I think is the exact time - and my own feelings in the matter were that
it were better that we take care of ourselves and let them take care of themselves;
that an arrangement or any matters that might be done, that they do
them as they saw fit, and we would do ours as we saw fit. ***
A great many brewers have been of the belief that their product was the
superior product and not an injurious product in any way, and they have been
more or less antagonistic to whisky themselves.  I say that was probably a
minority of our members. Others thought we had a common battle and that
we should fight it together, and the result was that the severance finally came
about, I should say, about a year and a half or two years ago.
Senator NELSON. But there has been no hostility between the two interests
since then, has there?
MR. FEIGENSPAN. Not to my knowledge.
Maj. HUMES. Did you not, at that meeting, declare as follows:
With many of the brewers it is a question of salvage, and you can not stop 
the brewer whose business is destroyed or threatened with destruction from
taking a course of this kind if they believe it will be to their advantage. Personally,
I am opposed to any division, but the momentum for it is growing
greater outside of the industry.
Maj. HUMES. Did the publication committee concern itself with the moving-
picture business?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I think that there were a number of moving-picture suggestions
presented, but I do not know - I think there was one film gotten out.
Maj. HUMES. One film gotten out that was used over the country?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I think that was the film of the manufacture of beer. 
Maj. HUMES. "Liquid Bread" was the title of it, was it not?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I think so.
*****
Senator NELSON. You have referred to a commerce and labor organization.
Will you tell us what that is? It was mentioned awhile ago.
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. Mr. Andreae was the man who conceived the idea.
Senator NELSON. When was that organization formed, the National Association
of Commerce and Labor?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I do not know the exact year. I am guessing, but I should
say about 1914; somewhere along there. It was about 1914.  I am not sure of
the year.
Senator OVERMAN. Was he in the employ of the brewers?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. Mr. Andreae was in the employ of the brewers. He was a 
brewer himself, however. *** I know very little about the Association of
Commerce and Labor. I know that it was created for the purpose of raising
funds in connection with Mr. Andreae's scheme of general publicity, and so 
on. *** It was try to interest the allied trades with us; in other


7
words, those people who were more or less dependent in their business on what
purchases the brewers made from them. ***
Maj. HUMES. Do you not know, as a matter of fact, that the reason that the 
name National Association of Commerce and Labor was accepted at the meeting 
to which it was organized at Atlantic City, was because of the similarity of
that name to that of one of the departments of the Federal Government?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. No, I do not. *** The Andreae program, as I understood
it and as I believe it has been presented on a number of occasions by Mr.
Andreae himself, was for the purpose of trying to create public opinion with
reference to prohibition.
Senator WOLCOTT. Yes; it is perfectly clear that that was one of the purposes;
but Mr. Andreae is also very explicit in saying that the organization
went a bit further than that. It went clear down to indorsing nominees on
party tickets, in seven or eight States, as I recall. 
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I know very little of Mr. Andreae's bureau. He took matters
very much in his own hands and conducted it as he saw fit.
Maj. HUMES. What other newspapers than the Washington Times and the
Montgomery Advertiser did you help, either personally or through your official
connection with the United States Brewers' Association and your association
with other brewers, to finance?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN.  I have helped one other paper personally, the Newark
Ledger. 
Senator OVERMAN. Do you know how the $300,000 in the last campaign was
expended?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I believe the secretary has the figures here, which would
show just how it was expended.
Maj. HUMES. What are the present dues or assessments of the members of
the United States Brewers' Association?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. The dues are a half cent a barrel and the assessments are
simply levied from time to time as necessity demands, or as we need funds. If
we need any money for any purpose, we levy an assessment.
Maj. HUMES. In 1913 at a meeting in Chicago there were contracts made covering
additional assessments of three cents a barrel for a period of five years,
were there not?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I think that is correct. ***
Maj. HUMES. The estimate was that it would become operative when brewers
representing 25,000,000 barrels had subscribed.  The minimum amount, therefore,
would have been $750,000. As a matter of fact, the contracts that were
signed at that time exceeded the minimum estimate?
Maj. HUMES. In New Jersey, what is the assessment of the New Jersey State
Brewers' Association?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I do not think our assessment has ever been over 2 cents a 
barrel. It is generally 1 cent a barrel.
Senator OVERMAN. Do you mean to say that they would assess for a national
campaign and then for a State campaign separately?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. It would pay twice. It would pay to the national association
and to the local or State association.
Senator OVERMAN. Was that so generally in all of the States?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I believe so; yes.
Senator OVERMAN. So they must have raised an enormous sum of money in 
that way, if the national raised $750,000 and then the States raised an additional
amount?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. The actual collections of these amounts are not as large as
they might seem to be.  While the brewers, I believe, did contribute for a year,

8
yet after a while they got tired of paying 3 cents a barrel, and it not so easy
to collect it. ***
Senator WOLCOTT. Do I understand that your brewery, for instance, in Newark, 
N. J., would pay to the national association a half cent a barrel regular
dues, and 3 cents a barrel assessment?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. In the years where the assessments were 3 cents. 
Senator WOLCOTT.  That would be 3 1/2 cents to the national association and in
the same year you would pay to the State association a half cent a barrel
regular dues, and if the assessment that year was 2 cents, that would make 2 1/2
cents, total; so that if you found a year where the assessment, national was
3 cents, and local 2 cents, the total of your contributions to that fund would
be 6 cents a barrel in that year?
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. Yes, that is correct. ***
Senator OVERMAN. Yes; or when it was being paid last year. 
Mr. FEIGENSPAN. I should say about 2,500,00. Between that and 3,000,000.

AFTER RECESS. 
TESTIMONY OF MR. HUGH F. FOX.

Maj. HUMES. Mr. Fox, you are the secretary of the United States Brewers'
Association?
Mr. FOX. Yes, sir. 
Maj. HUMES. For how long a period of time have you occupied that position?
Mr. FOX. Nearly 11 years.
Mr. FOX. Along, perhaps, 30 years ago, suddenly came the invention of artificial
refrigeration, followed by an enormous increase in our immigration. The
invention of artificial refrigeration practically doubled, or more, the capcty of
the breweries, and the result was an enormous overcompetition, and a tremendous
increase in the number of saloons. The result of that overcompetition
was, as you gentlemen, of course, have observed, in all our large cities, a very
much greater number of saloons than were needed for the reasonable convenience
of the people.
Senator NELSON. And many of those saloons were financed by the brewers?
Mr. FOX. Yes, sir; exactly.
Senator NELSON. They were really agencies of the brewers.
Mr. FOX. Yes - well, I was just going to come to that, Senator. As the result
of that overcompetition, the brewers very foolishly - and that is what I referred
to in their merchandising methods - were induced to finance these saloons,
to the extent at least of their licensing and their equipment. They financed
them; however, without really controlling them, which was a foolish business
proposition. At any rate, out of that overcompetition and out of the lax
municipal methods in some States, and the combination of circumstances, the
saloon evil, as we know it, arose, and saloon conditions, in a good many parts
of the country, became notoriously bad. 
What I am leading up to is this: That along about the beginning of the present
century, or perhaps a few years later, the brewers realized that prohibition 
wave was growing, that there was something brewing besides beer, and 
they realized that the point of attack was mainly the saloon; and for some
years they bent their efforts in rather a futile way to the improvement of 


9
saloon conditions, in some States cooperating with civic organizations, and in
others with law-making bodies, to try and establish licensing conditions that
would amend the situation. They did not go deep enough, however. The situation
did not amend itself except in a few States. Then, along about the time
that I became associated with the United States Brewers' Association they had
finally come to realized, I think, that what they really had to deal with was a 
great public sentiment which had been gradually growing by various ways, and
at last had become organized.
They then had two problems before them. One was the conversion of their
own members to the conditions for which they were more or less responsible,
and to the necessity for the betterment of conditions; and incidentally the
lenders of the industry felt very strongly that there must be a separate from
the liquor interests, and that the real temperance method was what is popularly
known as the preference to beer and light wines. Now, that was a work
which lasted considerable time. In fact, I do not think up to quite recently
we could say that we had put it over with the large bulk of the industry.
There was always opposition to it. Then, coincident with that, began this 
effort to - what shall I say? - to stem the growing sentiment against them and
to try and get lenders of thought interested in putting forward some kind of a 
program, no matter how drastic it might be, which, while developing a temperance
method, might at the same time save the brewing industry. ***
The brewers where, I think, perhaps the first great industry to become, and
perhaps they are to-day the only industry to be, 100 per cent unionized; and an 
agreement was made among the brewers that if a strike occurred in any one
city competing brewers who were shipping beer in from other cities would
agree not to ship their beer during the settlement of the difficult.  It was a 
gentleman's agreement, and it was, I suppose, a rough and ready way of providing
that the parties to the conflict should fight it out among themselves. 
Out of that grew the establishment of working relations of a cordial character
between the brewery workers and the United States Brewers' Association and
the appointment of a national adjuster on our part. ***
Then came up the question of a publicity department, a publicity system.
The association had always published rather scholarly volumes and pamphlets,
etc., which had reached a very small number of the people, and they
floundered around for a long time trying to find what was the best way of
reaching two classes of people: First, the class of people who lead public sentiment,
and then the mass of the people. I think we made as many mistakes
as anybody in such a predicament could make in trying to solve that problem,
and I think we finally concluded that it was an utterly impossible task to reach
the mass of the people directly, and therefore that the problem before us was to
try to put the facts before the people of the country whom we believed to be
the leaders of public sentiment.
Maj. HUMES. Now, Mr. Fox, there has been some mention of the noninterference 
resolutions. You say that the brewers were 100 per cent union. Is it
not a fact that the attitude of the brewing industry toward organized labor
was a subject of much agitation and much discussion, and that it was finally
decided for political reasons that in order to secure or endeavor to secure the
help and cooperation of organized labor in political contests it was expedient
to unionize the industry? Is that not a fact?
Mr. FOX.  I do not think it is, sir. I do not recall any such discussion in
my time. I think it is probable - this is somewhat conjecture - that the determining
consideration was the fact that probably 90 percent of the product is 
consumed by workingmen.

10
Maj. HUMES. Is it not a fact that there were on the pay rolls of the United
States Brewers' Association certain members or officers of labor organizations
whose activities in behalf of the association were purely political?
Mr. FOX. Not to my knowledge, sir. To be specific, we had, in general, charge
of what we call the labor department of the association a gentleman named
Moffett, who was the former president of a labor organization. I presume that
his connection with it has only been nominal since he was with us. We also
had in the organization bureau a gentleman named Thompson, who, I believe, 
was the president of a national labor organization. Those are the only two
of whom I have any personal knowledge. 
Maj. HUMES. Mr. Fox, with your recollection refreshed from the Solvay
Process file, what do you now say as to the common practice of the United
States Brewers' Association, through you as the secretary, boycotting and
reporting as unfair, for purposes of trade discrimination, business concerns
over the country at various times during the last 10 years, or continuously
during the last 10 years?
Mr. FOX. I think the intention was rather to give preference to those who
were our friends. Perhaps I can sum it all up in this way. The thing with a
great many of the brewers was this. We were engaged in what was practically 
a war. They did not feel that it was good business for them to be throwing
business to men who were using the profits from their business to fight them. 
Maj. HUMES. Did not your boycott of the Heinz Co. grow out of the fact that
Heinz was elected president of the Pennsylvania State Sabbath School Association,
and the Sabbath School Association passed a temperance resolution? Is
not that the fact?
Senator OVERMAN. Do you not think that was part of a system of boycotting?
Mr. FOX. Certainly part of a system of information, sir.
Senator OVERMAN. Yes; as to a man who had voted for a resolution like that
in regard to the Sabbath schools of the country; your men ought not to trade
with him for that reason?
Mr. FOX. Of course, the matter was sent out for the information of whom it might concern.
Senator OVERMAN. What was the purpose of the information?
Mr. FOX. I should say that the purpose of the information was to tell them, 
as far as possible, who their friends and who their enemies were.
Senator OVERMAN. With the idea that they would trade with their friends and 
not trade with their enemies?
Mr. FOX. That they would give the preference to their friends, I should think,
sir.
Senator NELSON. You could hardly expect a Sunday school to deal in beer, 
could you?
Mr. FOX. No; but I think probably Mr. Heinz was doing a large business with 
saloons.
Senator OVERMAN. They were buying his pickles; and, inasmuch as he took 
an interest in the Sunday schools in favor of prohibition, the brewers ought 
not to buy his pickles, but buy somebody's else pickles, and not the pickles 
made by their enemies. Is that the idea?
Mr. FOX. I should think that would be the way in which they would look at it.
NATIONAL RETAIL LIQUOR DEALERS ASSOCIATION,
Chicago, Ill., Mar. 5, 1905.
MR. EDWARD L. JORDAN,
Pres. National Liquor League, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: It was rumored that Mr. H. J. Heinz of the H. J. Heinz Company 
of Pittsburg had contributed $10,000 to the Anti-Saloon League of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Heinz states most emphatically - 


11
"You have every opportunity to ascertain from people in Pittsburgh, liquor
men included, who have known me personally or by reputation for many years,
how my word is regarded among those who know me best. I am asked a direct
question. I answer it and reiterate 'That neither myself, my firm, or any member
of it has given or promised to give any amount to the Anti-Saloon League
or any similar organization, and this answer goes to the substance of the whole matter."
This is briefly my report on this question, and I leave it to you to decide as
to whether Mr. Heinz is deserving of censure. In my humble opinion, he is not.
Respectfully, 
ROB'T J. HALLE, Secretary.

Maj. HUMES. Do you remember any activity against the Packard Motor Car
Co. on the part of the United States Brewers' Association? It was due to the
fact that one of their sales managers or advertising men made a speech. And
one of the things considered was whether you would force the Packard Motor
Car Co. to discharge this man or whether you would accept their promise of
future noninterference as sufficient and restore them to favor with the brewing
industry. Is that not a fact?
Mr. FOX. If you will refresh my memory, I shall be glad.
Maj. HUMES. I read a circular letter upon the letterhead of the United States
Brewers' Association, dated December 8, 1909:
To the members of the United States Brewers' Association:
GENTLEMEN: By direction of President Hoster, I beg to call your attention to
the following facts:
On October 23d ult., at a meeting of advertising men in Cleveland, Ohio,
some remarks derogatory to our industry and highly offensive in character
were made by Ralph E. Estep, advertising manager for the Packard Motor
Car Company, of Detroit, Mich. Said remarks found their way into a section
of the daily press and were extensively copied and commented upon by our 
trade papers.
In view of the natural resentment of our members and friends at an attack
so wanton and uncalled for, President Hoster deems it advisable that you
should be informed that the Packard Company have made ample apology for
the act of their representative and are taking every means to prevent the
further circulation of the injurious statements above referred to.  President
Joy, of the Packard Company, has written us unreservedly to this effect, and
the offending party, Mr. Estep, has placed in the hands of our president a
letter in which he acknowledges his error and asks that it be not laid up to
his employers (the Packard Motor Car Company).
It would, therefore, seem best on all sides to let the matter drop, as our 
president suggests, and this notice is sent out to our members in order that
any prejudice affecting the Packard Company may be removed.
Respectfully yours,
HUGH F. FOX, Secretary
[The Goebel Brewing Co. L't'd., brewers and bottlers. Fred W. Brede, president: August
Goebel, jr., sec'y-treas. & gen. mgr. Annual capacity 350,000 barrels. Phone Main
669.]
DETROIT, MICH., Dec. 2, 1909
Mr. HUGH F. FOX, 
Secretary, United States Brewers' Ass'n.,
109-111 East 15th Street, New York.
MY DEAR MR. FOX: I beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 29th ultimo,
enclosing copy of your letter addressed to Mr. Hoster regarding the Packard
Motor Car Company controversy. I am thoroughly satisfied in my own mind
that Mr. Joy, Mr. Walden, the general manager, and all of the directors of the
Packard Motor Car Company have done everything that anyone could do to
correct the unfortunate error made by their employee.  Their letter to the
trade and the retraction of Mr. Estep personally, I believe, is all that we have
any right to ask of them. I have in my possession enough correspondence to
hold them for all time to come and believe that we have made sincere friends

12

and that through their influence many muzzles will be clasped on tight. I 
placed an order yesterday for another Packard truck, and believe the proper
thing for us to do now would be to send a circular to the trade that would convince 
all concerned of the true position of the Packard people. Mr. Estep’s 
resignation was demanded by the company, but upon my advice was not
accepted, as I thought best to hold a person with such a tongue where he could
be controlled rather than be turned loose and given an opportunity to continue
his talk and attempt to justify the same, as well as damage the company who
discharged him. 

Very truly, yours, 

THE GOEBEL BREWING COMPANY, LTD. 
A. GOEBEL, Jr. General Manager. 

WWF-AGJr. 
Answered Dec.4,1909. H. F. F. 

Maj. HUMES. Did you not, under date of November 28,1911, send out a confidential 
circular to the members of the United States Brewers’ Association in
which, after referring first to the Fox Typewriter Co., you then made the following
statement: 

Mr. R. H. Scott, manager of the Reo automobile factory, of Lansing, Michigan, 
is also a strong opponent, which is constantly quoted by the Anti-Saloon
League. 

The letter then refers to two other men who were on the boycott list, and the 
letter is signed by yourself. 

The American Issue, of September 6, 1912, published a letter from Mr. Scott, 
in which he says: 

“Two years ago on the first of April last we voted the saloons out of Ingham
County. The work was done under the direction of the Anti-Saloon League of 
Michigan and through a local committee, of which I was chairman. This
brought me prominently before the liquor element, who did everything possible 
to get Mr. Olds, who is president of our company, and myself to discontinue
backing the temperance movement. This we flatly refused to do and openly
defied them through public meetings and through letters in answer to theirs
when they threatened to boycott us. While they attempted to carry out their
threats it had no effect on our business and the past year we were not able to 
fill one-half the orders and at the present time agents and customers are clamoring
for Reo cars. 

“We believe that the attitude of the liquor element towards our car only
stimulated the other class of people to buy and instead of its being a detriment
we believe it has been a benefit to our business, and as Mr. Olds states, as long
as they wish to continue free advertising for us, we do not object.” 

“Attention of Mr. W. E. DUSENBURY. 

“I note that you claim to have lost the sale of quite a number of Reo cars 
in your city because of the fact that the board of control of the Wholesale 
Liquor Dealers’ Ass’n are under the impression that this company is taking 
an active part on the prohibition side of the liquor question. I am in a position
to assure you that this positively is not the case. This company has not 
aided financially or otherwise, and movement either for or against the liquor
question, feeling that this is not a proper matter for a commercial organization 
to take up. But one of our five directors has taken an active interest in the
local option question. He has done this in a purely personal manner, and we
must of course concede to him the right to follow the dictates of his conscience
as far as his personal actions are concerned. 

“We believe the Liquor Dealers’ Ass’n are so broad minded and just that
they will be willing to concede that this is fair and just, and trust that after
you have laid the matter before them exactly as it is, you will have no further
trouble of the kind mentioned in your letter of the 22nd. 

“Yours very truly,

“REO MOTOR CAR COMPANY. 
“R. C. RUESCHAW. 
“Sales Manager.” 

[page break]

13

Mr. HANS A. KOENIG, 
Secretary The Manufacturers & Dealers Club, 
305 Watkins Bldg., Milwaukee, Wis. 

It is, I believe, true that the employees of the Reo Company in Lansing, 
Michigan, were urged, if not intimidated, into voting “dry” at the recent local
option election. It seems to me that it does not make any particular difference
whether they did so under pressure of the corporation itself, or through
one or more of its directors or managers. The county went dry, and it is
popularly credited to the Influence of the Reo Company. 

Maj. HUMES. Did you not in a confidential circular, under date of February 
27, 1915, over your signature in this bulletin, advise the trade with reference
to the activities of Proctor & Gamble? 

Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. 

Maj. HUMES. Is it not a fact that in each one of these instances, when there
matters were called to your attention, you personally took up the matter with
friends and acquaintances and officials of the brewers’ association in the various 
communities to check the information and verify it in every particular, in 
order that you might have that to reinforce you in placing these individuals or 
these concerns on your boycott list? 

Mr. Fox. I should think it was extremely probable that I took such a course. 
That would be a matter of common precaution. I recall some cases, but I can 
not swear that I did so in every case. I think any brewer would have been
foolish to have given business to a man who was fighting him, if he could have
avoided it. 

THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO., 
SOAP MANUFACTURERS, 
Cincinnati, Ohio. 

The vice-president of this company, Mr. James N. Gamble, took an active
part in the recent campaign for State-wide prohibition, and we are informed
that he is a liberal contributor to the Anti-Saloon League, but we have no
knowledge of any contribution having been made by the Proctor & Gamble
Company. 

Mar. HUMES. Was it not a common experience to have members of your
association, or the officers of the State brewers’ association, request that a
certain concern be blacklisted or boycotted from time to time, and to use those
expressions “boycott” or “blacklist”; and did you. not reply to them in each
instance that “we do not boycott, we can not boycott; but give me the definite
information, and I will notify the trade”; and were you not very careful to
avoid the use of the word “boycott” in this correspondence, although your 
members, who were not as familiar with the law as you were, frequently
used it? 

Mr. Fow. I think very probably, sir. 
[Feuchtwanger Grain Co., malt, hops, brewers supplies.]
PITTSBURGH, PA., July 17, 1915. 

Mr. H. Fox, 
President, U. S. Brewers Association, 50 Union Sq., New York, N. Y. 

DEAR SIR: I am inclosing you a copy of a letter I received from the Osborn
Manufacturing Company, of Cleveland, Ohio. You may use same to the trade. 

This is in reply to a request I made of them for a donation for the “wets” 
in Lawrence County. We have been doing business with these people for
fifteen years, and this is the first opportunity we have had to find where they
stand. 

FEUCHTWANGER FRAIN CO.,
Pittsburgh, Pa. 

GENTLEMEN: ... While we are glad to do business with such good concerns
as yours, and furnish such brushes and brooms as will contribute to cleanliness
and general good conditions, we cannot support the liquor traffic- because we

14

feel that the American saloon is detrimental to the best interests of the American
people, and the American home....
Very respectfully yours,
THE OSBORN MANUFACTURING CO.,
F.G. SMITH,
President and General Manager

MAJ. HUMES. Did you not also take exception and place the Western Union
Telegraph Co. on your unfair list because they required their employees to be
total abstainers?
Mr. FOX.  I have no recollection of that.
JAN. 18, 1915
MR. NEWCOMB CARLTON,
President Western Union Telegraph Company,
195 Broadway, N.Y.

DEAR SIR:  The Chicago Evening Post of January 11th, reports an address
made by the Rev. Wilbur F. Sheridan, general secretary of the Epworth
League of the Methodist-Episcopal Church, in which he intimated that the
Western Union Telegraph Company requires its employees to be total abstainers.
I am taking the liberty of writing to ask if this is a fact?

We feel that the employer has a perfect right to make rigid rules with regard
to the conduct of his employees during the time that he pays for, and that of
course he should not employ any man whose habits are such as to interfere with
his efficiency, and that drunkenness is at all times a proper cause for discharge.
The Western Union Telegraph Company should, and must insist upon its employees
being thoroughly temperate, but we question whether any employer
has the right to go beyond this.
Yours, respectfully,
HFF/W. Secretary.

Maj. HUMES. This was on January 18.  On an unfair list dated April 1, 1915,
their name appears as unfair.
Was it not the purpose of your association in sending out that circular to
induce and persuade the members of your association and those affiliated with
them to withhold their business from the Maryland Casualty Co.?
Mr. FOX. I do not recall it, but I think it is very likely.

FEBRUARY 14, 1911.
GENTLEMEN:  On January 29th, 1911, the Maryland Anti-Saloon League held
a mass meeting in the Lyric Theatre, Baltimore, in the interest of its local-
option bill, and for the purpose of raising money for its campaign.  The meeting
was addressed by William H. Anderson, State superintendent, George R. 
Stewart, of Tennessee, and Prof. Alvin M. Thatcher, of Boston.
Mr. John T. Stone, President of the Maryland Casualty Company, acted as
chairman, and made a brief address on prohibition, in introducing Mr. Anderson.
Yours, very truly,
HUGH F. FOX, Secretary.

SEPT. 1, 1914.
THE PERU BEER CO., Peru, Ill.

GENTLEMEN:  Replying to your letter of August 27th, I enclose copy of our
circular letter of Feb. 14th, 1911, which speaks for itself.  Mr. John T. Stone,
president of the Maryland Casualty Company, states that his action is personal,
and does not imply that the Company has taken any position on the prohibition
question.  However, he has recently sent a printed notice on behalf of the
company to its agents saying, among other things, that they must not submit
as prospective risks, any "habitual drinkers."
Yours, very truly,
HFF/ED. Secretary.

[next page]
15
[United States Brewers' Association, 109-111 East 15th St., New York. Robert Crain,
General Counsel, Calvert Building.]
WASHINGTON, D.C., September 3, 1914.

HUGH F. FOX, Esq.,
Secretary, The U.S. Brewers' Association, New York, N.Y.
DEAR MR. FOX:  I have your letter of the 1st inst. relative to John T. Stone and
the Maryland Casualty Company.  It is a well-known fact that Mr. Stone is
very much a prohibitionist, and is an active member of the Maryland Anti-
Saloon League.  My own judgement about such matters is that we accomplish
nothing in publishing circular letters regarding the activity of men on the order
of Mr. Stone, and for a number of reasons I would strongly advise against
issuing any circular in this case.
Yours, very truly,
RC/G  ROBERT CRAIN.
Answered Sep. 4, 1914, H.F.F.

SEPT. 4, 1914.
Mr. ROBERT CRAIN, Baltimore, Md.  
MY DEAR MR. CRAIN:  Thanks for your letter of the 3rd, in regard to John G.
Stone and the Maryland Casualty Company.  I have been inclined to agree
with you in regard to our action in such matters, but the results have made me
feel that it is worth while, as we have succeeded in a number of cases, in either 
silencing the opposition, or in winning an ally, and I do not know of any case
in which any mischief has arisen from our action.
Yours, very truly,
HHF/ED Secretary.

Maj. HUMES.  Is it not a fact that when a concern was to your mind unfriendly
to your interests, and when you could not hurt that concern by means
of a boycott or by the withholding of patronage, you sought to interfere with
their business in other ways?
MR. FOX.  I have no recollection of anything of the kind.
Maj. HUMES.  Is it not a fact that in the case of the American Rolling Mill
Co. you discovered that there was no way by which your membership could
interfere with the business of this concern, and consequently you referred in the
preparation of contracts and specifications?
Mr. Fox.  I have absolutely no recellection from the file which I
show you, marked "Exhibit File L," and then answer the question.
Mr. Fox.  The file shows a letter from the Ohio Brewers' Association calling
our attention to the bulletin issued by the American Rolling Mill Co. of Middletown,
Ohio, and reads as follows:

EXHIBIT FILE L.
OCTOBER 14, 1914.
Chr. Hafers Iron Works, New York, N.Y.
GENTLEMEN:  This is to call your attention to the "Armco Bulletin" of September,
1914, published by the American Rolling Mill Company, of Middletown,
Ohio, in which is reprinted the posters used in Massachusetts against alcohol,
together with a statement issued by the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, which
is a very strong indictment of "the man who manufactures alcohol."

No discrimination is made in the five pages of matter on this subject between
spirits and milk beverages.

It is suggested that the matter may be interest to brewery architects and
engineers who specify structural iron work in the construction of brewery
buildings.  
Very truly, yours,
HFF/W Secretary.

16
Maj. HUMES.  I now call your attention to the correspondence with relation
to the Sommers Motor Car Company, which is a branch of the Allen Motor Car
Co., of Fostoria, Ohio, and ask you if you did not send a confidential circular to
the members of your association calling attention to that concern, with a view of
having your membership withhold patronage?

Mr. Fox.  I do not recall the transaction, but I identify the correspondence.

Maj. HUMES. I ask you to refresh your recollection from the file and then
answer the question.

Mr. Fox (after examining file).  Mr. Chairman, I think this correspondence
bears another interpretation than the one put upon it by counsel.

Senator OVERMAN. Does it bear the interpretation that counsel puts upon it?

Mr. Fox. Counsel has asked me a question in respect to it.
Senator OVERMAN.  Does it bear the interpretation that counsel puts upon it?
Mr. FOX.  Yes, I think so; but, as I recall it, there was a constant effort being
made naturally by our people, both locally and otherwise, to win friends particularly among important business interests.  I think some of this correspondence
clearly shows that.  The correspondence was opened up with concerns and
a discussion ensued, and a common understanding was reached.  I think that
that was just as much a motive of it as anything else.

Senator OVERMAN. What was the common understanding - that they would
not fight the brewers' interests?
Mr. FOX. In some cases that it was perfectly recognized that their position
was sound on local conditions or upon saloons or something of that kind, but
that on the question of State-wide or national prohibition they had gone too far.

Senator NELSON.  Did you not start the matter by calling them to task for
their view on prohibition?
Mr. FOX. I think in most cases, sir.
Senator NELSON.  You called their attention to the fact that you regarded
them as hostile, and you aimed to convert them.  Was that it?

Mr. Fox.  I should say in most cases, although I think is some cases they
came to me first.
(Confidential.)

DECEMBER 7TH, 1915.
To the Members of the United States Brewers' Association.
GENTLEMEN: This is to inform you that Mr. W.O. Allen of the Allen Motor
Car Company of Fostoria, Ohio, issued a strong letter on October 30th, 1915,
urging the employees of the Summer Motor Company of Bucyrus, Ohio, to vote
in favor of State prohibition.
Yours, very truly,
HUGH F. FOX, Secretary

Maj. HUMES.  Did you ever hear of the Shenango Pottery Co.?
Mr. Fox.  I do not recall it.
Maj. HUMES.  I call your attention to the correspondence in this matter,
taken from file marked "Exhibit File O."  The first letter is signed "Charles
F. Ettla, Secretary," he being secretary of the Pennsylvania State Brewers'
Association.  The letter is as follows:
(Pennsylvania State Brewers' Association, 1504 Land Title Building. Chas. F. Ettla,
Secretary.)
PHILADELPHIA, 12/20/11.

Mr. HUGH F. Fox,
Secretary, New York, N.Y.
MY DEAR MR. FOX:  In the matter of complaint of the Standard Brewing 
Company, through its manager, Mr. Feuchtwanger.  I desire to say that both
the firms, the Shenango Pottery Company and the Graselli Chemical Company
sell outside the State of Pennsylvania as well as in the State.  The
Pottery Company, I understand and I believe the same was written you by


17
Mr. Feuchtwanger, have sold their goods to the Government.  It might be
well in your next bulletin sent to the brewers throughout the country to
notify them not to patronize either of the above firms.
Yours, very truly,
CHAS. F. ETTLA, Secretary.
(United States Brewers' Association, 109-111 East 15th St., New York City.)
Confidential.

FEBRUARY 21, 1912.
To the Members of the United States Brewers' Association.
GENTLEMEN:  Mr. James Horton, of Horton's Ice Cream Company, has been
elected 2nd vice president of the New York Anti-Saloon League.
Mr. James M. Smith, of the Shenango Pottery Company, of New Castle, Pa.,
who make hotel china, has been very active in the campaign against licenses.
Mr. M.F. Crass, superintendent of the Graselli Chemical Company,  of New 
Castle, Beaver Falls, and Uniontown, Pa., also assisted the Anti-Saloon League
in the no-license campaign.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Crass are said to have been responsible for inducing
Billy Sunday to go to New Castle last fall.
Mr. Shumacher, president of the Cumberland Glass Company, of Bridgetown,
N.J., is reported to be responsible for keeping Vineland, N.J., "dry," and
has been antagonistic to our interests in South Jersey.

Mr. W.C. Leland, of the Cadillac Motor Company, is also aggressively antagonistic, and the entire corporation is reported by the National Wholesale
Liquor Dealers' Association to be aiding and abetting the Anti-Saloon League.

On October 14, 1910, we sent out a confidential letter of warning in regard
to the Rev. Leonard W. Snyder, "The Boys' Minister."  By a misunderstanding
Mr. Snyder recently secured credentials from the Secretary of the Wisconsin Brewers' Association, who write me expressing his regret at the occurence.
Our letter of October 14th, 1910, still stands, therefore.
Very truly, yours,
HUGH F. FOX, secretary

Maj. HUMES. I now show you file marked "Exhibit File P," which is the
Wanamaker file, from your records.
Mr. Fox.  There is not any denunciation in this.  There is a perfectly frank
statement of certain correspondence that took place between Mr. Wanamaker
and a concern named Myers.
Maj. HUMES.  That is not the first time that the trade was notified by you
in reference to Mr. Wanamaker, was it?  That was the last announcement that
went to the trade.  Then I see an announcement on November 28, 1911, to this 
effect:
Mr. John Wanamaker has come out in active support of the temperance
organizations, and has stated that he means to devote his closing days to the
destruction of the saloon.
The purpose of that was to have patronage withheld from Mr. Wanamaker,
I take it.
Mr. FOX. The correspondence speaks for itself.

EXHIBIT FILE P.
(United States Brewers' Association, 50 Union Square, New York. Confidential.)
NEW YORK, July 22, 1915.
To the Members of the United States Brewers' Association.
GENTLEMEN:  The following letters are for your information:
The following correspondence between H.C. Myers, of the H.C. Myers
Company, distillers and importers, with officers at 25 Leonard Street, New York
City, and John Wanamaker, is self-explanatory:
108776--19-2

18
Mr. Myers to Mr. Wanamaker.
NEW YORK, February 17, 1915.

Mr. JOHN WANAMAKER,
9th and Broadway, New York City.
DEAR SIR:  The report is current that you contribute money to prohibit the
sale and distribution of liquor.  I am reluctant to credit this report, and
respectfully ask an expression from you on the subject.
If I have been correctly informed, you may be as unwilling to accept money
that has been earned in the liquor traffic as I am to pay it to those who are
endeavoring to confiscate the business in which I am engaged.
I have indicated my position in this matter by printing on my checks, "A
Check Against Prohibition," many of which have been received by your
company in settlement of my charge account with you.
Thanking you in advance for any attention, I remain,
Respectfully, yours,
H.C. MYERS

Mr. Wanamaker to Mr. Myers.
(Private office, John Wanamaker.)
PHILADELPHIA, February 23, 1915.

Mr. H.C. MYERS,
25 Leonard Street, New York City.
DEAR SIR:  Your letter of the 17 of February comes before me as I am leaving
on the next train for the South.
I thank you for its frankness, but regret its narrowness.  You only buy of
me what you want and I give you value for it. I think I do you good service.
As in one sense a father to from 10,000 to 14,000 employees, for many years
I have suffered and lost so much from employees that killed themselves and
ruined their families I could not and can not be in favor (of the use) of intoxicating
liquors as a beverage, and with nothing but good will to you as a
gentleman, I will say that personal (interest) to serve my business can never
bribe me to change my principles.
Yours, very truly,
JOHN WANAMAKER.

[United States Brewers' Association, 50 Union Square, New York City.]
Confidential.
OCTOBER 6, 1914.
To the Members of the United States Brewers' Association.
GENTLEMEN:
Mr. W.R. Fox, of the Fox Typewriter Company, of Grand Rapids, Mich.,
has come out publicly against breweries and saloons.
Yours, very truly, 
HUGH F. FOX,
Secretary.

Maj. HUMES. Do you remember the transactions with reference to the Graselli
Chemical Co., at New Castle, Pa.?
Mr. Fox. I do not recall the name at all.
Maj. HUMES.  I show you file marked "Exhibit File R."  Under date of February
21, 1912, you sent a confidential letter to the membership containing the
following:
Mr. M.F. Crass, superintendent of the Graselli Chemical Company, of New
Castle, Beaver Falls, and Uniontown, Pa., also assisted the Anti-Saloon League
in the no-license campaign.

19
Mr. Smith and Mr. Crass are said to have been responsible for inducing Billy
Sunday to go to New Castle last fall.

You sent out that circular, did you not?

Mr. Fox.   Yes
Maj. HUMES.  Was there not a question of compelling the Graselli Chemical
Co. to discharge Mr. Crass, and was not that one of the subject matters of
the correspondence in that case?

Maj. HUMES.  I think I better read the whole letter so that you can understand
it.  It is as follows:

April 11, 1912

Mr. M. FEUCHTWANGER, 
 Treas. the Standard Brewing Co.,
New Castle, Pa.

MY DEAR MR FEUCHTWANGER: I appreciate your letter of the 10th isn't. very
much indeed; not only because of the very clear and complete statement of facts
which it contains, but also because of the spirit which you show.

Mr. Gund, of the Gund Brewing Co., Cleveland, has suggested to the Graselli
Company that they ask their attorney, Mr. Cashman, to call on me when he is
in New York, and Mr. Gund states that the Grasselli Chemical Company have
called Mr. Crass to Cleveland, and have made him realize the position he has
put his firm in.

I am now writing Mr. Gund to suggest that he try and get the Grasselli Company
to secure a letter from Mr. Crass, expressing his regret at his unwarranted
action, and stating his belief that he has acted hastily, etc.  In other words,
I think it is worth while, before we let up on the Grasselli Company to try to
get the kind of a letter from Mr. Crass that would be helpful to you in the 
future.  We were able to do this in a similar case a year or so ago in New
York State.  At any rate, it is worth trying.
Yours, very truly,

Secretary.

There is another letter on that line that I think is important, and there is
also a letter from Mr. Fox, dated April 1, 1912, addressed to Mr. George F.
Gund, which I shall read in this connection:
APRIL 1, 1912.

Mr. GEORGE F. GUND,
No. 5 Davenport Street,
Cleveland, Ohio.

MY DEAR MR. GUND: I have your letter of March 30th with reference to the
Grasselli Chemical Company, and may say for your confidential information
that our action was based, primarily, on a complaint sent on December 8, 1911,
by a Pennsylvania brewer, whose plant had been closed down because the county
judge had refused all licenses.  His action was said to have been influenced 
by a campaign conducted under the direction of Billy Sunday.  The information
is in substance as follows:  "Mr. James M. Smith, treasurer of the Shenango
Pottery Company has been and is very active in the campaign against
licenses.  In fact he is the man who induced the (faker) 'Billy Sunday' to
come to our city, in this he was assisted very materially by an active Ant-Saloon
Leaguist, Mr. F. Crass, Supt. of the Graselli Chemical Company, who
have a chain of plants at New Castle, Beaver Falls, Uniontown, and other
cities and cater to our brewers.  The results of efforts largely induced the
judge to act as he did.  We believe the brewers should be apprised of these
facts in a letter similar to yours of the 28thult.  We ask this of you for the
good of our industry."

After receiving this complaint, I took it up with the Pennsylvania State
Brewers' Association, who recommended the action which we took in our circular
letter of February 21st, thereby, of course, endorsing the complaint.

I have written to both the brewer who made the complaint and to the Pennsylvania
Association to ask them for any further light that they may throw upon
the matter, and have informed them that I think we have gained our point, and
that it is high time to make friends with the Grasselli Chemical Company.


20

While the explanation given in the letter of the company's attorney to you of
March 30th, 1912, is very satisfactory as far as it goes, I notice that the company
does not make any promise of using its influence with the superintendent 
of its New Castle plant, and I think it is up to them to give us some assurance
in this respect. You must remember that under the Pennsylvania law if the
county judge refuses to grant licenses it not only puts the saloons out of business,
but every brewer in the county has to stop manufacturing and selling. It
is even worse than prohibition in its actual effect, so that the complainant has
a very real and serious grievance.

Of course, you will make it clear to the Grasselli Company that we do not indulge
in boycotts, but we think our people are entitled to know who are their
friends and who are not, and that if they do not have the active cooperation of
men in the allied trades at least such men not directly antagonize them.

Very truly yours,

Secretary.

(The additional documents in the file referred to are here printed in full in
the record as follows:)

EXHIBIT FILE R.

EXTRACT FROM NEW CASTLE (PA.) HERALD OF FEBRUARY 16, 1912.

Maurice Crass, superintendent and general manager of the Grasselli Chemical
Company, was the first witness called in the afternoon. Mr. Crass said
the difference at the chemical works under no-license is very marked, and has
changed the morals of the men in a great degree. The company used to have
much trouble on account of drinking among the men, but now it has a force, the
witness said, that will compare with the men of any industrial institution.

Mr. Crass said when he came here a few years ago, drunkenness was very
common, but now he notices a vast improvement. Business men, he said, found
collections much better according to statements made by them.

[The Grasselli Chemical Co. Please address your reply to Legal Department.]

CLEVELAND, OHIO, March 30, 1912.

GEO. F. GUND, Esq.,
Care The Gund Brewing Co., Cleveland, O.

* * * * * * * 

The Grasselli Chemical Co. had no knowledge of Mr. Crass's personal action
in this respect, nor has it at any time officially taken any position in regard
to the saloon question.

We have many plants all over the country and selling agencies in all the large
cities. Our plant at New Castle employs not more than fifty men, whereas
our plants in the larger cities, such as Cleveland, Chicago, and in New Jersey,
employ many thousands of men.

We think it is unfair that the brewer's association should place our name on
the black list because of this personal action of one of the superintendents of
our smaller plants. Mr. Crass is not an official of this company.

Will you please take this matter up with Mr. Hugh Fox to the end that our
name shall be removed from the black list, especially in the City of New 
Orleans.

Will you please let me know what has been done, treating this matter as
between us, of course, confidentially.

Yours very truly,

THE GRASSELLI CHEMICAL CO.
W. T. CASHMAN, Attorney.

APRIL 12, 1912.

Mr. M. FEUCHTWANGER,
Treas., The Standard Brewing Co., New Castle, Pa.

DEAR SIR: I enclose copy of my letter of to-day to Mr. Gund which explains
itself. Mr. Crass has been hauled over the coals most effectively, and there will

21

be no further trouble from him or any of his associates. At the same time, I
hope that he may be made to write the kind of a letter that will be helpful to
you in the future!

Secretary.

HFF/FT.
Enclosures.

APRIL 12, 1912

Mr. GEO. F. GUND,
The Gund Brewing Co., Cleveland, Ohio.

MY DEAR MR. GUND: I have had a very satisfactory interview with Mr. Grant,
who is one of the directors of the Grasselli Chemical Company, and am sending
out a letter to the brewers of the United States which will adjust the difficulty.
I have suggested to Mr Grant that they should not make a martyr of Mr. Crass,
but should seek rather to make a convert of him, so that after he has "seen the
light" he may express himself accordingly.

Thanking you for your trouble in the matter, I am.
Yours sincerely,

Secretary.

HFF/FT.
Enclosure.

Maj. HUMES. Do you remember any trouble about the Cumberland Glass Co.?

Mr. FOX. Yes; I recall that.

Maj. HUMES. Tell us about that.

Mr. FOX. I do not recall the details. I remember that there was a discussion
there and that I had a visit from one of the partners, and that there was
some correspondence.

Maj. HUMES. They succeeded in adjusting that matter by joining the local
manufacturers and merchants' association and contributing to the support of
your organization, did they not? I do not want to take the time to read that.
I think you can refresh your recollection in a moment. I show you the file
marked "Exhibit File S."

Mr. FOX. That is my recollection. I know it was a concern doing a very
large business with brewers in beer bottles.

Maj. HUMES. Did you ever undertake to cause labor trouble for a concern
that you could not reach in any other way?

Mr. FOX. No, sir.

Maj. HUMES. I show you the file marked "Exhibit File T." Do you remember
the Nichols Copper Co.? Did you ever hear of that concern?

Mr. FOX. I do not recollect.

Maj. HUMES. Do you know a man named Ernest Bohm?

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Maj. HUMES. Who is he?

Mr. FOX. Mr. Bohm is, I think, secretary of the Central - what do they call
it - one of the Federation of Labor organizations in New York City - the Central
Council, I think they call it.

Maj. HUMES. Was he ever employed or retained by you or your association?

Mr. FOX. Not to my recollection?

Maj. HUMES. Was his service ever utilized by you for any purpose?

Mr. FOX. I think it is extremely likely, but I do not recall it.

Maj. HUMES. Didn't you have a conference and correspondence with him in
an effort to cause labor trouble for the Nichols Copper Co. because you could
not reach them in any other way?

Mr. FOX. I have absolutely no recollection of it.

22

Maj. HUMES. I wish you to refresh your recollection by examining the Exhibit
File T and then answer the question.

Mr. FOX. I had entirely forgotten this entire transaction, and I shall have
to rely upon the correspondence. [After further examination.] The correspondence
to my mind shows this, that complaint was sent in by a brewery in
Brooklyn with regard to the action of the Nichols Copper Co. or with regard
to their attitude toward their men.

Senator OVERMAN. In what respect - in regard to prohibition?

Mr. FOX. The rules which they laid down. Here is a circular which apparently
was issued by this company on beer and liquors. That circular goes on
to state:

The State laws says if an employee has been drinking and he is injured, the
company does not have to pay him money.

The company has found that men who drink are injured much more than
men who do not drink liquor.

Beginning February first (Monday) at 7 a.m. and thereafter, no beer, wine,
spirits, or alcoholic drinks of any kind will be allowed to be brought into the
works of the Nicholas Copper Company.

Any employee having such in his possession in the plant will be dismissed
immediately without notice.

All shift men in smelter, power, casing, or other department - that is, men
who work eight house (hours) will not leave their work for lunch during work
house (hours). If they wish lunch they will bring it with them when they
come to work and eat it during spare minutes while working.

The rest of the correspondence shows that this was brought to our attention
and that we endeavored, or that Mr. Bohm was asked to get information for
us, and his letter is as follows:

N. Y. SEPT. 20th/15.

Confidential

Mr. HUGH F. FOX,
MY DEAR SIR: In re Nichols Co. here is the information. They employ about
2,800 Italians, Poles, Huns, Slavs, are a non-union concern and manufacture
copper bilots which they sell to coppersmiths, rolling mills and etc.

I have taken the matter up with the different trades and we are going after
them hot footed. Will give you the information as the fight progresses. I also
collared the circular they issued and gave the contents to the press.

Yours,

ERNEST BOHM.

From that it appears that it bears the inference that we tried to get the
matter straightened out.

Maj. HUMES. Do you remember your transactions with the Goodyear Rubber
Co.?

Mr. BOWEN. I remember that we -

Maj. HUMES. You had a lot of trouble there, did you not?

Mr. FOX. We had a lot of trouble there; yes, sir.

Maj. HUMES. And you finally forced them into line, or what you considered
sufficiently into line?

Senator OVERMAN. You persuaded them?

Mr. FOX. I do not know whether we fought them into line, but I think they
got into line.

Maj. HUMES. Yes; and the president of the company came down to New York
to confer with you, did he not, to get the matter fixed up?

Mr. FOX. My recollection is that the Goodyear Rubber Co. practically tried
to make me their salesman.

Maj. HUMES. Well, it was necessary because of the information that your
association had given to the trade, after the differences were largely adjusted -
it was necessary for them to come to you to get a letter to each individual

23

brewer that they tried to sell tires to, before brewers' bureau would purchase
them?

Mr. FOX. I do not know whether it was necessary, but I know they tried to
do it, and I was good-natured enough to help.

Maj. HUMES. Is not the reason you pursued that course in that case because
you were trying to force them - before you would send out a general circular to
the trade you were trying to get them - to openly indorse your activities and
to go on record in support of your cause, rather than to maintain an opposition
or neutrality?

Mr. FOX. I think I certainly tried to win their friendship.

Maj. HUMES. And you got them to the point where they agreed to maintain
neutrality on the question.

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Maj. HUMES. But you declined to notify the trade of their neutrality, but
said to them that you would help them out with individual brewers that they
might want to come in contact with?

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Maj. HUMES. And in the meantime you were trying to force them to commit
themselves to the wet issue and to support the Ohio State Brewers' Association;
is not that a fact?

Mr. FOX. I do not recall it. The correspondence will no doubt bear it out.

FEB. 17, 1915.

Mr. H. J. PARKER,
Secy., Manufacturers & Dealers League, New York.

DEAR SIR: Replying to your letter of the 15th inst., the Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. publishes a sort of house organ called "The Wingfoot Clan,"
which, until recently, was run by its employees. On Oct. 17, 1914, an article
appeared strongly favoring prohibition. The assistant secretary of the company
called on me a short time ago to explain that until this article appeared
no attempt had been made by the company to supervise the publication, but this
is now being done, and he assured me that no such break would be made again.
He admitted that the president of the company had contributed $100 to the
Anti-Saloon League, but declared that this contribution was made in the usual
careless way in which a man of affairs responds to appeals from business associates,
and assured me that it had no real significance, and that the very man
who made the contribution voted wet. I took the matter up with the secretary
of the Ohio brewers' association, who replied under date of Feb. 13th as follows:
follows:

"Our latest advice is that the president and secretary are broad enough to
be liberal, and it is believed that they have heard from enough quarters of their
position that they will be very careful as to the action of their company in the
future. This advice is coupled with the further information that the majority
of the directors of their board are dry. It is also stated that there is no
foundation for the rumor that posters were placed about their factory advising
the men to vote dry."

I do not feel justified, under these circumstances, in sending any letter to
our members exonerating the company, at the present time, but it is evident
that they are now in a chastened mood.

Yours, very truly,

Secretary.

HFF./ED.

ST. LOUIS, March 8, 1915.

Mr. G. M. STADELMAN,
Secy. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Akron Ohio.

DEAR SIRS: I think that I have done everything possible to remove the effect
of the "Wingfoot Clan" publication and Mr. S.'s personal donation of $100 to
the cause of the prohis.

Now all this was done in good faith and because I am a stockholder and hope
to receive in turn like good faith. I am enclosing you copy of "The Effects of
Intemperance on Industry," which I would thank you to read and also show
to Mr. Seiberling. And if you and he agree on it, can't you endorse the posi-

24

tion taken? This pamphlet was written by Mr. H. F. Fox, Secretary of the
United States Brewers' Assn., and if you endorse the views expressed in the
pamphlet and at same time declare your opposition to State & National Prohibition
I am in a position to assure you that it will result in an official letter
being sent to all the U. S. B. A. members and affiliations in the United States.

Think it over - not one out of one thousand owners of automobiles who have
money to spend are for prohibition. It is the class that has no money, that is
envious of everybody who has funds to buy either autos or an occasional drink
that is behind Dr. Baker & Co. of the "Anti-Saloon League."

The Firestone people have completely cleared themselves and now I would
like you to take this one more step to wipe out your competitors' argument
that you are not friendly to us.

Very truly yours,

ROB'T HOLM.

[General office, Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n.]

Mr. H. F. FOX, Secy., U. S. Brewers Assn, 50 Union Square, New York.

DEAR SIR: Enclosed herewith find copy of letter I received from The Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co. to-day, relative to their endorsing your article on "The
Effects of Intemperance on Industry," and you note they will not endorse this
article.

Yours, very truly,

ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING ASSN.,
ROBERT HOLM, Secy. & Treas.

DEAR MR. FOX: Isn't it unfair to make these people after they have been
penitent and seen the error of their ways, declare themselves on our side when
all the others of the big tire concerns are neutral? This, my personal view.
Kindly advise me.

(Confidential.)

MARCH 22, 1915.

Mr. ROBERT HOLM,
Secretary, Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n.,
St. Louis, Mo.

MY DEAR MR. HOLMES: I have your favor of the 19th with its enclosure and I
think that under the circumstances the only thing we can do is, like the Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company, "to let the matter rest." We have no intention
whatever of saying or doing anything that would be unfriendly to them, but I
think you will agree with me that we could not on the other hand go out of our 
way to notify our members that they are conspicuously friendly in view of
their neutral attitude.

I have received a considerable number of letters from our members on the
matter, and have put the position of the Company plainly before them that they
are not unfriendly, and that we had reason to hope that they might be completely
won over to our side before long. Evidently this is impossible and I feel that
we have, like yourself, done all that we can in the matter. I am surprised, however,
that they should have any hesitation about expressing themselves on the
perfectly reasonable and moderate attitude which I took in the article entitled
"The Effects of Intemperance on Industry." The point I made had nothing to
do with the "scientific problem," but simply touched upon the attitude that the
employer ought to take in the matter. It has been endorsed without qualification
by a number of other large employers who have no connection with, or
interest in the brewing industry at all, but who have been quoted recently by the
prohibitionists as "being against us."

Very truly yours,
Secretary.

HFF/W

Maj. HUMES. Now, is it not a fact that you tried to persuade, or did persuade,
the members of your association to withhold their patronage from the Delaware,
Lackawanna & Western Railroad because of the rule of that railroad
with reference to the drinking of their employees?

25

Mr. FOX. I do not recall that.

Maj. HUMES. Is it not a fact that, because of the big wreck up at Corning,
N. Y., where some 30 or 40 people were killed and some 75 or so seriously injured,
an order was promulgated by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
Railroad prohibiting certain classes of their employees from drinking, the evidence
in that case showing that the engineer of the train, which was wrecked,
was under the influence of liquor; and the circular issued by the railroad was
issued because of that situation; and when you discovered that did you not try
to compel or to persuade the members to withhold patronage from the road?

Mr. FOX. I do not recall anything about it.

Maj. HUMES. Refresh your recollection from that correspondence [handing
file to the witness].

Mr. FOX (after examining Exhibit L-2). I think this is a little different
in character from some of the matters. In other words, this bulletin, to which
you refer, was a bulletin which was apparently sent out at that time covering
all kinds of matters of general news, and it is not marked "confidential." It
is marked "For members only. Not for publication." It deals with court interpretations,
and a score of other things, and among the items of news is this
item:

Employees in the storehouses of the Lackawanna Railroad Company, over its
entire system from Hoboken, N. J., to Buffalo, N. Y., have received circular
letters in which they are notified that men who drink intoxicating liquors will
not be continued in the service of the company. It is also stated in the circular
that men who drink intoxicating liquor will not hereafter be employed.

Now, I find in the following month a letter from me to the Pabst Brewing
Co., of Milwaukee, in which I quote what the railroad has to say in regard to
the accident that you refer to; and, perhaps I had better read this letter. It
is as follows:

AUG. 19, 1915.

The PABST BREWING CO.,
Milwaukee, Wis.

GENTLEMEN: The eastbound freight agent and the contracting agent of
the D. L. & W. R. R. Co., called on me recently to explain their attitude on
the liquor question, and have sent me a copy of the letter which they received
from your traffic manager, Mr. Charles Zeilke, and of their reply thereto.
They state that rule G to which reference is made has been adopted by the
General Managers' Association representing the majority of the railroads of
this country. The object of this rule is to enforce strict sobriety in the operating
department, and engineers are not allowed to frequent drinking places.
Neither the engineers or any other of their employees are, however, required
to be total abstainers, and no attempt is made to stop them from having what
they please in their own houses. They told me specifically that they would have
no objection to an engineer keeping beer in his household and to his drinking
it moderately.

They explained that the attitude of the railroad is not in favor of prohibition,
and that they are totally out of sympathy with that movement.

In our July bulletin we referred to the statement which has gone the rounds
of the newspapers, that the storehouse keepers have been notified that they
must cut out all liquor. In a recent communication to their solicitors they
quote the correspondence with you, and then add the following:

"You, of course, all remember the deplorable results of the wreck at Corning,
and that, under the circumstances, our management was in duty bound
to renew the instructions generally known as rule G, with respect to abstaining
from the use of alcohol, which had been in effect for a number of years.

"Aside from the danger to life and limb, and the destruction of property,
which the use of intoxicants is very apt to produce, our company also experienced
considerable losses by reason of employees purloining material which
had been sold for the purpose of obtaining liquor.

"We give you the foregoing information to the end that you may be in
position to fully understand and explain the attitude of our company should

26

you find that instructions issued by the Operating Department under Rule G
should be referred to adversely during your solicitations."

I wish you would be kind enough to let me know what you would advise in
view of this correspondence, and of the explanations made to me by the
representatives of the company? It is represented to us that our July circular
is an unfair discrimination against the D. L. & W. Co., and that we ought to
send out a corrected statement. I should appreciate it if you will give this
matter your consideration.

Yours very truly,

Secretary.

HFF-ED

Apparently this was brought to us by the traffic managers of the shipping
brewers.

Maj. HUMES. Yes; and also in the file are copies of letters which the shipping
brewers had written to the railroad company; and their reply, where they
protested against this regulation; is not that true?

Mr. FOX (after examining letters). Yes, sir.

Maj. HUMES. And, as a result of the persuasion, or what you may choose
to call it, of the United States Brewers' Association, the general manager of
the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. was induced to send a
letter to their solicitors - their freight solicitors - explaining this situation
and suggesting that they give this explanation to their customers among the
shipping brewers. Is not that the fact?

Mr. FOX. I presume so. I do not recall it. I presume it is, according to
the correspondence. I presume that the matter was really a matter between
the traffic managers, the shipping brewers, and the railroads, and we were
brought in really as an intermediary.

Maj. HUMES. Then, your contention here is that any interference with the
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. was the interference of individual
members of your association rather than of the association itself?

Mr. FOX. If there was such; yes.

(The additional documents contained in File L-2 are here printed in full in
the record as follows:)

EXHIBIT FILE L-2.

AUGUST 12th, 1915.

On August 12th, Mr. F. G. Platt, East Bound Freight Agent, and Gordon E.
Gaines, Contracting Agent of the D. L. & W., called to explain the attitude of
their road on the liquor question.

They state that the circular which was issued some time ago to their operating
department, was the result of an accident at Corning, in which it was
shown that the engineer had been drinking heavily. The object of their rule
was to enforce strict sobriety in the operating department, and engineers are
not allowed to frequent drinking places. They are not, however, required to
be total abstainers, and can have what they please in their own houses. The
attitude of the road is not in favor of prohibition, and is totally out of sympathy
with that movement.

HUGH F. FOX.

[The Stark-Tuscarawas Breweries Company, 614-617 Courtland Bldg. Officers: John G.
Rommel, president; Michael Seibold, 1st vice president; John A. Brodst, 2nd vice
president; John F. Weiss, secy. & treas.]

Answered Oct 2 1914 H. F. F.

CANTON, OHIO, Sept. 30th, 1914.

HUGH F. FOX,
Secy. United States Brewers Association, New York City.

DEAR SIR: The Ohio State Representative of the National Biscuit Co., Mr.
Nunamaker called at our office to-day protesting against the action taken by the
National Association in practically boycotting their business.


27

He states that a certain stockholder by name of Marvin of Pittsburg who
has been furnishing articles to newspapers, etc., is a radical prohibitionist, but
the Company remains neutral on our question. He further states that the
Company employs almost nine thousand men in the capacity of salesmen of
whom the majority are liberally inclined. He also states that he has placed
the matter before the officers of the Corporation who informed him they will
make every effort to silence Marvin or take some action to get rid of him.

In justice to the other stockholders and employes of the Company this matter
should receive further consideration.

Yours truly,

JNO. G. ROMMEL, President.

[The Peter Schoernhofen Brewing Company, Peter S. Theurer, Prest. O. B. Oberstat,
Vice Pres, R. Osterrieder, Secy. & Treas. Established 1859. P. O. Box 743, Chicago.
Address all correspondence to the company. Western Union and Postal Telegraph
wires in main office. Long distance telephone Canal 9.]

Confidential file.

OCTOBER 29TH, 1915.

Mr. HUGH F. FOX,
Secretary, The United States Brewers' Association,
50 Union Square, New York City, N. Y.

DEAR SIR: We beg to acknowledge receipt of your confidential circular of a
copy of letter from The Electric Storage Battery Company, of Philadelphia,
Pa., relative to statements made regarding their attitude upon the liquir
question.

Our Mr. Peter S. Theurer is of the opinion, that this firm permitted the
Evangelist "William Sunday" to make a series of speeches in their plant,
and we would appreciate very much your advising us of the truth of this
matter.

Yours very truly,

THE PETER SCHOENHOFEN BREWING CO.
By R. OSTENRIEDER, Treasurer.

Confidential.

MAR. 5. 1914.

Mr. AUGUST GOEBEL, Jr.,
The Goebel Brewing Co., Detroit, Mich.

MY DEAR SIR MR. GOEBEL: The New York representative of the Cadillac Motor
Car Company, who married the daughter of Gottfried Krueger, the brewer of
Newark, New Jersey, is very much concerned over the attitude that we have
taken. I understand that he sells 20% of all the cars that the Cadillac Company
makes. Evidently, we have at last gotten under the skins of the Cadillac
Company, as you will see from the enclosed copy of letter from their general-
manager to Mr. Uppercu, their New York agent. Mr. Ruppert is anxious to
find out, as soon as possible, whether there is any change in the attitude of the
Cadillac people, as he was on the point of buying several of their cars. Mr.
Uppercu is coming to see me soon, about it. Of course, our position is: That
while a manufacturer may treat his own men as he pleases, and may himself
preach and practice total abstinence, he must not give financial or other
assistance to our opponents. It may be perfectly true that the Cadillac Company
does not contribute to the Anti-Saloon League, or any other similar
organizations, but if the Lelands, who are the managers of the Company, and
large stockholders, are using their profits, and their position to finance the
Anti-Saloon League, and promote the fight against us, we should not assist
them by giving them our business.

Is W. C. Leland active in the prohibition cause, and is his father still helping
the Anti-Saloon League? These are the important questions. Of course, if the
Cadillac Motor Car Company would write a letter, stating that it is opposed to
prohibition, and believes that the License system is the best way of regulating
the liquor traffic, we could well afford to "shake hands with them."

Yours very truly,

H. F. FOX, Secretary.

ED Enc.

Maj. HUMES. You also notified the trade of the unfair attitude of the S. S.
Kresge Co., with their chain of 5 and 10 cents stores, because of the presentation

28

of a petition by the president of the company to Congress on the temperance
question?

Mr. FOX. Yes, sir.

(The document referred to is here printed in full in the record as follows:)

EXHIBIT FILE TT.

[United States Brewers' Association, 50 Union Square, New York.]

JUNE 15TH, 1914.

To the Members of the United States Brewers' Association:

The following is for your information:

* * * * * * *

The S. S. Kresge Company, of Detroit, Michigan.

This company operates chains of Five and Ten-cent Stores. Brokers are now
trying to sell the stock of this company, and circulars have been sent recently
to brewers and others, urging them to subscribe for it. Mr. Samuel Kresge,
who is head of the company, is one of the committee from Michigan which
went to Washington to present to Congress the petition for National Prohibition,
and is a prominent figure in the Anti-Saloon League of Michigan.

The Warner Chemical Company, 141 Broadway, New York.

Mr. L. H. Warner has declined membership in the Manufacturers' and Merchants'
Association of New Jersey, stating over his own signature that he is in
favor of prohibition and local option.

* * * * * * *

Yours, very truly,

HUGH F. FOX, Secretary.

Maj. HUMES. Now, Mr. Fox, is it not a fact that the United States Brewers'
Association or its membership caused their patronage to be withheld from the
Blackstone Hotel in Chicago because when the order from the city administration
in Chicago went out for Sunday closing and enforcement of the Sunday
law, this hotel, instead of resisting the enforcement of law, said that they
would voluntarily and at once adhere to the law? Is not that a fact?

Mr. FOX. I do not recall it, sir.

Maj. HUMES. Did not Mr. Edward Landsberg, of Chicago - a member and
officer. I believe, of your association, is he not?

Mr. FOX. He is now.

Maj. HUMES. He was in 1915?

Mr. FOX. I think he was then.

Maj. HUMES. Did he not write you this letter under date of May 27, 1915:

MY DEAR MR. FOX: The inclosed article entitled, "No Sunday Bar at Blackstone,"
which appeared in last Sunday's Chicago Tribune, is perhaps no immediate
news to you. My reason for mailing you this is that most of our colleagues
in the East while stopping off at Chicago pick the Blackstone Hotel.
In my opinion our members should be made cognizant that Tracy C. Drake,
president and general manager of the Blackstone Hotel, has never contributed
a cent against any "dry" campaign, and, from what information I have in hand
from several hotel keepers in Chicago, he is an outright prohibitionist, and in
future the "kibosh" should be placed upon the Blackstone Hotel by our members
and their friends.

Yours, very truly,

EDWARD LANDSBERG.

Senator OVERMAN. I find here in your files a book entitled "Crimes of Preachers,"
which I show you. Did you ever see it before?

Mr. FOX. Yes. We have it, I think, in our library. We have practically everything
that we know of that has ever been published which had any direct or

29

indirect bearing upon any phase of the subject published by our opponents or
anybody else - practically everything.

Senator OVERMAN. How many copies of that book did you send out?

Mr. FOX. We never sent out any copies of this.

Senator OVERMAN. You just kept it in your library?

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Senator OVERMAN. This book is entitled, as I say, "Crimes of Preachers," and
I desire to read from the first page the following:

THE TEN PARSONS.

Ten little preachers preaching love divine,
One kissed a servant girl, then there were nine.
Nine little preachers preaching sinners' fate,
One got drunk, then there were eight.
Eight little preachers showing path to heaven,
One seduced a brother's wife, then there were seven.
Seven little preachers exposing Satan's tricks,
One beat his patient wife, then there were six.
Six little preachers preaching Christ alive,
One debauched a little girl, then there were five.
Five little preachers preaching "sin no more,"
One raped a "sister," then there were four.
Four little preachers, pure as they could be,
One raped an eight-year-old, then there were three.
Three little preachers, pity so few,
One murdered his paramour, then there were two.
Two little preachers following the son,
One whipped his child to death, then there was one.
One little preacher in the fold alone,
He committed suicide, then there were none.

Why did you have that book in your library?

Mr. FOX. Really, I do not know.

Maj. HUMES. I show you EXHIBIT 867 1/2, it being a financial statement dated
September 29, 1913. It came from the files of your association. I will ask you
to look at that and see if it refreshes your recollection [handing witness file].

Mr. FOX (after examination). It ought to refresh my recollection, sir, because
there are some of my own pencil notations and figures on it, but I am afraid it
does not.

Maj. HUMES. As a matter of fact, regardless of your recollection, the records
of the association, therefore, show that on the 23d of September, 1911, there
was a payment of $2,500 by your association to Mr. Tjarks of the German-
American Alliance, does it not?

Mr. FOX. It shows that, apparently. I do not recall who Mr. Tjarks is.

Maj. HUMES. Has there been any subject more frequently discussed by the
members of the association in meeting, both of the trustees, and executive
meetings of the association, than the relations that existed between them and
the National Wholesale Liquor Dealers' Association?

Mr. FOX. That is rather broad, but there has been a great deal of discussion
of that.

Maj. HUMES. Yes; and do you mean to say that in all of those discussions
you, as an official in those meetings, never acquired a knowledge as to what the
agreement was, or as to what the relation was?

Mr. FOX. I remember, in a general way, that there was an understanding that
the ratio of expense should be two-thirds to one-third, but it was not a matter
that was under my jurisdiction.

Maj. HUMES. It was a matter of common knowledge in your association,
was it not?

30

Mr. FOX. I say it was; yes.

Maj. HUMES. For how long a period of time had that agreement existed?

Mr. FOX. I do not know.

Maj. HUMES. That the expense should be shared at the rate of two to one?

Mr. FOX. I do not know, sir.

Maj. HUMES. Was it in existence when you came with the association 11
years ago?

Mr. FOX. I do not recollect anything of the kind. In fact, my impression is
that the distillers were not organized at that time.

Maj. HUMES. Is the agreement still in vogue?

Mr. FOX. Not to my knowledge.

Maj. HUMES. When was it abrogated?

Mr. FOX. I do not know definitely, but some time ago.

Maj. HUMES. Have you the minutes of the association showing the action?

Mr. FOX. I have no minutes subsequent to those which you have.

Maj. HUMES. Do you mean to say that there are no minutes of the United
States Brewers' Association, or of the board of trustees, since the time of the
investigation and the acquirement of the existing minutes?

Mr. FOX. Yes, sir.

Maj. HUMES. You have not kept any minutes?

Mr. FOX. No, sir; we have not kept any minutes.

Maj. HUMES. Has there been any change in the practice of handling the
financial accounts of the association?

Mr. FOX. I do not think so.

Maj. HUMES. Do your committees still continue to make written reports to
the association?

Mr. FOX. Very few of our committees have met in two years or more.

Maj. HUMES. By whom and by what authority are the expenditures of the
association made?

Mr. FOX. The only expenditures with which I have any connection are the
overhead and publicity expenditures.

Maj. HUMES. Does not the board of trustees have to approve the expenditures
made by the various committees?

Mr. FOX. No, sir.

Maj. HUMES. Does each committee dip into the common fund and expend as
much as they please, when they please?

Mr. FOX. I can not answer that question. I think there is some kind of a 
general understanding. I am not a member of the finance committee.

Maj. HUMES. Do you mean to say that there has been no action taken by the
duly accredited officers of this association with reference to the expenditure of
funds?

Mr. FOX. The only specific action that I recall was in regard to advertising,
and the advertising committee was authorized to expend the money that was
raised.

Maj. HUMES. Was it not one of your duties to become affiliated with just as
many organizations as possible?

Mr. FOX. No; I would not say that was my duty at all. It was a matter
that I considered was undesirable.

Maj. HUMES. A good asset?

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Maj. HUMES. How many organizations of various kinds do you belong to?

Mr. FOX. I think before I went with the brewers I probably belonged to
about 15 or 20, and I suppose now that I belong to over 40.

31

Maj. HUMES. Literary,  scientific and educational, and civic organizations of
different kinds.

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Maj. HUMES. And you are more or less active in all of them?

Mr. FOX. No; a very large proportion of them I belong to for the purpose of
getting their reports. The only way in which you can get their reports is to
be a member.

Maj. HUMES. And for keeping in touch with all of their activities?

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Maj. HUMES. Is it not a fact that when a gentleman came over here from
Europe to investigate conditions in this country, and especially industrial accidents
and efficiency, you took him in tow and practically took him over and
dominated his report.

Mr. FOX. No.

Maj. HUMES. You remember the incident?

Mr. FOX. I could remember meeting such a gentleman and giving him any information
that I could.

Maj. HUMES. And did you not write a letter to Mr. Andreae rather boasting
of what you had diplomatically accomplished?

Mr. FOX. I may have, but I do not recall it.

Maj. HUMES. And the report of this gentleman was rather satisfactory, was
it not?

Mr. FOX. As I recall it.

Maj. HUMES. And was published, and you made it a point to get it into all
of the libraries?

Mr. FOX. That is my recollection.

Senator OVERMAN. Did you have any method of circularizing Congress?

Mr. FOX. I think that we circularized Congress and legislatures generally on
anything that we thought might be particularly interesting from a legislative
standpoint.

Senator OVERMAN. Legislatures and Congress?

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Senator OVERMAN. What was your method of doing that? Did you send out
from your headquarters or did you get people to write to Congress?

Mr. FOX. Under our method, recently at least, we have mailing lists, which
either we furnished ourselves or were furnished by a mailing agency. I think
the last year or so has been practically handled by the mailing agency known
as Boyd's Dispatch, and we simply turned over reports in bulk to them and
had them sent out.

Senator OVERMAN. Were they sent direct from your office or to Congressmen
from their different districts and States?

Mr. FOX. They were sent from New York.

Senator OVERMAN. You had no method by which you had individuals in
different districts write to Congress?

Mr. FOX. You mean on pending legislation?

Senator OVERMAN. Yes.

Mr. FOX. Oh, I think that in the Federal prohibition bill, for instance, we
asked our members individually to busy themselves and have a number of letters
sent to Congressmen.

Senator OVERMAN. And telegrams?

Mr. FOX. And telegrams.

Senator OVERMAN. Were these telegrams couched in the same language, or
did you have different kinds of telegrams sent? Was there a formal telegram
gotten up by your association?

32

Mr. FOX. No; I do not think so. Of course, it would be highly desirable to
have as much variation as possible in the telegrams; but that, I think, very
rarely occurs.

Senator NELSON. Did you get others besides members of your association to
write and send telegrams to Members of Congress or to State legislatures?

Mr. FOX. Friends and sympathizers that could be obtained to send such
letters?

Senator NELSON. Who would pay for those telegrams?

Mr. FOX. As a rule they paid for them themselves. I think the only time
last year that we got a bill was from some man in Cleveland. He sent us
quite a bill.

Senator NELSON. Did you not carry on a kind of correspondence bureau under
your auspices?

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Senator NELSON. A correspondence bureau with legislators and public
officials?

Mr. FOX. I do not think we had correspondence except very occasional correspondence
of that sort. Of course, I had a great deal of business correspondence
with the departments here, but I do not think we had any correspondence
with others.

Senator NELSON. I refer to what you would call educational correspondence.

Mr. FOX. Yes. Of course, if any fellow gave us an opening we took advantage
of it and wrote to him, but I do not think we got very many such openings.

Senator OVERMAN. Did you send many pamphlets to Congressmen?

Mr. FOX. I guess so. You will understand that I was in charge of a large
office with a number of clerks, and we had a shipping department for that
sort of thing. I could not answer of my own personal knowledge, but I think
probably a good many.

Senator NELSON. You publish a kind of annual book, do you not, or report?

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Senator NELSON. Partly of a statistical character and partly of a literary
character?

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Senator NELSON. And you have sent them to Congressmen?

Mr. FOX. We have sent them, I think, to every Member of Congress, and I
think we circulated about 30,000 copies of them.

Senator NELSON. I know that I have received a copy of that book for at least
two years, if not longer.

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Senator OVERMAN. Among all those pamphlets and books in your extensive
library I find here another book which is very astonishing to me, for I never
have before heard of such a thing. It is a blue book giving the names of
women in certain red-light districts. Why did you have that sort of a book on
your table? I see that it is marked "Office copy."

Mr. FOX. May I see that, sir?

Senator NELSON. And here is another of the same kind.

Senator OVERMAN. Describing the women and what sort of houses they keep?

Mr. FOX. Yes; this was an infamous publication that was gotten out by some
liquor house in New Orleans years ago. My recollection is that I saw the
names of one or two reputable concerns advertising in it, and I wrote them and
called their attention to the abominable character of the book. That is the
only recollection that I have of that.

Maj. HUMES. Mr. Chairman, we could go on with the exhibits that we have
here for several days with Mr. Fox, but I think the rest of the exhibits largely


33

speak for themselves, and when they are presented they will cover the ground
probably more thoroughly than would the memory of Mr. Fox if we undertook
to continue the oral examination.

Mr. FOX. I am perfectly willing to put myself entirely in your hands, Maj.
Humes, in that respect, and to assume that everything that you put in is
authentic and comes from our records. May I just say in regard to that abominable
publication to which Senator Overman has just called my attention, that
our library contains upon its shelves a large number of books, some 2,000 or
3,000 books. This sort of stuff is not upon our shelves. That evidently was
taken from these index files.

Maj. HUMES. How do you account for the advertisement of Pabst in it?

Mr. FOX. That is a very old document, and as I say, my recollection is that
the reason I had that at all was because my attention was called to the advertisement
of the gentleman whom you mentioned.

Senator OVERMAN. I see that this is a tenth edition of that book.

Mr. FOX. I think it is a pretty old, obsolete history of New Orleans.

Senator WOLCOTT. If I understand you, in some way which you can not recall,
your attention was called to the advertisements of people that you considered
reputable houses in this book of abominable character, and you got hold of the
book for the purpose of picking out the people you wanted to write to and
calling their attention to the fact that their advertisement was in there. Is
that the idea?

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Senator WOLCOTT. You were not preserving the book for any value it might
have to the United States Brewers' Association?

Mr. FOX. No. Still you can imagine that with several hundred thousand
documents on hand we can not perhaps keep a very close scrutiny of all the
material, as we ought to.

Senator WOLCOTT. I understand that. You merely had the book for the
purpose of checking up who the advertisers were, for you to notify?

Mr. FOX. Yes.

Maj. HUMES. Will you state what the purpose of the organization bureau of
the United States Brewers' Association was?

Mr. GARDINER. Yes. Its purpose was to take charge of the contests that
arose on the wet and dry question from the wet side, and for that purpose
they adopted every legitimate course that we could think of to endeavor to
arouse public sentiment in our favor.

Maj. HUMES. Will you explain just how you operated?

Mr. GARDINER. When a contest came up in a State, of course there were always
two sides to it, the wets and the drys. The drys usually brought on the
contest. The opponents to that were those who were opposed to a dry condition.
Then we would circularize the State, hold public meetings, employ
speakers, use the newspapers for the purpose as I have stated of endeavoring
to create public sentiment favorable to the wet side.

Maj. HUMES. What was your method of organization in a State when you
went into a State?

Mr. GARDINER. That was largely in the hands of a local committee - the wet
committee - and we would go over the field with them and determine what
methods were best to be employed and how deeply to employ them, and then
the matter was left in the hands of the local committee for its action and
operation.

108776 - 19 - 3

34

Maj. HUMES. What working agreement did your committee have, or your association,
with the wholesale liquor dealers?

Mr. GARDINER. They had a working agreement there by which they paid
one-third of the cost of any particular campaign, and we paid two-thirds; that
is, one to two.

Maj. HUMES. How was your organization committee financed?

Mr. GARDINER. The organization committee was financed by the United States
Brewers' Association; that is, that part of it that the brewers assumed.

Maj. HUMES. Was the money that was used to finance the organization
bureau paid from the treasury of the association or was it subscribed directly
by the members of the association through the organization bureau?

Mr. GARDINER. No; my understanding is that was subscribed from the treasury
of the association.

Maj. HUMES. That was the common practice, was it not, getting people
locally to pay one-half of the expense and you to pay the other half?

Mr. GARDINER. Yes; when we could get them to do it, but frequently we could
not; more frequently than otherwise.

Maj. HUMES. Did they not frequently raise more money locally for political
campaigns than the United States Association contributed?

Mr. GARDINER. Yes; I think that was the case in most instances; but of
course there were exceptions to it.

Maj. HUMES. What were your activities in Texas, that year?

Mr. GARDINER. The activities in Texas were, I think, not direct. We made
contributions there. I remember that I was down there once, and I do not
think I ever went back. I went over to Galveston from New Orleans.

Maj. HUMES. A good deal of money was spent there, was it not?

Mr. GARDINER. There must have been, by the Texas people. My recollection
is that our contributions were not very heavy.

Maj. HUMES. Did you not really, when you went into a State, take general
supervision of the organization work of the campaign, in order to follow out
any general plan that you had found to work successfully as a result of your
experience?

Mr. GARDINER. We recommended it to the committee, and they followed, I
think, unless they had a better plan.

Maj. HUMES. And they had to adopt your plan to campaign, or a plan that
was satisfactory to you, or you did not contribute?

Mr. GARDINER. Exactly.

Maj. HUMES. The result was that your organization dominated the method
of campaign in each State that you went into?

Mr. GARDINER. Yes; although we did not feel that it was dominating in that
way. We thought we were acting in the best interests of everybody concerned.

Maj. HUMES. In the State of Iowa did not the local committee that you were
assisting to finance prepare a schedule of the candidates for every office to be
elected in the State, and in every senatorial and legislative district, and was
not that list prepared by the State organization with which you were cooperating?

Mr. GARDINER. I do not recall that.

Maj. HUMES. And was not that list subsequently sent from Iowa to Chicago,
to Mr. Andreae's bureau, and by him delivered to Mr. Keller, with instructions
that that was the list of candidates that the German-American Alliance was to
support?

Mr. GARDINER. I do not recall that at all.

35

Maj. HUMES. I call your attention to Exhibit No. 237, a letter from Mr.
Andreae to Mr. Joseph Keller, dated May 19, 1914:

DEAR MR. KELLER: I am to-day in receipt from Mr. Thuenen, of the inclosed
list of candidates who are to be supported by the German-American Alliance,
which I forward to you for your information.

An attached to it is a list of candidates for every office in the State. Do you
mean to say that you had no knowledge that that practice was carried on?

Maj. HUMES. Mr. Chairman, you say that the Pennsylvania State Brewers'
Association, of which you were president, went out of business in 1916?

Mr. GARDINER. 1917. They dragged along for a year without any meeting or
anything else.

Maj. HUMES. Well, they went out of business about the time that the cases
in the western district of Pennsylvania came up for final disposition?

Mr. GARDINER. Yes.

Maj. HUMES. They went out of business because of the assurance and the
promise that was given to the court at the time of sentence that they would
desist from the practices of the past?

Mr. GARDINER. Positively; yes, sir.

Maj. HUMES. And you have not been connected with them since?

Mr. GARDINER. No, sir.

Maj. HUMES. But the other individual brewers, many of whom were defendants
in that case, immediately after the disbranding of that organization started
a new organization by the same name? Is that correct?

Mr. GARDINER. That is correct. Now, I will tell you why they did it, Major.
Our attorneys received from you a statement that if we were going to have an
organization, an association, it must be incorporated, as the United Brewers'
Association was, and we put it up to our lawyers, and they said it was impossible
to incorporate an association whose members were corporations, and we
told our attorneys to submit that to you, and I understand that he did it.

Maj. HUMES. I never heard of that. The fact remains, then, that in an effort
to make it appear that the defendants in that case had kept their promise to
the court the association was dissolved, and a new association with the same
name, that was not handicapped by any promises to the court, was organized?
Is that correct?

Mr. GARDINER. That is correct; but, Major, before dealing harshly on that
matter, I should like to consult with the attorney who gave us that information.
He is a man whom you know.

Maj. HUMES. It is only a question of the facts. I know that the promise
was made, as you say, to the court. Why did not you join this new association,
Mr. Gardiner?

Mr. GARDINER. Because I am all through with this work, sir - positively all
through.

Maj. HUMES. Is it not because, among other things, you proposed to keep the
word that you gave to the court through your attorney?

Mr. GARDINER. Well, I would not like to say that the other men who joined
were not equally high-minded.

Maj. HUMES. I am not asking that. I am asking you your reason.

Mr. GARDINER. I would not join the association.

Maj. HUMES. Do you know of any financial records of the Pennsylvania State
Brewers' Association showing receipts or expenditures of money, except those
books that are before you?

Mr. GARDINER. No, sir.

Maj. HUMES. All the rest have been destroyed, have they?

Mr. GARDINER. That was what we testified to in Pittsburgh, I believe.


36

Maj. HUMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. GARDINER. That was the treasurer's testimony, which I relied on. I did 
not destroy them myself.

Maj. HUMES. And your practice, I believe, was at the end of every month -
so you stated at that time, and so your treasurer stated - that at the end of 
each month, when the bank-book was balanced, the checks and the check stubs
were destroyed?

Mr. GARDINER. That is right.

Maj. HUMES. Why was that practice adhered to?

Mr. GARDINER. I do not know. We always did it.

Maj. HUMES. Was it not an unusual business practice?

Mr. GARDINER. No; they had been doing it there for years?

Maj. HUMES. You do not do it in your business, do you, Mr. Gardiner?

Mr. GARDINER. No.

Maj. HUMES. And Mr. Schmidt does not do it in his own business, does he?

Mr. GARDINER. I could not say as to that; presumably not,

Maj. HUMES. You know his character as a business man sufficiently well to
be able to answer that, I think, on general principles.

Mr. GARDINER. I would say no, but I have no positive knowledge.

Maj. HUMES. Then why, when he was responsible for a fund of approximately
$300,000, would he follow that practice?

Mr. GARDINER. I could not tell you that.

Maj. HUMES. You also know that the allegation of the United States Brewers'
Association is that they followed that practice; do you not?

Mr. GARDINER. Yes; I think it was referred to here yesterday; was it not?

Maj. HUMES. I think so.

Mr. GARDINER. Yes.

Maj. HUMES. Why was that necessary?

Mr. GARDINER. I do not know, sir. I never have been an officer of that association,
other than its president from 1905 to 1907, and I have been vice president
since.

Maj. HUMES. Is it not a fact that expenditures made by the United States
Brewers' Association by every department, except those made by you personally,
have been criticized or questioned in some way from time to time at the
meetings?

Mr. GARDINER. No; I do not think so.

Maj. HUMES. Are not the minutes full of criticism of expenditures?

Mr. GARDINER. They have no minutes. They did not have in that association,
Major, any minutes.

Maj. HUMES. In what association?

Mr. GARDINER. In the Pennsylvania association.

Maj. HUMES. Oh! I am speaking of the United States Brewers' Association.

Mr. GARDINER. Oh, yes - I do not know as to that, sir.

Maj. HUMES. Why did not the Pennsylvania State Association keep any
minutes?

Mr. GARDINER. Well, you recollect that I testified to that in Pittsburgh. I
have no objection to repeating it here. We never kept minutes in that association,
from the time of its organization. At each meeting of the board, or of
the association, the secretary made his notes of the proceedings, and subsequently
they were filled in, written out in full; and they were kept until the
subsequent meeting, when they were read and destroyed. You recollect that
was my testimony in Pittsburgh, possibly.

Maj. HUMES. Yes, sir; I remember that very well. Why was it necessary,
as soon as the minutes were read, to destroy them?

37

Mr. GARDINER. I do not know, except that it was the custom we had adopted.

Maj. HUMES. Mr. Gardiner, was it not because the activities of the association
were entirely political in their nature, and it was better policy to preserve
no record of the transactions? Is that not a fact?

Mr. GARDINER. Possibly I can not answer that, because there were other things
that occurred at those meetings than political discussions, and they were all
treated the same way. They all received the same treatment.

Maj. HUMES. Is it not a fact that there was no other real purpose of the
Pennsylvania State Association or of any the State association, for that
matter, than political activities?

Mr. GARDINER. Oh, no; that is not a fact, Major. There are a great many
things undertaken and carried into effect by those State associations.

Maj. HUMES. What has ever been carried into effect by the one of which you
were president, for instance?

Mr. GARDINER. Well, we took up this question of labor; and there is an awful
lot of manipulation there with the labor people up and down the line, one way
or the other, that required the attention of poor old Charlie Ettla until he got
too old to attend to it, and then they would take younger men and put them into
it, and endeavor to straighten out difficulties and arrange better understandings
between the men and their employers. Now, I do not mean with regard to
their votes, or anything of that kind, because you never had to bother with
anything like that in Pennsylvania, but to smooth out any misunderstandings
that occurred with those men on labor conditions, hours of labor, rates, and
matters like that, which are now largely attended to by the unions. They
come in now and tell us what we must pay and what hours we must have.
[Laughter.]

Maj. HUMES. Do you remember the matter brought up in your association
as to the number of aliens in this country, and of an organized effort
being made to get them naturalized, in order to increase the voting power, on
the theory that the aliens would be more likely to be favorable to the cause
that you were advocating?

Mr. GARDINER. Yes, sir. An old friend of yours was interested in that to a
large extent.

Maj. HUMES. Who is that?

Mr. GARDINER. Jim Mulvihill.

Maj. HUMES. Oh, yes; he was the chairman of the committee. Now, there
was a committee appointed by your State association consisting of James P.
Mulvihill, George Edel, Mr. Cusick of Scranton, Mr. Fuhrman of Shamokin,
and Adam Scheidt of Norristown, to take charge of that?

Mr. GARDINER. Yes.

Maj. HUMES. And you organized offices in Philadelphia, Scranton, and Pittsburgh,
did you not?

Mr. GARDINER. Not in Philadelphia.

Maj. HUMES. Your local organization had an office?

Mr. GARDINER. Oh, yes; they would meet there occasionally, but there was
not much done in Philadelphia.

Maj. HUMES. You were getting into the mining region more especially?

Mr. GARDINER. Yes. Philadelphia was looked after by the downtown organization,
not ours.

Maj. HUMES. And the purpose of this committee was to get these foreigners
naturalized?

Mr. GARDINER. Yes, sir.

Maj. HUMES. So as to increase their voting power?

Mr. GARDINER. Yes, sir.

38

   Maj. HUMES.  And you figured you could make two or three hundred thousand votes in that way?
   Mr. GARDINER. Yes. Jim said he would do better than that, I think
   Maj. HUMES. An arrangement was entered into by which these offices that
you opened were given the appearance and the earmark of labor offices? Is
not that true?
   Mr. GARDINER. Well, I do not know. I never was in one of their offices. I
never saw one.
   Maj. HUMES. You know the way the thing was worked? You know the
policy of it?
   Mr. GARDINER. Yes, sir; just as you state it.
   Maj. HUMES. It is not also a fact that an arrangement was made with active
labor leaders to allow the use of their names on the doors of these offices, to
try to persuade the foreigners that —
   Mr. GARDINER. That it was all right.
   Maj. HUMES (continuing). That you were trying to bring into the fold, that
labor was trying to help them?
   Mr. GARDINER. Yes.
   Maj. HUMES. And that was the camouflage that was used?
   Mr. GARDINER. Yes.
   Maj. HUMES. Is that still in operation?
   Mr. GARDINER. I do not believe it is. I do not think it is, but I do not know
positively.
   Maj. HUMES. It was costly. Was it successful?
   Mr. GARDINER. Yes. Cusick said that he was very successful in his department,
and Jim always maintained that it was a good thing, and so did George 
Edel. Personally, I do not know anything about its operation except what
those men stated.
   Maj. HUMES. The State associations collected a larger assessment than the
United States Association?
   Mr. GARDINER. Yes, per barrel; but, of course, the sum total was not larger.
I remember that in that 50-cent case, two brewers, both of them old men, when
told that the assessments would have to be made at that rate, or they would
be ruined, said they could not do it. One man said, "I can not do it, it is
impossible; I could not raise the money." Another gentleman there went over
to him and put his arm around his shoulder and said, "Yes, you can, you give
me your note and I shall put up the money for you."
  Maj. HUMES. Of course the aggregate amount raised by the brewers' associations
in all of the the States would be very much larger that the aggregate
amount raised by the United States Brewers' Association.
   Mr. GARDINER. Oh, yes, if assessments like that prevailed, but they were most
unusual, and in that case, in this particular State that I refer to, there were
very, very few brewers.
   Maj. HUMES. I wish to submit the minutes of an executive session of the
United States Brewers' Association held at Atlantic City, N. J., at the Shelburne
Hotel, October 3, 1913, and especially to call attention to the speech made
at that time by Mr. Percy Andreae.
   Senator OVERMAN. He was the man who they had in charge of this association
of commerce and labor?
   Maj. HUMES. Yes. I call that to your attention in connection with the subsequent
meeting held on the same day, at which the National Association of
Commerce and Labor was organized, and Mr. Andreae's speech gives a rather
comprehensive outline of the things that they had in mind at the time. I


39

want to call to attention to two or three extracts from the speech of Mr. Andreae,
so that you will understand the connection of it with other testimony. I read
from it as follows:
    Now, gentlemen, at the desire and at the request of those whom you choose
to represent you on the national committee of brewers acting in conjunction
with the Trustees of the U. S. Brewers' Association, I have agreed to place my
time and my services at the disposal of the industry for the purpose of inaugurating
a movement of the kind I have indicated. I am frank to tell you that
the main condition which I have stipulated in accepting the task entrusted to
me was that I must have an entirely free hand, and not be subject to the interference
or the dictation of boards or committees.

    Gentlemen, I believe that among those of you who know me there are none
who need my assurance on this one point; namely, that if the plan referred to
contained one single feature which could not bear exposure in the full light of
day, I would not be its author (applause) nor would I undertake under any
circumstances to share in the responsibility or the work attaching to it.

    We hear the constant cry from the professional politician: "Get the liquor
question out of politics." Do you really believe he means it? Why, gentlemen,
this question in its political aspect is one of the main sources from which the
politician derives his sinews of war in politics. And why? Because we brewers
supply them, and make it a paramount object to the politician to keep the
prohibition movement alive. I say make that question expensive to him instead
of profitable, and you will see how soon his tactics will change.
    Gentlemen, these friends of ours, and I mean by "these friends" certain
important organizations that are in principle friendly to us, take this view of
our attitude towards them, and in stating that view I am offerng no opinion of
my own regarding its justice or injustice, but merely recording the facts. They
say we flatter ourselves that we hold them in the hollow of our hand; that we
expect them to rush to our aid at our mere command, when the need arises,
and that in the interim we leave them to shift for themselves, on the assumption
that they need no support and encouragement from us, because they are with
us and ready to fight for us anyway. In other words, they claim that we call
for their army to come to our aid, when the enemy is upon us, and in time of
peace we contribute nothing, or next to nothing, in effort or means, to maintain
that army and increase its efficiency. Yet this army, with the proper support
and encouragement, could not only be doubled and trebled in numbers, but
with the adequate means and methods, could be so organized that its efficiency
as an active force at the polls, working under systematic direction, would be
increased tenfold.
    Gentlemen, within a month of that incident and the wholesome lesson it
brought home to me, the most important department of our league in Ohio
was inaugurated, namely, the department which has in charge the investigation
of the local political conditions throughout the State, with the possibilities
of party alignment and the searching examination into the character and 
records and the public and private associations and affiliations of every candidate
for office. It is due entirely to the work of this department and to the
implicit confidence of the rank and file of our organization in the unerring
accuracy of that work, that Ohio has to-day a legislature, which, in spite of
a large majority of its counties being still "dry" under the county option law,
is almost as overwhelmingly liberal as five years ago it was overwhelmingly
dry.
    This work, and the systematic organization that requires to be maintained
in every county and senatorial district of the State to render it effective at
election time, is the most expensive part of the entire Ohio organization, and
when I tell you that the allied industries in the State have in the past
five years spent nearly a million dollars in building up and perfecting this
organization, and that they do not regret one penny of the vast sum thus
expended, you will readily conceive that the results obtained by the organization
have been valuable.
    Now, is there any need for me to explain the application of all this to our
contemplated national organization?
    Every fact must be ascertained and every personality investigated on the
ground itself, and in addition we must have the record of urban and rural
population in each district, showing the proportion of the so-called foreign

40
element; the character of the saloon element, with the names of those fitted to 
lead and direct the others in election work; the strength of the labor organizations 
and their affiliations, whose interest is enlisted by our friends in the 
labor movement for the sake of the hundreds of thousands of our brothers 
whose livelihood is threatened by prohibition. In short, there is work here,
if it is to be done systematically and effectively, for a very large staff of
capable and experienced men, and when they have completed it, and we have
dissected and tabulated it, and planned our fight in each district on the foundation 
it gives us, then our real work only commences, and every organization
affiliated with us, including labor bodies, liberty leagues, alliances of so-called 
foreign citizens, saloon keepers' associations and others, is called upon to send 
out its representatives who, with the knowledge imparted to them from our
headquarters proceed under our direction to rally their forces at the polls and
there bring out labors to their final conclusion. 

I also call particular attention to the following:

If I asked you to state who are the best, the strongest, and the staunchest 
friends our industry possesses in this country, you would give me only one correct 
answer. They are the millions and millions of falsely described foreign
citizens, to whom American in reality owes as much of her greatness to-day as
she does to the descendants of her original settlers, and, gentlemen, certainly a 
goodly portion of her enlightenment and her intellectual supremacy. Do you 
realize that the greatest disaster that could overtake our industries to-day
would be the loss or the gradual disappearance of those broad ideals of life, 
that passionate love of personal freedom, that sturdy spirit of individual independence, 
and that hatred of cant and hypocrisy, which these millions and 
millions of men of German, Austrian, Bohemian, Swiss or other descent, or
which their fathers before them, brought over with them from the old country?
What keeps those ideals, that love of liberty, that independent spirit, and that
hatred of hypocritical preference alive in these people? One thing, and one
only. The language in which they learned to formulate their views of life 
and their ideals of manhood and citizenship. What is the main influence
that keeps that citizenship? What is the main influence that keeps that
language alive in our country, and transmits it from generation to generation?
It is the foreign press. 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE PRESS

Gentlemen, I tell you that the death of every foreign newspaper in this
country, with few solitary exceptions, means the removal of a stone in the 
foundation upon which our industry is based. And how many of them are
gradually going under, not for lack of readers, but for lack of those means
which every newspaper requires in order to maintain and increase its circulation: 
The income from its advertising columns?

Don't starve the foreign press, but fed it, help it, support it, wherever you
find it and however small you find it, to the very utmost limit of your means
and powers. I am not asking this of you as a sacrifice, because it is no
sacrifice. You will profit by it twofold. For doesn't a man seek such channels
of advertisement as reach those who are likely to buy his product, rather than 
those who are not likely to buy it? Advertising is paid for in exact proportion 
to the circulation of the advertising medium. When you advertise in an
English paper, you reach a reading public of which probably only 50 or 60 
per cent are ever likely to respond to your advertisement. When you advertise
in a foreign-language paper you reach a reading public of which nearly a
hundred per cent are likely purchasers of your product. 

Maj. HUMES. I submit also the minutes of the meeting at which the National 
Association of Commerce and Labor was organized, showing a list of the 
persons present, and Mr. Andreae's speech looking to the organization of the
association, and there are one or two extracts from that speech to which I shall
now call especial attention (reading):

Now, I do not want to go further into details. There are so many angles
to this question of organization that I could talk till midnight on the subject, 
but the whole point in the question is this: One central headquarters and one
central head is required, in order to make every organization an effective one; 
and, therefore, gentlemen, I conclude by repeating - if you will organize as I 
ask you to organize with the understanding - well, I will put it as bluntly as 
I can, that you will accept me as the leader of our organization. 

41

Further, I call attention especially to the following:

Now, collect that money, and see that it is distributed to one center alone; 
in other words, that none of it goes astray, and is not spent in some of those
silly little elections where a lot of saloon keepers are put out at so much per
day to do election work, which amounts to nothing in nine cases out of ten, 
whereas, while all that money is being spent in that direction we are losing
our lives in Washington. 

What does it matter to me whether a little locality goes dry; what does
it matter to me, gentlemen, if the State of Illinois, where my business is, 
goes wet, if at Washington they declare for nation-wide prohibition?

Gentlemen, take our organization in Ohio- I do not want to digress, but 
these matters are of great interest and they are the meat of the whole subject - 
our organization in Ohio is such that I can go to the telephone here, 
call up our headquarters in Cincinnati, and say: "Call a stenographer to the
phone," and I dictate to him a statment. I say: "I want that statement to
be in the hands of the members of the Personal Liberty League of Ohio within
twenty-four hours." In twenty-four hours that statement will be in the
hands of 150,000 people, voters in the State of Ohio, and among those 150.000
voters are several thousand who are good for a large number of votes, besides 
their own. We have the address of every member and the necessary number
of envelopes ready, stamped, in triplicate, and when a statement has gone
out, giving instructions with regard to either the candidates or to the question 
which is up before them, simply telling them what the Personal Liberty
League desires in that particular matter, when that set has gone out, there
are thirty girls right there at the table ready to supply the next lot of envelopes 
so that there are always three sets of envelopes of 150,000 each, stamped
and addressed ready to go out. 

Gentlemen, that is organization! It costs money, and it can only be done if
you will get rid of big committees and boards, and put the matters in the 
hands of one person whom you can fire if he does not make good, and replace
by some one else who will make good. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN A. M'DERMOTT.

MR. MCDERMOTT. I was employed originally by an organization committee,
under which I worked for, I think, about three years, until Mr. Gardiner took 
charge of the work. My work, to start out with, was the organization of the 
brewers in the different States into State associations and combating the prohibition 
movement in the wet-and-dry State, country, and city local-option fights, 
as the fights would arise in different parts of the country. 
Maj. HUMES. As I understand, your first duty was to organize State brewers'
associations in the States where they were not already organized?
Maj. HUMES. In carrying on the work of the organization bureau, what elements 
did you first start out to organize?
Mr. McDERMOTT. The first element we started out to organize was the trade
itself in the States; and out of the trade would be formed a committee which 
would select a campaign manager for that State or for that campaign, and in 
some cases we furnished campaign managers or furnished experts to help them, 
to stay there until the fight was over. In a number of cases I did so myself. 
Maj. HUMES. The first thing you did was to organize the trade?
Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes, sir. 
Maj. HUMES. To organize brewers' associations and get them to go out and
organize retailers and to form your cooperative committees with the allied
interests in the State?
Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes, sir. 
Maj. HUMES. Did you direct your energies toward an attempt to organize
the labor element or to dominate or influence or organize labor?
Mr. McDERMOTT. In a number of these State campaigns and in the local-
option campaigns there would be a number of local unions that would be indi-

42

vidually interested because of the loss of their positions and because of the 
fact that they had taken a stand against prohibition and passed resolutions; 
and some local labor man would become active in the campaign to look after that
interest. 

Senator OVERMAN. You speak of organizing the allied interests. What were
they? Name some of the allied interests to which you refer. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Where we would go into a State, Senator, and there were
a number of people doing business with the brewers or with the retailers or
with the hotels or anything of that kind, we tried to organize them as an allied
interest, because of their doing business with our people. 

Senator OVERMAN. That is, the hotels, bottling establishments, and so on? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Or with the trade. 

Senator OVERMAN. There must have been a great many allied interests. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. There were, in a number of States. 

Senator OVERMAN. What was your method of organizing them? Did you get
up an association of those men? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I guess there was, in some cases. That was generally left 
to the local committee. 

Maj. HUMES. I show you Exhibit 52, and ask you if that is not a summary
of the political situation in practically every State in the Nation, that was prepared
by the organization bureau? I think it is almost alphabetically arranged; 
is it not, Mr. McDermott? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. (after examining paper). This is a report, Major, that I 
made, I think, about seven or eight years ago. 

Maj. HUMES. I just picked that out as a sample. It covers practically every
State in the Union? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. It is a report on the conditions as they looked to me at that
time. 

Maj. HUMES. Is it not a fact that you made regular or practically regular
monthly reports to the board of trustees, or to Mr. Gardiner, of the political
situation in the several States? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Not monthly reports. I presume I reported to Mr. Gardiner, 
maybe sometimes to the board, from time to time, on the conditions, on what
they looked to me to be. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I had organizers and regular men- Mr. William Dietrich, 
of Chicago, and Mr. George J. Thompson, of Chicago. 

Maj. HUMES. What was Mr. Thompson’s business while he was in your employ? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Thompson had been connected with the Cigar Makers’ 
International Union, and he was well acquainted with the labor leaders in the
different cities and counties, and he did his particular work amongst those
people. 

Maj. HUMES. And his business was to go out and undertake to organize the
labor organizations in the places in which you were interested? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. In the places in which we would have a fight. 

Maj. HUMES. Yes. Now, what was Mr. Dietrich’s specialty? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. He was a sort of chief organizer. He helped to organize 
States, and in some cases did regular organization publicity work. 



43

Maj. HUMES. Whom else did you have? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I have had a number of men, on and off, during those years. 

Maj. HUMES. Mr. Grau? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I had Mr. Grau for two or three years. 

Maj. HUMES. What was his specialty? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. He was a speaker and organizer, also. 

Maj. HUMES. What class of the public did he especially appeal to? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Well, he appealed to the allied trades and public meetings
he addressed in different parts of the country, until he quit me and went with 
the maltsters. 

Maj. HUMES. Were you present a the meeting of brewers held in Chicago in 
the summer of 1913 when the five-year contracts were entered into? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Yes. 

Maj. HUMES. What was the purpose of that meeting? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. The purpose of that meeting was to more thoroughly organize the trades and wake them up to the dangers of national prohibition. 

Maj. HUMES. Is is not a fact that in the spring of 1913 it was discovered 
that it was going to be necessary to raise larger sums of money than had been
raised theretofore and that the purpose of the meeting was to devise ways and 
means for enlarging the exchequer? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Well, the purpose of the meeting was to get the brewers
of the United States in convention assembled and and aroused them to the dangers
of national prohibition, so that if they decided to go ahead and put on a campaign 
which at that time we were only covering certain sections, and we
had more State fights on than we could take care of- and to go ahead with a 
big plan of national organization and oppose national prohibition. These gentlemen 
had many millions of dollars of property at stake and there were several
thousand jobs of men at stake; they believed in their product; they believed
in the principles of the Government that protected them on it; and they felt
as though they were not getting their side of the facts before the country as 
they should; and that was in my mind as to the real reasons of the meeting. 

Maj. HUMES. At any rate, the scheme was devised of entering into five-year
contracts with all the brewers of the country, by which they were to pay an additional
assessment of three cents a barrel on their output to the Brewers’
Association? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Yes; I understand that to be so. 

Maj. HUMES. And the funds of the United States Brewers’ Association since 
that meeting in Chicago in 1913 have been very much larger than they ever
were before? 

Maj. HUMES. When you went into a State to organize that State, how did you
build up your organization? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. We organized the trade in the State, as I explained yesterday, 
the brewers, the wholesalers, and the retailers, and we took a general survey
of the situation in the State, the size of the State, the number of large
cities, the population, and campaign managers were picked and publicity managed, 
organizers, county managers, and so on down the line. 

Maj. HUMES. Did you seek to dominate or secure favorable action from the
labor organizations in those States? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. As a general rule the labor organizations independently, of 
their own volition, always passed resolutions opposed to prohibition, because 90 
per cent of them were opposed to prohibition. 

Maj. HUMES. Why was it necessary for you to employ George Thompson to go
into these States and use his connection with organized labor to gain admis-

44

sion to various labor organizations and secure the passage of resolutions by
those organizations? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Because it was necessary to have a man in organized labor in the State. 

Maj. HUMES. And it was his business to attend the meetings of organized 
labor and prepare and secure the passage of resolutions? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. He would prepare them, but I do not believe he secured the
passage of them. They all passed them voluntarily. 

Maj. HUMES. HE was the one who actively presented the matter? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. He brought the matter to their attention. 

Senator OVERMAN. He initiated it? 

Me. MCDERMOTT. He initiated it. 

Maj. HUMES. Was it not also your policy, when you went into a State, to 
organize as many associations of various kinds as possible, liberty leagues, 
personal liberty leagues, manufacturers’ and dealers’ clubs, and other organizations, 
giving them various names, in order to further your propaganda and to
carry on your organization work? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Certainly we organized all the elements that were opposed 
to prohibition. 

Maj. HUMES. And you organized them under some trade name or some other
name that would distinguish them from brewery organizations or liquor organizations? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. The local people would organize and they would select their
own name, whatever name they wanted. Because of the fact that they were 
making a fight against prohibition we assisted them in making the fight. There
were a number of States that were dry States and a number of counties that
were dry counties. People were opposed to saloons in a number of instances in 
some of those States, but they were also opposed to the principle of State and 
national prohibition. 

Senator STERLING. And under whatever name they were organized they were 
organized for the purpose of fighting prohibition? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Yes; they were organized to fight prohibition. 

Maj. HUMES. Was it not your purpose to use names for these organizations 
that would not indicate the real, underlying purpose of the organization? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I never looked at it in that way, because before they went 
along very far everyone could understand the underlying principles of the 
organization. 

Maj. HUMES. Could the public at large, those who were not associated with
the organization, know the purpose of the organization from the name? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. No; I do not suppose they could. 

Maj. HUMES. It was good campaign management from your standpoint to organize 
in a way and under a name so that the public would not recognize the
connection of the organization with the liquor movement? That was good
politics from your standpoint? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. That is a question. It has not brought much result. 

Maj. HUMES. Mr. McDermott, is the working agreement between the United
States Brewers’ Association and the National Wholesale Liquor Dealers' Association 
still in force? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. No, sir. 

Maj. HUMES. When did those interests separate? 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Right after the Pittsburgh investigation- before that, in 
fact, as I remember it. I could not give you the exact date; but after the 
campaigns were over the year before, when we lost out everywhere, it practically 


45
ceased then. In fact, I think there was nothing going on at the time. 
That is my recollection. Now, I could not say, offhand, exactly. 
Maj. HUMES. Each organization, then, where you are active now, is carrying
on its activities independent of the other?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Yes.  Neither is very active. 
Maj. HUMES. But where you do get into a fight you cooperate, do you not?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. No; we have not been into any fights the last two years at
any place. 
Maj. HUMES. During the last two years, then, the activities of the United
States Brewers' Association and the expenditures of the United States Brewers'
Association have been directed through advertising channels rather than through
the organization bureau of which you are manager?
Mr. MCERMOTT. Yes, sir. 
Maj. HUMES. How did that change come about? Why did that change in 
program develop?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. I think Mr. Gardiner explained that the other day, that
after the change of policy of going along with the brewers and distillers, and 
the loss of so many of these States, the work was curtailed, and then the funds,
and we just gradually quit. 
Maj. HUMES. In line with the testimony that was introduced by Mr. Gardiner
and the schedule of the bank account of the Pennsylvania State Association,
here is the summary, based upon his testimony, that we would like to submit
in order to show the funds that were raised by that association. 
Senator OVERMAN. What is the sum total?
Maj. HUMES. The sum total over the period of four years is $922,000. In 1911
there was $104,209-----
Senator OVERMAN. You need not read it by years. I just wanted to know the 
total for the whole four years. There is some evidence here that there was a 
million dollars for that period. 
Maj. HUMES. This is the Pennsylvania State Association. The bank accounts 
of the United States Brewers' Association were offered yesterday showing that 
the highest deposit in any one year was $1,400,000.
Senator OVERMAN. This is the Pennsylvania State Association? 
Maj. HUMES. This is the Pennsylvania State Association summary showing
the amount raised within the State alone. That was outside of, and, of course,
in addition to, the money that went into the treasury of the United States
Brewers' Association.
Senator STERLING. That approximates a million dollars. It is $900,000, is it?
Maj. HUMES. $922,000 in the period of four years. $300,000 is the largest
amount. That was what was received by them in that one fund in 1914. 
Senator OVERMAN. Was that election year?
Maj. HUMES. Yes, sir. 
Senator OVERMAN. Have you got how much was spent during that election
year by the United States Brewers' Association? You say $300,000 was spent 
by the State association.
Maj. HUMES. We can figure out the withdrawals from the bank accounts of 
the State associations. It was practically all withdrawn each year. The 
balance carried over from year to year each time is ordinarily twenty or thirty 
thousand dollars. 
Senator OVERMAN. In that election year, then, as I recollect, there was some-
thing over a million dollars collected. 
Capt. LESTER. $1,400,000. 
Senator OVERMAN. And then, in addition to that, this Pennsylvania matter.

46

Mr. PERCY ANDREAE, 
Chicago, Ill. 

DEAR SIR: With the close of the campaigns of 1914, a review of the work 
accomplished by your bureau during the past year will undoubtedly be of  
interest.

Under your direction the plants outlined by you have been carried in nearly 
all instances to a successful fruition by those who have been privileged to 
follow your command. A brief resume of the work of the several departments
of your bureau will best tell the story. 

Undoubtedly one of the most important factors developed, from an organization 
standpoint, is that of the relationship you have established with the 
so-called foreign-language elements through their representative publications 
in the United States. At this date, 683 newspapers with a total circulation of 
approximately 7,500,000 are republishing in twenty-nine languages the articles
on Personal Liberty appearing bi-weekly over the name of Louis N. Hammerling 
in the American Leader and working towards a general organization 
among the readers of these newspapers in defense of the people's liberties.

For your information I want to say that the documentary evidence will establish 
that the articles in the American Leader, referred to, over the name
of Louis N. Hammerling, were really written by Mr. Andreae; and in order to 
conceal the identity of the authorship Mr. Hammerling's name as president of 
the Foreign Language Newspaper Association was used as the author, and that
was part of the written contract between Hammerling and Andreae. 

The effectiveness of this work among the foreign language citizens was clearly 
demonstrated in the campaign in Ohio, where in all of the cities where the 
naturalized foreigner was to be found, decisive victory came to those opposing 
prohibition, and advocating home rule, and the activity to which the foreign
citizens were aroused in that State was probably one of the greatest contributing 
factors to our success.
Equal in importance to the development of this element of organization were
the measures adopted to bring the German-American Alliance into harmonious
accord with your plans. The very effective work accomplished by the Indianapolis 
Bureau of the German-American Alliance established under your
direction has been most strikingly evidenced in the campaigns waged in Texas, 
Iowa, and Ohio. Specific reference to those campaigns, with the work done 
by the German-American Alliance Bureau, will be made later in this report.
As another important phase of the work developed from a national organization 
standpoint, we may mention the action of the United Brewery Workers,
who through their official publication, have carried on an aggressive publicity
campaign, the articles being supplied from this office, and appearing regularly
in their columns. 
Senator STERLING. By "this office," what office is meant?
Maj. HUMES. The Andreae office; the office of the National Association of 
Commerce and Labor.
Senator STERLING. Oh, yes. 
Maj. HUMES (reading) : 
These articles have been copied in many of the labor papers of the United
States, and have contributed their share in rousing organized labor to opposition
to prohibition.
See your report to the President of the U.S. Brewers' Association of April
23, 1914. 
In reference to nation-wide prohibition the work done under  your direction
in apprising Congress of the sentiment existing throughout the country against
national prohibition requires special mention. You will recall that early in 
January of this year, you called a meeting of many prominent brewers and 
liquor men to meet with you here in Chicago for the purpose of canvassing the 
situation as it affected nation-wide prohibition in their several States. (See
your report to the President of the U.S. Brewers' Association of January 23,
1914.) At this meeting there were forty-four present, as representatives from
sixteen States. The resolution of protest against nation-wide prohibition to 


47
be sent to Congress placed before the meeting by you, was adopted, and an 
aggressive campaign immediately begun to see that such protests, either in 
petition or individual form, were circulated throughout the country for
signature. The work done by the brewers, distillers, wholesale liquor dealers,
and the members of the allied trades, resulted in thousands of protests being 
filed in Washington, and this work was further augmented by that of the 
United Brewery Workers, German-American Alliance, and the foreign-language
elements, with the result that it is estimated that more than four million
people in the United States made it apparent to Congress that they were
opposed to nation-wide prohibition. In order to insure the proper attention
to the protests as they poured in upon the Senators and Congressmen in Washington, 
you directed two of your staff to proceed to Washington and, with the 
assistance of friends on the spot, to follow up these protests and arrange for
their proper presentation to the Congress. In illustration of the effect of this
campaign it may be pointed out that previous to the time that the protests were
filed with Congress, the general concensus of opinion at the National Capitol 
was that if either the Hobson, Sheppard, or Works resolutions should be pressed
to a vote, the necessary two-thirds in both branches would register in favor of 
submitting a nation-wide prohibition resolution to the various States for ratification 
or rejection. Within six weeks after the protests began to pour in 
upon Congress, the sentiment had undergone such a thorough change that it 
was the general opinion in Washington that nation-wide prohibition would not 
receive more than a majority vote instead of he two-thirds vote in either branch
of the National Congress. When the protests began to grow by thousands, and 
even millions, the sentiment underwent a further change, to the extent that it 
became the fixed opinion of the best informed in Washington that it was doubtful 
whether prohibition would even receive a majority of the votes. A further
indication of the effectiveness of this protest work can be found in the changed
attitude of those in charge of the prohibition campaign at Washington. At first
the prohibitionists insisted upon their measure being repored out of committee,
and pressed to a vote. Later, with the change of sentiment, largely caused by 
these protests, they did everything in their power to keep the Rules Committee
from reporting a special rule to bring the measure to a vote, fearing that it 
would be overwhelmingly defeated as the result in part at least of the protests
filed with Congress and their effect upon the Members.
The rapidity with which the various liberal elements responded to your call
upon the protest matter can be shown by one instance. When word was received
by you that the Judiciary Committee of the House had reported the Hobson
resolution to the House, and that a special rule would likely bring it to the floor
for a vote, within twelve hours after that information had been received every 
brewer and the allied elements of your organization had been informed of the 
action, and urged to forward immediately telegraphic or written personal protests 
from as many people as could be secured to send such protests. 
Senator STERLING. Maj. Humes, right there, what do your understand to be 
included in "the allied elements of your organization"? 
Senator OVERMAN. Everybody that sold to barrooms--persons who dealt in 
pickles and cigars and bottles and cheese; everything that barrooms use. 
Maj. HUMES. You will notice from the record that there have been organized 
all over the country organizations known as manufacturers' and dealers' clubs
and associations. It was through those organizations that there has been an 
effort made, and a very successful effort in most instances, to bring together
all of the business interests who deal with or sell to the brewers or the liquor
dealers in any way. 
Senator STERLING. Those are some of the associations referred to by Mr. McDermott 
in his testimony awhile ago?
Maj. HUMES. Yes, sir; and the National Association of Commerce and Labor
is supposed to be an organization of those allied interests. The records that
have been offered in evidence show that at Atlantic City in 1913 this meeting
was called in connection with the meeting of the United States Brewers' Association, 
and their convention, for the purpose of organizing all of these
allied trades into an organization to be identified with the brewers and financed

48
by the brewers, but with a view of preventing the public generally from knowing
of the alliance.

Senator OVERMAN. And blacklisting everybody who took part in advocating
prohibition.

Maj. HUMES (reading):

Fifteen hundred telegrams were sent from  your office upon that subject, and
the response was so ready that by the afternoon of the next day every Senator
and Congressman had received hundreds of telegraphic protests, which were
further strengthened and augmented by thousands of written protests.

It was at about this time that the hotel men of the United States invited you
to address them upon the subject of nation-wide prohibition at a special meeting
of their association held in New York City. As a result of your address
they adopted resolutions and appointed a committee to take a poll, upon a specified
date, of their guests and their attitude toward nation-wide prohibition,
such poll to be carried forward under your direction, through your bureau.
The committee appointed by the hotel men sent to the 22,000 hotels in the
United States a letter urging them to assist in the taking of the poll at any date specified. These 8,000
hotels are the principal ones in the country. (See your report to the president
of the U.S. Brewers' Association on April 23, 1914.)

While referring to the wide publicity of the movement against nation-wide
prohibition obtained through your address at the hotel men's convention, it
may be noted that the publicity secured through the foreign language newspapers
undoubtedly came as the result of your address to the 600 publishers of
foreign language newspapers in New York City February 7th. This address
led to a wide discussion by leading statesmen and educators throughout the
country, and brought added publicity through most of the leading newspapers
in the United States. It also led to meetings in various centers of the country
between you and the publishers of foreign language newspapers, at which discussions
of the ways and means of utilizing the enormous influence of this
organized press in furtherance of liberal ideas was held.

The address delivered by you on July 22nd at Cleveland, on the Need of a
National Liberty Day, secured wide publicity, and many State organizations
thought it of sufficient merit to use it extensively in their State campaigns.

Your publicity department early in July etsablished a weekly news service,
which is being sent to the weekly and semiweekly newspapers throughout the
United States, and from which excellent results have followed, showing that in
the few months during which this news service has been in operation 614 weekly
newspapers published in 32 States have accepted the service and have published
1,308 special articles emphasizing the liberal side of the temperance question.

Another phase of general publicity is the monthly magazine issued through
your publicity department, which goes to 150,000 bona fide subscribers in the
various States of the Union. This magazine is one devoted to topics of interest
to both men and women, and in every issue carries an article favorable to the
liberal cause. It is in every way a legitimate magazine and receives a
considerable advertising patronage. It is largely read among the farming population,
and the circulation is increasing appreciable every week.

Senator OVERMAN. What magazine is that?

Maj. HUMES. The Hearthstone was the name of it. It has since been abolished.
[Reading:]

Another effective means of publicity established by you was when arrangements
were recently made to take over control of, and direct the movements of
the National Model License League. This organization has an established name
throughout the country, and is the means of securing extensive dissemination
of friendly matter. The fact that you are directing its movements will bring
it into more harmonious accord with the general plans of publicity and
organization established in National and State campaigns.

Early in December, 1913, three of the leading brewers of Texas visited your
bureau in this city and requested you to suggest plans for a campaign to be
conducted in that State. These gentlemen states that they were confronted
with a campaign which might result in the election of a prohibition governor,
the submission of a prohibition constitutional amendment, either by
the approval of the voters at their primaries, to be held in July, or by the submission


49

by the legislature it two-thirds of both branches of that body should
consist of prohibitionists. From this it may be seen that the contest in Texas
was extremely complicated, presenting as it did at least three phases. Upon
their request to you and under instructions from you, your organization department
made a survey of the State of Texas, and a complete analysis was made
of the conditions existing in the State based upon the survey. This was a
stupendous undertaking, from the fact that there are two hundred and fifty-
three counties in the State, and that the analysis not only had to be made
from a State-wide standpoint, but also from the standpoint of the senatorial 
district. Upon the completion of the survey and when the analyses had been
partially completed, a conference was held with Mr. R. L. Autrey, who had
been designated by the brewers of Texas to represent them in the active campaign,
and Mr. Rollins M. Colquitt, who had been chosen as the manager of
the campaign. The reports covered by the survey, together with the analyses,
were turned over to Mr. Colquitt, and taken by him to Texas. Following the
conference referred to, the Indianapolis bureau of the German-American Alliance,
at your request sent several very capable men into Texas, where they
proceeded to develop the elements of organization in that direction along identically the same lines followed in Iowa. Your organization department likewise sent an active and intelligent labor man into the State, and so effective was his work that for the first time in history of the Texas State Federation of Labor it passed, by an almost unanimous vote, a resolution at its El Paso convention, denouncing the iniquities of State-wide prohibition, and pledging its support to the antiprohibition candidate for governor, and against the submission of State-wide prohibition. In explanation of this action is might be well to state at this time that the prohibitionists of Texas had nominated Thomas H. Ball for governor. Mr. Ball was one of the strongest men that could possibly have been put forward by the prohibitionists. The antiprohibitionists had centered upon James E. Ferguson, who was well and favorably known as a banker and farmer, but who did not have an extensive acquaintance throughout the State as a politician. The prohibitionists had also petitioned for the submission at the primaries of a resolution binding the legislature to submit in 1915 the question of State-wide prohibition. it is here with appropriate to state in Texas if the voters approve a resolution of this character at the Democratic primaries, that is binds the legislature to its fulfillment. The the plan of campaign suggests by you to those in charge of the fight in Texas gradually unfolded by your organization department from Mr. Rollins M. Colquitt, manager of the Texas campaign, under date of June 2nd, when the entries for the primaries had been closed. The quotations from Mr. Colquitt's letter are as follows:
"I have found the reports extremely valuable, especially in providing complete information for the men who are going to handle special districts and who had some particular work to perform."
"The county chairmen---- have used the different elements of organization suggested in the reports to the best advantage and I believe when the vote is counted in July that the effect of this organization will be apparent."
"In several of the counties we have succeeded in accomplishing wonderful results."
That Mr. Colquitt's prediction was fully substantiated by the vote in July, is of course, a matter of history. Mr. Ferguson, the anti-Prohibition candidate, succeeded in defeating Thomas H. Ball, the Prohibition candidate. Submission was defeated, and a sufficient number of Senators wee elected to make it impossible for the prohibitionists to have two-thirds of this body, while the anti-Prohibition membership in the House is also sufficiently large to make it impossible for the prohibitionists to have two-thirds of that body.
The character of the work done by the organization department of your bureau in Texas has been referred to in a letter received from Mr. R. L. Autrey, from which the following extracts have been taken:
"I will tell you frankly that the data gathered by your men under your plan of survey is very valuable. In fact, it is indispensable to the manager of a campaign who is not acquainted with the ground over which he expects to operate. - The Texas campaign took a turn of radical departure from the old line of political fights. In fact, it assumed an antithetical aspect to the old political

108776--19---4

50
style of campaigns and its success turned and hinged on that very feature, attacking the old politician and throwing him into the discard."
From the above remarks of Mr. Autrey, and the already quoted letter from Mr. Colquitt, it will be seen that the willingness of the brewers of Texas to cooperate fully in the plan suggested by you was enthusiastically granted as by the brewers of Iowa, and consequently it is of some gratification that we could at least contribute some share to the excellent results secured in that State by those in charge of the general campaign there. 
Upon the completion of the survey in the State of Texas, the brewers of Illinois requested that a survey be made of that State in time if possible for use in the local option elections held April 27, and for such future use as they might desire to make of it. The survey in Illinois was completed early in March, and was turned over to Austin Doyle, of the Illinois Brewers' Association, and by him distributed to the representatives of the Illinois Brewers' Association in several sections of the State. It is our understanding that the survey reports were used with a great degree of success in the local option campaigns, and have been used in a general way in the recent State campaign. 
In April of this year your organization department, upon your instructions, was represented at a conference held at the Jefferson Hotel in Richmond, Virginia, to discuss the campaign about to be waged in that State. At this meeting your representatives suggested a survey of the State, and a campaign based upon the plans which such a survey might develop. Those in charge of the fight in Virginia were not willing to make the preliminary expenditure which the survey would entail to ascertain the conditions existing in the State and the possibilities from an organization standpoint. When this matter was reported to you from this department, your instructions to proceed and survey the State were followed, and upon the completion of the survey the data gathered, together with the analysis based upon the information contained in the survey, was placed before Mr. Paul Garrett, who was managing the Virginia campaign, President Schmidt, of the United States Brewers' Association, and Mr. John Gardiner, at a meeting held in Cincinnati. Under your instructions a man was sent to Virginia, representing your bureau, in order to give such advice as might be required regarding the method of utilizing the information contained in the survey. His work largely developed in arousing the tobacco people of Virginia to the necessity of actively opposing State-wide prohibition. If this phase of the campaign in Virginia could not prevent the unfortunate issue in that State, we at least know that certain documentary evidence regarding the real attitude of the prohibitionists towards the tobacco industry procured by our operatives in Virginia has been used with striking effect in other tobacco-growing districts of the Union, causing the tobacco interests to realize for the first time that an attack upon tobacco will inevitable follow and is in many instances indeed already co-extensive with the campaign for prohibition.
the address delivered by you at Cleveland in July and your conferences with the publishers of the foreign language press aroused the foreign language element to an activity never before known, and, as stated before, contributed largely to the success of the Ohio campaign. The foreign language newspapers rallied to the liberal support in a way that astonished those who had been familiar with the conduct of past campaigns in that State. The German-American Alliance, co-operating with you, was stirred to renewed activity. One of the remarkable features of the campaign came as a result of the excellent work performed by the United Brewery Workers, and through them by all liberal elements of organized labor. The Brewery Worker's of Ohio established labor headquarters in all of the labor centers of the State, and were in complete harmony with the local liberal organizations in those countries. As a result of magnificent work done by this element, strengthened by the work of the labor representatives from your bureau, the State Federation of Labor at its meeting in favor of a constitutional amendment repealing the county option law. 
L.H. Gibson.
Gale M. Hartley.
The principal means for publicity used by your publicity department are The Hearthstone and The National News Bureau.
You began obtaining subscriptions for The Hearthstone about July 1, 1914. With a view of obtaining the circulation deemed best for your particular purpose, you eliminated the large cities and devoted your entire attention to the small town and rural communty. In December you will print and distribute


51
150,000 copies of The Hearthstone, each one of them going directly to the homes where it will be read by an average four persons.

TESTIMONY OF MR. LOUIS N. HAMMERLING.

Mr. Hammerling. Mr. Adolphus Busch sent for me. I never saw him before in my life, but I came, naturally, knowing what he represents. I am supposed to be a solicitor. I came in there, and he said, "Are you Hammerling?" I said, "Yes." He had a good many people standing around, just as if he would be a king. He said, "Charles Nagel told me that you can do us some service in the fight against prohibition." I said, "I am the boy if you have any advertising, and I am here." He said, "I designate a many by the name of Percy Andreae, who has my authority to do business." I said, "Do you guarantee the bills, Mr. Busch?" He said, "Yes." So I went away. A few weeks later Mr. Andreae asked me to meet him in Chicago. I met him in Chicago in some club - I do not remember where it was - he and his secretary, a man named Hartley. Mr. Andreae said that he had gotten not only Busch to guarantee this campaign, but he got the United States Brewers' Association. I said, "So much the better; we can do more business." He said they did not give him as much money as he intended they should, but he would like to make a deal. He said that his idea would be to write articles in the foreign-language newspapers showing there should not be prohibition; and I said, "Mr. Andreae, I am soliciting advertising, and if you write a million articles not one of them would publish it, no matter how good you are, for the reason that you are unknown to them, in the first place, and, in the second place, what they want is money." He said they could not go into an advertising campaign, for they had not enough money for that. I said to him, "How about you writing the articles and their being published in my name?" He said, "That is a good idea. What would it cost?" I said, "There will be no cost to it; but you will have to help me get the brewers to do advertising the papers." He said he thought he could do that, and I agreed that I would stand to my promise provided he would stand by his; and we worked out that all the expense Mr. Andreae would have to pay would be to pay for the translators, expressage, and so forth. We were not supposed - the association was not supposed - to make any money of it outside of handling it, but we were to make our money on the commission that we got in the advertising  that we furnished in the foreign papers. We did not get much advertising, and the complaint of Mr. Andreae was that the brewers' association got sore at him because he was getting to be too big a man. That is the way I began to handle his business, and I think in three years every issue, which would be about 66 articles, published an article in the American Leader and sent it out in 34 languages to these papers.

Hammerling Exhibit No. 1.

[American Association of Foreign Language Newspapers, Inc. Woolworth Building. Telephone Barclay 5592-5593. Chicago Office, People's Gas Building.]

New York, January 9, 1914.
Mr. Percy Andreae, 
Imperial Hotel, New York City.
My Dear Sir: As per conversation of last night, I beg to confirm as follows: That the Association membership is comprised of a total of 619 newspapers published in the United States and Canada. In the United States there are 583 of these papers published and the balance, or 36 newspapers, is published in Canada. These papers are printed in 29 different languages and eliminating the Chinese and Japanese leaves 27 languages. 
The article on "Personal Liberty" which you write for the "American Leader" and which is published under my name is to be translated and supplied

52
twice a month to 583 newspapers, printed in 27 different languages and as you will see by the enclosed list, this will require the services of eight translators to do the work thoroughly. Besides doing the translating, these translators will have to do the checking and marking of the papers containing the articles and forward same from time to time to you.
Opposite each one of the translators on the statement enclosed, you will notice what each will cost; or. otherwise, the eight translators will cost $1,250.00 per month. We shall hire these translators for one year. Naturally with some of them it may be necessary to take them away from other positions and it may require a longer contract.
The additional expense will be $100.00 per month for a Stenographer and $50.00 for printing and postage per month. One of our Directors will take a trip once, maybe twice or more as is necessary, to see the papers and make arrangements so that we may get their unanimous support and approval. The expenditure on this account will be $400.00 per month as salary and we figure $180.00 per month for traveling expenses, which is $6.00 per day and is figured to cover railroad and hotel expenses. This will make a total expenditure per month of $1980.00 providing the traveling man is required to travel all year; if he does not, this will reduce the expenditure by $580.00 or make the total of $1,400.00 per month. This represents the total cost and there will be no other expenses connected therewith.
It is advisable that we begin with the translation of the first article so that the campaign may be presented in the newspapers just as it appears in the "Leader."
We shall arrange with these newspapers to either have the articles appear as being especially written for each particular paper by myself, to be commented upon editorially by the Publishers, or as being prepared by the newspapers themselves.
On the enclosed statement we show the languages which each translator will
have in charge as well as the itemized expenditures. We also enclose herewith
two memorandums of agreement so that the payments can be made to us
monthly in advance so that we can pay our bills for each article, as we do all 
our force and you are to carry the account on your books and we are to carry
the account on our books as "Advertising appearing in the 'Leader.'" 
If this is satisfactry we can begin the work immediately, as we have already
talked with some of our Directors and Publishers and they will help us to get
the organization into shape on a few days' notice. 
Your acceptance by signing the enclosed order with your first monthly payment 
will begin immediately to put into effect these arrangements for one year. 
Very truly yours,
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS, INC. 
LOUIS N. HAMMERLING, President.
LNH/DSM
Enclosures. 
-------
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.
[The Leader, official organ of the American Association of Foreign Language Newspapers. 
Issued semimonthly. Advertising department, 702-3-4-5 World Building,
New York.]
GENTLEMEN: You are hereby authorized to insert copies of our advertisement
for one year from January 1st, 1914, insertions in The Leader for the amount
of $1,400,000 per month, or total of sixteen thousand eight hundred dollars,
$16,800.00 for the year. 
Signed  PERCY ANDREAE,
Address 3357 Michigan Ave., Chicago.
Date January 1st, 1914.
Maj. HUMES. Your contract provides that the personal-liberty articles appearing 
in the Leader are advertising, does it not, and you carry them on your 
books as advertising in the American Leader?
Mr. HAMMERLING. According to that statement, yes. 
Maj. HUMES. Did you mark them advertising when you published them, in 
accordance with the act of Congress?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Not that I know of. 


53
Maj. HUMES. Your periodical is entered as second-class matter in the post
office, is it not?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes. 
Maj. HUMES. Then you disregarded the act of Congress which requires advertising 
matters to be so marked?
Mr. HAMMERLING. I did not know anything about it.
Maj. HUMES. Do you mean to say that you are not familiar with the act of 
Congress which requires advertising matter to be so marked?
Mr. HAMMERLING. No, sir.
Senator WOLCOTT. One moment. I want to see if I have a correct understanding 
of this. This contract for translators, checkers, etc., just mentioned
there, was to compensate the American Association of Foreign Languag Newspapers 
for translating personal-liberty articles into various languages and 
having them inserted in various foreign-language newspapers. Is that correct?
Maj. HUMES. Yes. 
Senator WOLCOTT. That is correct, Mr. Hammerling?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes. 
Senator WOLCOTT. These personal-liberty articles were articles written-------
Mr. HAMMERLING. By Mr. Andreae.
Senator WOLCOTT. And published under your name?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes. 
Senator WOLCOTT. The contents of which were designed to operate against
prohibition?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes. 
Senator WOLCOTT. So that the scheme really was for you to disseminate
through the foreign-language newspapers liquors articles?
Mr. HAMMERLING. No.
Senator WOLCOTT. Is not that the conclusion to be drawn?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Not liquor articles, for the reason that the personal-
liberty articles--------
Senator WOLCOTT. Antiprohibition articles?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Personal-liberty articles covered more than prohibition. 
Senator WOLCOTT. You just told me a moment ago that they were written
in the interest of opposition to prohibition. 
Mr. HAMMERLING. If you want to call it that way. 
Senator WOLCOTT. Is not that the fact?
Mr. HAMMERLING. I am not in favor of prohibition myself. Of course, that 
is my feeling about the matter. 
Senator WOLCOTT. I am not asking you your views. Do not let us quibble. 
Mr. Andreae was interested in combating prohibition.
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes. 
Senator WOLCOTT. He wrote the personal-liberty articles in that interest. 
Mr. HAMMERLING. I suppose so. 
Senator WOLCOTT. Don't you know it? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. I would say yes. 
Senator WOLCOTT. And you published them over your name?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes. 
Senator WOLCOTT. Through these papers and got paid for it? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes. 
Senator WOLCOTT. Can you escape the conclusion that Mr. Andreae was employing 
your association for the purpose of disseminating antiprohibition
propaganda? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. If that is the way it is interpreted, yes. I did not know
there was anything wrong in it.

54
Maj. HUMES. Have you any idea as to how many subscribers you were supplied through Mr. Andreae?
Mr. HAMMERLING. I do not remember; perhaps a thousand or fifteen hundred, whatever it is; I do not remember.
Maj. HUMES. What is the greatest subscription list, the largest number of subscribers, the American Leader ever had?
Mr. HAMMERLING. At one time?
Maj. HUMES. Yes.
Mr. HAMMERLING. Maybe 10,000.
Maj. HUMES. That is the highest number?
Mr. HAMMERLING. I would not swear; I could not remember. 
Maj. HUMES. Approximately, 10,000 is the most you ever had?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes. 
Maj. HUMES. Is it not a fact that more than half of those were paid for by 
Mr. Andreae and the United States Brewers' Association? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. No; not to my memory.
Maj. HUMES. I show you Hammerling Exhibit 8 and ask you if that is one 
of the bills from the American Leader to Mr. Andreae for subscriptions?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Nineteen fifteen--that is our bill; yes. 
Maj. HUMES. This was paid for by Mr. Andreae? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes; I suppose so. 
Maj. HUMES. He has paid you all of the debts that he owed you?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Oh, yes; absolutely. 
Maj. HUMES. It is a fact, is it not, that in November, 1915, they paid you
for the following subscriptions: To 624 rabbis, 2,002 priests, 1,700 ministers,
1,385 German and foreign newspapers, and 206 Polish Sokal unions, or a total 
of 5,890. That is a fact, is it not? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes. 
Maj. HUMES. That would be more than half of the 10,000 subscribers you 
had? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. According to this bill.
Maj. HUMES. He paid you for this bill?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes; less than half--it is $2 a copy. 
Maj. HUMES. But $1.50 was your contract with him. 
Mr. HAMMERLING. I do not remember. 
Maj. HUMES. Did you not have a special $1.50 contract with him? There
is the price.
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes.
Senator STERLING. And those were subscribers, the names of whom were
furnished by Mr. Andreae? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes. 
Maj. HUMES. Then, in 1915, 5,890 of your subscribers were charged to and
paid for by Mr. Andreae and the National Association of Commerce and 
Labor?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes; is there anything wrong about that?
Maj. HUMES. Answer the question. 
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes; according to this bill. I know corporations that 
will order 5,000 copies every day. I do not see anything wrong about it. 
Maj. HUMES. I show you Hammerling Exhibit No. 13, a bill made by you to 
Percy Andreae for telegrams, as per inclosed copy, to 96 Senators and 435
Congressmen, at $2.32 each, and ask you what the occasion of that was? 


55
Mr. HAMMERLING. In 1914, I think, they sent us a telegram and the bill that
was to be presented to Congress, and they wanted us to have these papers make
a protest.
Maj. HUMES. Do you know what the bill was?
Mr. HAMMERLING. I do not remember. 
Maj. HUMES. Was it a matter that you had any interest in yourself?
Mr. HAMMERLING. I do not know a thing about it. 
Maj. HUMES. Was it a matter that your papers had any interest in it?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Our papers, with the exception of the Scandanavian, I 
think, are all interested to-day. 
Maj. HUMES. In other words, you sold the influence of your association for 
the purpose of undertaking to influence legislation at the request and instance
of Mr. Andreae and the Brewers' Association, did you not?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Well, if you interpret it in that way, but I do not think
there was any such purpose. 
Senator OVERMAN. You sent the telegrams to Congress?
Mr. HAMMERLING. According to this bill. I do not know whether they were
sent by me or by the publishers. 
Senator OVERMAN. It was done under your authority. 
Mr. HAMMERLING. According to this bill; yes. 
Senator STERLING. What is the date of that bill? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. May 11, 1914. 
Senator WOLCOTT. That bill is for over 500 telegrams. 
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes. 
Senator WOLCOTT. Those telegrams did not emanate from your office, did they? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. I really do not think so. I think they were sent out from 
all over the country. I would have to look at the correspondence to tell. 
Senator WOLCOTT. I am curious to know how you could get all of these 
foreign language newspapers to send these telegrams for which you were paid
if your only connection with these newspapers was of an advertising nature. 
Mr. HAMMERLING. Of course, the question about our connection with these
newspapers that you gentlemen question me about is that we have remedied
the tremendous wrongs that were done for years to these papers, and they 
were glad to do anything that I suggested. 
Senator WOLCOTT. You did have some influence with them? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. Oh, yes. 
Senator WOLCOTT. And that influence extended to getting them interested in 
an activity that was entirely dissociated from your advertising contracts?
Mr. HAMMERLING. Of course, in this case it shows that way; yes. 
Senator STERLING. Do you not recall to what subject these telegrams related
that were pending before Congress?
Mr. HAMMERLING. I could not tell you. 
Senator NELSON. Maj. Humes, can you tell us what this legislation was about?
Maj. HUMES. I think I can disclose that by the files already offered in evidence 
the other day. Exhibit 807 is a telegram sent by Percy Andreae and
addressed to Edward A. Schmidt, of the Robert Schmidt Ale Brewing Co.,
Philadelphia, dated May 11, 1914, and is as follows: 
The following telegram, sent by directors of American Association of Foreign
Language Newspapers, has been sent to-day to every Senator and Congressman
in Washington:
"The American Association of Foreign Language Newspapers, with a circulation 
of over 7,00,000, reaching 20,000,000 citizens, protests emphatically on 
behalf of the overwhelming majority of those citizens against Hobson, the resolution 
providing for national prohibition. Our people consider same unwarranted 
interference with rights guaranteed them under the Federal Constitu-

56

tion, and will resent the passage of the resolution, which is designed to destroy their most cherished customs and deprive citizens generally of the individual liberty which is as dear to them as life itself. Almost entire foreign-language press has for the past three months voiced this sentiment in strongest possible terms and with full concurrence of its millions of readers. 

Is that the telegram referred to?
Mr. Hammerling. Yes; I remember that Mr. Andrae got it up.
Maj. Humes. Were you and Mr. Andrae together when that telegram was made up?
Mr. Hammerling. No. He was either in New York or he sent it in by mail.
Maj. Humes. It had your approval before it was sent?
Mr. Hammerling. I did not see anything wrong in it.
Maj. Humes. Who sent the telegram?
Mr. Hammerling. I really do not remember.
Maj. Humes. Mr. Andrae says here that it was sent by the directors. Who were the directors at that time?
Mr. Hammerling. The same as they are to-day. 
Maj. Humes. You have not had an election since?
Mr. Hammerling. We elect them every year.
Maj. Humes. You own and control the association?
Mr. Hammerling. I do not.
Maj. Humes. The stockholders' meetings are a perfunctory matter?
Mr. Hammerling. According to the charter the common stockholders have a vote, and we are to get them by proxy or they come in. I have a majority; I control it. 
Senator Wolcott. It is not clear to me just how this telegram went. From the bill rendered to Mr. Andrae there must have been over a thousand distinct telegrams coming from various parts of the country here to Washington, and yet I gather from what Mr. Hammerling has just said that the telegram originated from his office in New York. 
Maj. Humes. I think if you will look at the bill very carefully you will see that there was only one telegram sent to each Representative and Senator. 
Senator Nelson. They were all of the same kind?
Maj. Humes. They were the same telegram. 
Senator Nelson. And the same signature, I suppose?
Maj. Humes. I assume so. 
Senator Wolcott. They were all sent by the American Association of Foreign Language Newspapers?
Maj. Humes. By the directors, according to Mr. Andrae's telegram. Mr. Hammerling, did you communicate with the foreign-language newspapers of the country before you set this telegram?
Mr. Hammerling. We always do.
Senator Wolcott. Did you in this case?
Mr. Hammerling. I do not remember exactly, but anything we send that is signed, we first ask them for the signature before we send it. 
Maj. Humes. There were some 500 or 600 foreign-language newspapers, were there not?
Mr. Hammerling. Yes.
Maj. Humes. The bills give $8.69 for the other telegrams that were necessary to secure the crystallization of sentiment that resulted in the telegram to the Members of the Senate and the House. 
Mr. Hammerling. We never send them a telegram. We send them our circular letter. 
Maj. Humes. Have you any record that will throw more light of that transaction?


57

Mr. Hammerling. I do not know of any.
Senator Overman. If you did not pay to have these articles put in the papers, why was all the immense amount of money paid to you? What was it paid for?
Mr. Hammerling. To put them into the languages. 
Senator Overman. Just the translations?
Mr. Hammerling. Yes. 
Senator Overman. All this money was paid out simply for translations?
Mr. Hammerling. Yes; and the set ups and-
Senator Wolcott. The articles came once a month?
Mr. Hammerling. Twice a month.
Senator Wolcott. Twice a month?
Mr. Hammerling. Yes.
Senator Wolcott. Twenty-four articles in the year?
Mr. Hammerling. Yes; and there are about 800 of the foreign-language papers and there were over 520 German papers to make that up. 
Senator Wolcott. How many translations would be necessitated?
Mr. Hammerling. The major said there were 27 languages. I thought that we had 34 languages. 
Senator Wolcott. Twenty-seven languages?
Mr. Hammerling. The details have not been-
Senator Wolcott. Then it cost Mr. Andrae $31,000 in 1916- I think that was the year- to get 27 translations of 24 articles?
Mr. Hammerling. With all the other work connected with it. This includes room rent and costs and express packages and postage, and we may have made some profit on it too. 
Senator Wolcott. Yes. 
Senator Nelson. Did those papers get any pay for publishing those articles?
Mr. Hammerling. They did not; no sir; not for those articles. 
Senator Nelson. Did the whole profit come to your company- the whole profit that came to you? Did those papers that published your articles- those foreign-language newspapers- ever get anything for it?
Mr. Hammerling. They did not; no sir. 
Senator Wolcott. The articles were not lengthy, were they?
Mr. Hammerling. About a thousand words. 
Senator Wolcott. A thousand words?
Mr. Hammerling. That was the average. 
Senator Wolcott. Two or three pages, was it not?
Mr. Hammerling. Yes, sir. 
Senator Overman. Did you have any trouble getting them in without paying for it?
Mr. Hammerling. No sir; only the papers published them who were in sympathy with that prohibition movement. 
Senator Overman. Were they all in sympathy with it?
Mr. Hammerling. No sir; about one-half, at least half, of them, I think. But we sent it to them all. 
Maj. Humes. In the spring of 1915 you wrote the following letter to Mr. Andrae, did you not?

At a meeting some of our directors held yesterday I suggested that we shall ask you to be one of our 1914 delegates to attend the International Peace Congress at San Francisco July 6, and that you shall deliver the speech of the foreign-language press of the United States instead of myself. Would you accept such an honor? If it is necessary that you speak as official representative of this association, we would be glad to elect you a vice-president. Wire or write at once on this matter. 

58 

Mr. HAMMERLING (after examining letter). That is correct.  
Maj. HUMES. You wrote such a letter? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. Yes.
Maj. HUMES. Was that written and that action taken at the suggestion of
Mr. Andreae? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. At the suggestions of the publishers. 
Maj. HUMES. Who were the publishers that were present that suggested that  
at the meeting? 
Mr. HAMMERLING. The New York publishers, no doubt.  
Maj. HUMES. Can you name any of them that were present?  
Mr. HAMMERLING. I do not remember just who they were.
Maj. HUMES. You knew that Mr. Andreae was capitalizing his relation with 
your association for the purpose of carrying on his propaganda, did you not?  
Mr. HAMMERLING. Not exactly; I did not know it.  
Maj. HUMES. Did you not know that he was representing himself over the 
country as the spokesman of your organization, rather than the spokesman of 
the brewers, in order to secure an entree?  
Mr. HAMMERLING. I think that is correct; it would sound better.  
Maj. HUMES. You knew that, did you not?  
Mr. HAMMERLING. Well, I assumed it. 
Maj. HUMES. I call your attention to Exhibit No. 642, a letter written by Mr. 
Andreae, from which I read as follows: 

These invitations are being extended to me as the spokesman of the organized 
foreign-language press, and if I were to appear at the same time as a representative 
of the brewing industry, championing the specific cause of anti-
prohibition, it is manifest that my appearance before these commercial bodies 
would no longer be welcomed.

WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1919   

WOMAN SUFFRAGE BY FEDERAL
AMENDMENT 

SPEECH 
OF 
Hon. JAMES W. WADSWORTH, Jr. 
OF NEW YORK 
IN THE 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1919

WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1919 

189165 - 19910

SPEECH
OF
HON. JAMES W. WADSWORTH, JR.,

WOMAN SUFFRAGE BY FEDERAL AMENDMENT.

Mr. WADSWORTH.  Mr. President, like the Senator from
Idaho (Mr. BORAH), I represent in part a State which has extended
the franchise to women residing within its borders.  In
view of that fact and my decision to vote against the proposed
amendment to the Constitution, as I have done upon two prior
occasions, I desire to make my attitude clear before the Senate.

No vote of mine cast upon this amendment will deprive any
of the electors of the State of New York of any privilege which
they now enjoy.  The people of that State, as the people of several
other States, have decided for themselves, in an orderly and
constitutional manner, to extend the franchise to the women.
I feel so strongly that the people of the several States should
be permitted to decide this matter for themselves that I desire
to say that were this amendment, instead of being drafted for
the purpose of extending woman suffrage all over the country,
drafted for the purpose of forbidding the extension of the
franchise to women, I would vote against it.

The Senator from Idaho yesterday discussed the right of the
people to settle their own affairs, particularly in matters which
were local and intimate.  My feelings upon that question are
somewhat like his.  The people of the several States when they
organized their governments and adopted their constitutions
delegated certain powers to their legislatures and to their
executives.  Then they set up their judiciary to see to it that
both their legislative and executive departments should keep
faith and should not transgress the limits set by the people.

When a society organizes itself to do business, about the first
thing it does is to prescribe the qualifications of its voting members,
and it is the usual procedure for an organization in the
process of formation to prescribe in its constitution that the
voting membership shall not be extended or restricted except by
a vote of the members of the society.  And so the regulation of
the franchise in the States, and I think I can say in every State,
when they were organizing their governments, was left to the
voting members; in other words, the people of those States.

Acting upon that theory and in accordance with that principle,
which I believe lies at the bottom of a truly democratic government,
several of the States have voted from time to time by
popular referendum and have decided to extend the franchise
to the women.  Many other States have voted in popular referendums
and have decided against the extension of the franchise.

Even though one might be opposed on general principles to the
extension of the franchise to women, one cannot logically object
to the people of a great Commonwealth voting upon that question,
settling it for themselves, and if they settle it in the
2  139165-19910


3
affirmative with respect to women suffrage one can not then
logically object, even though one may have voted against it as
a citizen of the State.  Nor can I see how one can logically object
to the application of the principle, even though its application
the people, voting freely and openly, decide that they
shall not extend the franchise in this way.

Something has been said in the debate which has thus far
taken place upon this amendment as to the popular demand in
favor of it all over the country.  Some criticism has been uttered
by one or more of its advocates against Senators who are opposing
it and who have consistently opposed it in times past.  An
examination of the record of the different States which have
voted upon this question does not, I venture to say, indicate that
there is any overwhelming popular demand thus far evidenced
in the elections.

If my computation is correct, there are at least 30 States of
the Union which have either refrained from voting on the question
at all or have voted upon it and rejected it.  In the State
which have voted upon it, if a computation is made of the
majorities in favor of the proposition and the majorities opposed
to the proposition, we find that the aggregate majorities
opposed to the proposition is about 1,300,000 votes, whereas
the aggregate majority in favor of the proposition in these referendums
amounts to 254,000.  So from the standpoint of popular
demand it would not seem that the Senate or the Congress
should feel itself driven to adopt an amendment to the Constitution
which revolutionizes the rule and practice of the American
people in regulating the franchise.

Mr. President, it may seem somewhat old-fashioned for a
Senator to express his reverence for the Constitution of the
United States, his reverence and his devotion not only to its
letter but to its spirit.  When one views modern tendencies and
the influences that are at work in this country to-day, one is
tempted to suggest that now is an appropriate time to rededicate
and reconsecrate ourselves to a proper understanding of the
letter and the spirit of our Constitution and to a better understanding
of its meaning.  The tendencies of the day, without
any question, are traveling fast a long the road which, if followed
to its ultimate goal, will mean its destruction or its alteration
to such a degree in spirit, if not in letter, that it will be
scarcely recognizable.  It is now proposed in this amendment,
as a part of this tendency which has been so evident in recent
years, to take away from the people some of that sense of responsibility
the exercise of which is the only safeguard for the 
intelligent conduct of a democracy and to assume that responsibility
at the seat of government.

The central Government is remote, comparatively, and eventually,
if this tendency continues, that responsibility will be
borne in such a way that the individual citizen will not be able
to understand what is going on in the maze and confusion of a
great centralized Government.

I assume that a Senator, when discussing this matter, should
endeavor to remember that he is a Senator of the United States
and not confined in his functions to representing merely the
State, and only the State, that sends him to Congress.  I assume
that is the function of a Senator to take into consideration
139165-19910

4
the Nation as a whole, to have some concern and to give some
consideration to the condition of public contentment and the
wishes of the people as a whole.

It is very true, of course, that a Senator elected from a State
should exert every influence and power that he can wield to
protect his State from injury by Federal legislation, if in his
judgment the legislation proposed is unjust and discriminatory
against the people of his State.  That question does not arise
in the discussion or consideration of this amendment is depriving
the people of his State of anything which they already
possess.

If the people of his State have already voted to extend this
franchise, no vote of his, no vote of mine, can take it away;
but a vote in favor of this proposal does in several instances
impost upon the people of certain States things which they have
said they do not want.  When that side of the question is presented,
it seems to me that it is incumbent upon a Senator to
regard the Nation as a whole and to give his consideration to
the wishes of the people of the States who have expressed themselves
freely upon the question at issue.

Mr. President, the conduct of government of a great Commonwealth
is of concern to us all, for it is from the governments of
the Commonwealths and their constituent parts that this Federal
Government derives its inspiration, and which, as the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. BORAH) said yesterday, provide our schools
of political education.

Let us take the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as an example.
The people of Massachusetts in their own way, in conformance
with their constitution, in the exercise of their undoubted
right and privilege, held a referendum on the question of suffrage,
and the proposal to extend the franchise to the women of
the State of Massachusetts was defeated.  It was defeated in
every city of the State, in every county of the State, and in
every town of the State, and had three votes in the aggregate
been changed it would have been defeated in every ward.  The
people of the State of Maine, by a vote of nearly two to one,
defeated woman suffrage; the people of the State of New Jersey,
in spite of the interposition of the President of the United
States, who is a resident of the State, defeated it by 50,000 majority;
the people of Pennsylvania defeated it by a similar
majority; the people of West Virginia defeated it in a popular
referendum in the approximate proportion of three to one; the
people of Ohio have three times defeated it within six years,
the last defeat being registered only last year, if my memory
is correct, and the last majority against it was over 140,000
votes.  The people of Iowa have defeated it; the people of
Louisiana have defeated it; and only the other day the people of
Texas defeated it.  The people of Wisconsin have defeated it,
as was referred to yesterday, and there may be some other States
which have defeated it which I do not at this moment recall.

Now, the question is, were the people of Massachusetts, the
people of Pennsylvania, and the people of Ohio competent to
settle the question for themselves or not?  There is nothing
to prevent them under their form of government from securing
the franchise of women if they want it.
139165-19910


5
There is no tremendous emergency facing the country, no
revolution or rebellion threatened which would seem to make
it necessary to impose upon the people of these States which
have given their verdict upon it something which they have
said, as free citizens, they do not require or desire.  Is it unreasonable
to ask that they be permitted to continue to govern
their own affairs in this respect?  Is it contrary to the spirit of
American institutions that they shall be left free to decide these
things for themselves?

Other States besides those I have named have voted to extend
the franchise.  The State of Michigan did it but a few months
ago; the State of South Dakota did it but a few months ago.
No man can logically complain against a system which permits
such a practice.

Mr. REED. Mr. President - 

Mr. WADSWORTH. I yield to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. REED.  I do not want to interrupt the Senator, but he
has named a number of States where in the not remote past
a direct vote has been taken and the people have repudiated
this proposition.  I wish he would include in that list the State
of Missouri, which in 1914 repudiated the proposition by 140,000
votes.  I merely want Missouri included.

Mr. WADSWORTH.  I stated at the time that my recollection
was imperfect and that they might the other States besides the
ones I mentioned which had repudiated the proposition; and
I now remember, of course, that the State of Missouri is in that
category.

Now, without discussing the merits of woman suffrage as
such, the question is simply this:  Why is it that this power
resting in the people of this country in their several States, is
to be taken away from them and lodged elsewhere?  What is
the reason?  Is the principle faulty? Is it undemocratic? Is it
un-American? Does it fall to satisfy the people themselves?
I think not.  No such contention has thus far been made.

Let us speak frankly.  The advocates of this movement - and
I do not criticize them for exercising whatever power or influence
they may bring to bear or for resorting to whatever device
they may find ready at their hand to bring about their purpose -
the advocates of this proposal for the extension of the franchise
all over the United States through a Federal amendment believe
that that is the easiest way for them to achieve their
purpose.  To them it has become a purely practical question.
Regard for the spirit of our institutions does not enter into
their discussions.  The Constitution of the United States means
nothing more to them that it shall be used as a vehicle 
to achieve a set purpose; and, being intent upon the purpose,
they pick up the instrument and use it.  They do not want 
referendums.  They have said so in many of their public
utterances.

I am not reflecting upon their intelligence when I describe
their reasons.  As a matter of fact, I rather admire their skill
and resourcefulness in carrying this movement up to this point.
They were skillful, and have been skillful, in using the mechanics
of the situation, but they have not gone to the people
of the country.  They have believed - and I think most men in 
their honest second judgement will agree - that it is easier to

139165-19910

6

persuade a legislature to ratify a proposal of this sort than it is to get the people of a State to do the same thing in a popular referendum. It can be done more quickly and with less expense in the matter of propaganda, and, as was said here yesterday on the floor, the members of legislative bodies- and I do not except Congress of the United States- are peculiarly susceptible to pressure, to insistent and persistent agitation and propaganda. 

There have been instances in this matter of the extension of the franchise which illustrate that very thing. The people of Ohio on two separate occasions voted down the proposal for the extension of the franchise to women. The year following the second defeat by the people of Ohio the legislature of that State, in the face of the mandate of the people, promptly passed a statute to extend the presidential franchise to women- an exact illustration of how much easier it is to persuade or cajole a legislature to do something that the people have refused to do. It became necessary for the people of Ohio to repeal that act of legislature within a few months after it had been put on the statute books, and they repealed it by popular vote. 

My contention has always been with respect to the amendments to the Federal Constitution that if an amendment be placed in the Constitution it should command the reverence and devotion of all the people in the country. The discussion here upon the floor yesterday makes it perfectly apparent that in part at least, in the South, this proposed amendment will be a dead letter. No pretense is made that it will be lived up to in spirit, and it is the spirit of our Constitution which we, it seems to me, should have some reverence for at this hour. 

I have discussed this matter with the people from different portions of the country, and I have been surprised upon occasion to note the frivolous and casual way in which so many people discuss the Constitution of the United States and what it means, and to hear the suggestion made, "Oh, well, you must not take it so seriously as all that; things can be arranged here and there in such a way that it will not be strictly enforced." That is a spirit which is abroad in the United States to-day. That same spirit has been made manifest in the recent discussion of the last amendment to the Constitution which was ratified last winter. To-day there are thousands of people all over the United States who are attempting to contrive ways and means by which the prohibition amendment to the Constitution can be evaded, showing an utter lack of regard for the instrument itself, showing an utter failure to understand that if the instrument is not held sacred by the people of this country, then there is not use of our endeavoring to continue ur experiment in self-government. 

Unlike the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Borah), I voted against the prohibition amendment to the Constitution, because I believed that such a proposal had no place in the Constitution, and, second, because I believed that the people in great and important communities of this country were competent to decide that matter for themselves; and I feared the very thing that is making itself sp apparent to-day- a settled determination upon the part of hundreds of thousands of people living in those communities which were not consulted, to evade it, to urge some
139165-19910


7

act of Congress or State legislature under that peculiar provision for concurrent jurisdiction, which would make a laughing stock of that particular amendment to the Constitution. The danger is, if we go on in this way and deprive the people of important communities of their right to decide these questions which they are competent to decide, which in dozens of stances they have decided to their own satisfaction, that a contempt for the Constitution of the United States will gradually and inevitable spread all over this country. It will be regarded by hundreds of thousands of people as merely a vehicle for the exercise of a will-to-power upon the part of some group of people who desire to impose their ideas upon another group of people. 

Mr. President, I can not blind myself to the fact that this is the tendency of the day; I do not blind myself to the fact that slowly, but surely, not so much by constitutional amendment perhaps, although this is a glaring instance of it, but by statutes passed by the Congress and by statutes passed by the State legislatures we are whittling away the sense of responsibility of the individual citizen. We are teaching more people that every year the Government owes them a living; we are teaching more people every year that the Government should and can do things which they as individual citizens can do for themselves; we are urging the "easiest way." Scarcely a year goes by but what that tendency becomes more marked, and when we whittle away that sense of responsibility which should live in the breast of the individual citizen and teach him that the Government at Washington, remote as it is and rapidly becoming top-heavy with a bureaucracy, the intricacies of which I challenge any Senator to understand to-day; when we teach him that the Government at Washington, with its so-called bottomless Treasury, can take over, and should take over, all of these functions and duties that people of the communities of this country need not be expected to do these things for themselves, that they shall not even be expected to decide as to who shall vote for sheriff or district attorney or county judge, then I say that step by step we are building in this country a paternalistic system such as was the curse of Germany. There was a people, as we all know to-day, 70,000,000 of them, who were educated by all their public men, at the inspiration of the autocracy that topped that Government, educated, drilled, coached, guided out of all sense of individual responsibility until they reached the condition where they lost their very souls.

I frankly confess, Mr. President, that I fear this tendency in the United States. I do not want to see it go any further. I know, of course, that there are some things that only a government can do. I know, of course, that every man and every woman that calls himself or herself human wants the burden of the overladen members of society lightened, and if members of society as individuals or as volunteers organized in a reasonable way can not perform that function, then it is the duty of government, the protector of society, to perform it. But it seems to me that we might well call a halt. It is not that any on of the statutes or amendments to the Constitution which are

139165-19910

8 

proposed is fatal. It is the fact that we pile one upon another, 
year after year. Some say, "Let us enact the second one because 
we have enacted the first, and the two proceed along 
parallel lines, and therefore the second the third, the fourth, 
the fifth, or the sixth are justifiable." But the trouble is, Mr. 
President, that as we proceed in taking away the sense of responsibility 
from the people in their communities year after 
year and decade after decade we do not proceed along parallel 
lines. The lines of those pieces of legislation slowly converge, 
and when they reach the point of contact the citizen will 
have become the servant and dependent of government instead 
of being its master; and it is exactly along one of those converging 
lines that this amendment of the Constitution is proceeding. 
The people of some 30 States, if this constitutional 
amendment is ratified, cease being the masters of their government 
in so far as the franchise is concerned. And that, according 
to my way of thinking, is contrary to the spirit of our 
institutions. 

189165 - 19910      

Members of South Side P.E.L.   East Rockaway L. I
Mrs. J.L. Allen  142 Decatur St. Brooklyn N.Y.
Mrs. Tredwell Abrams  Lynbrook, L.I -
Mrs. L.S. Condit            "                "
Mrs. James Campbell   "                "
Mrs. A.A. Crary             "                "
Mrs. Jay Chambers       "                "
Mrs. J.D. Chantter    Freeport, L.I.
Mrs. A.B. Collins       Lynbrook, L.I.
Mrs. J.L. Crozier           "               "
Mrs. F. Christianson    "               "
Mrs. J.Q. Dawkins      "                "
Mrs. John W. Dalston    "           "
Mrs. A.J. Edwards    East Rockaway, L.I.
Mrs. Julia E. Foroler   Lynbrook, L.I.
Mrs. Rhoda Glover    Baldwin, L.I.
Mrs. W.P.W. Haff Sr.  Hewlett, L.I.
Mrs. James A Hutcheson   Lynbrook, L.I.
Mrs. O.L. Hancock   Lynbrook, L.I.
Mrs. Jennie Johnson  East Rockaway, L.I.
Mrs. John Know    Lynbrook, L.I.
Mrs. J.W. Merrill,  Lynbrook, L.I.
Mrs. J.P. Nieman             "        "
Miss Marie Rollins           "        "
Mrs. J. D. Re[???]        "            "
Miss M Roberts      "               "

Mrs. G.J. Spinney, Rockville Autre, L.I.
Mrs. W.W Spires, Lynbrook, L.I.
Mrs. Ella M Schneider          "              "
Mrs. A.C. Thompson,           "            "
Mrs. J.P. Tuplin                   "              "
Miss M. Wackerbraglas           "             "
Miss Marion MacDonald  East Rockaway L.I.
Mrs. Edgar Abrams         "             "
Mrs. Bue, Ocean Side, L.I.


Sent by Irene C. Davison
at request of Agnes E. Ryan_

n. 4 Copied
Members of the Cornwall Equal Suffrage Club.

Mrs Sidney Sherwood - - - - -- - - -  - - Cornwall, N.Y.
Miss Mary Cocks - - - - - - - - - - -  Cornwall-on-Hudson,N.Y.
Mrs H.L.Winter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cornwall,N.Y. Takes the Journal.
Miss Mary Chadeayne - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Cornwall,N.Y.
Mrs J.E.Sutherland - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Cornwall,N.Y.
Mrs C.G.Handy - - - - - - - - - - - - Cornwall-on-Hudson,N.Y.
Mrs B.G.Furey - - --- - - - - - - - - - -  Cornwall-on-Hudson,N.Y.
Mrs J.O.Smith - - - - - - - - - - - Cornwall,N.Y.
Mrs William Bockes - - - - - - - - -  Cornwall,N.Y.
Miss Sadie Bockis - - - - - - - - - -  Cornwall,N.Y.
Mrs H.W. Chadeayne - - - - - - - - - - -  Cornwall,N.Y.
Mrs Ida Dillingham - - - - -- - - - - - - - Cornwall,N.Y.
Mrs W.D.Hodgson - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cornwall,N.Y.
Mrs C.D.Perry - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Highland Falls,N.Y. Box 35
Mrs Abner Ames ------------------- Cornwall-on-Hudson
Mrs N.O.Sampson --------------------Orr's Mills N.Y.
Mrs L.F.Abbott ----------------------- Cornwall,N.Y.
Mrs C.S.Thompkins -------------------- Cornwall-on-Hudson
Mrs J.E.Ogden ------------------- Mountainville,N.Y.
Mrs F.D.Ogden -------------------- Mountainville,N.Y.

Copied
August 17th, 1913.
The Woman's Journal
Agnes E. Ryan, Buiness Manager. 
Your letter of August 8th received, above is a 
list of the members of our Club, I think most of these take the 
Journal but am not sure, I hope you may get some subscribers from it .

                                                                     Sincerely Yours
                                                                        [?eta]. B. Winter
                                                                              President. 
We have some 
new members in our 
club but did not send 
You their names.

[*M. Telegraph*]
Y, July 24, 1920.
WOMEN OPEN HOT FIRE 
ON SENATOR WADSWORTH 
Miss Hay Leads Onslaught at Meeting of Protest 
Held By League of Women Voters -- Hugo Managers 
Claim Big Support From Brooklyn. 
By EDWARD STAATS LUTHER.

Senator James W. Wadsworth was the target for some might hot fire 
from the leading spirits of the League of Women Voters of New York City, 
at its meeting held at the Hotel McAlpin yesterday afternoon, the onslaught on 
the senior Senator from New York being led by his implacable suffrage foe, Miss 
Mary Garrett Hay. 
Miss Hay signalized her retirement from the councils of the Republican party 
by exercising the utmost freedom in attacking Senator Wadsworth's candidacy 
for renomination by the Republicans. When she and other speakers had denounced Senator Wadsworth to their hearts' content a resolution of protest was adopted,
addressed to the Republican State Executive Committee, declaring in unmeasured
terms against Senator Wadsworth's nomination. This was followed by an appeal 
to the Democratic State Committee to bring about the nomination of a Democratic candidate for the Senate for whom all women, irrespective of party, can vote. In 
addition, a questionnaire, bristling with embarrassing queries, was addressed to 
Senator Wadsworth. 
"We want to see the Republicans win; we want the next United States Senator 
from New York to be a Republican -- but he will not be Senator Wadsworth," 
declared Miss Hay, whose words were cheered lustily by the large audience of 
women who were present. "This is the first time in the history of our country 
that women will vote at a national election. Let me at this time say that women 
are not reactionary. They are progressive because they have ideals for which 
they have fought and for which they will continue to fight. Women have been 
charged with making a sex war, but, as a matter of fact, it is the men who are 
creating a sex war. I told them so at Chicago, and I trust some one told the 
same thing to the Democrats who attended the convention at San Francisco. 
Neither party should be a man's party, but rather they should share with the 
women in order that they may meet with success.
"They tell me suffrage is a dead issue, but I say it is not a dead issue and 
will not be a dead issue until every woman in this country has the right to vote. 
I have been asked by many Republicans why I have not suggested a candidate 
against Senator Wadsworth to the party powers that be. I haven't because they 
never have taken me into their councils on the subject. I know no reason why I 
should name an opposition candidate now. My position is simply the same as it 
was a year ago, when I told the Republican leaders they should get a Senate candidate 
who could be elected this Fall. Senator Wadsworth can't be elected. 
"They did not come to me and say they would like to have me suggest a 
candidate who could win. Instead they have been saying that, as this is a Presidential 
year, they are certain they can put Wadsworth over. Recently a prominent 
member of the Republican State Executive Committee declared to me: 
'We can pull him through!' They want us to vote as the party whip dictates and I 
rebelled."
Miss Hay declared her audience 
would be astonished if she mentioned 
the names of some of the leading 
men of the city who had said they did 
not want to vote for Senator Wadsworth. 
"They have said to me: 'Oh, if you 
could but give us another candidate"." 
said Miss Hay. "Let me say right here 
that I am going to lay my cards on the 
table. They are not stacked. Everything 
is an open book. Several men had 
agreed, at one time or another, to run 
for the Senate nomination, but for some 
mysterious reason when their names 
reached the machine it was suggested 
they should withdraw.
"The condition in which the Republican 
machine finds itself to-day on the Senatorship 
is no fault of mine. I am opposed 
to any State machine headed by 
William Barnes." Roars of applause and 
loud cheers greeted this declaration. "I 
did not attend the Chicago convention as 
a delegate, but merely as a spectator. 
The reason is known to all you women,

"What's the matter with Mary Garrett 
Hay?" shouted Miss Adeline Sterling, 
a Democrat, when Miss Hay 
finished. 
"She's all right?" roared back the 
women. 

Other speakers who denounced 
Senator Wadsworth included Mrs. 
Frank A. Vanderlip, Mrs. Gordon Noric, 
Mrs. Samuel Bentz of Utica, and 
Mrs. William J. Chowan of Buffalo. 
"If Senator Wadsworth is named at 
the Republic State Convention next 
week, or is nominated at the primaries, 
it is a challenge to the men and women 
of the State who believe in the square 
deal;." declared Mrs. Bentz. "We can 
defeat him if we get up [our?] fighting 
spirit. Senator Wadsworth's record on 
prohibition, child welfare and suffrage 
has disqualified him from serving the 
Empire State in the Senate."
Mrs. Chowan said the Republican 
women of Buffalo who are opposed Senator 
Wadsworth have been carrying on 
an education campaign for more than 
a year, pointing out his faults, and declared 
this was bound to have a telling 
effect. Mrs. Mabel Falco, of Brooklyn, 
suggested the appeal to the Democratic 
State Committee for the nomination of 
a Senate candidate whom the women 
can support in opposition to Senator 
Wadsworth. 
"In view of Senator Wadsworth' announced 
candidacy for the Republican 
nomination for the United States Senatorship." 
ran this appeal as adopted, 
"we women votes of New York State, 
assembled at the McAlpin Hotel, appeal 
to you to insure that the Democratic 
party shall nominate a candidate for the 
Senate for whom the women of the 
State, regardless of party affiliation, can 
vote with confidence in the twentieth 
century quality of his mind and in his 
intention and ability to represent the 
great State of New York with his face

lutions was sent to Representative
Bertrand H. Snell, as chairman of the
Republican State Executive Committee.
-------
In the questionnaire addressed to Senator
Wadsworth by the women's
meeting ten mighty unpleasant queries
our propounded. They follow:
1. Do you believe that women should
vote?
2. In the face of the only honest answer
that you can make to question No.
1 do you expect to ask New York women
to vote for you if you enter the Senatorial
contest in November?
3. Will your plea to those women be,
"Give me your votes so that I can return
to Washington and continue to do
what I can to delay ratification of the
Federal Suffrage Amendment?"
4. Is it not a fact that except for your
refusal to represent the people of New
York in the United States Senate, the
Federal Suffrage Amendment would
have been submitted to the State Legislatures
in the regular sessions of 1919,
all the delay and expense of twenty-five
special sessions in 1920 would have been
saved, and all the women of America
would be completely enfranchised at this
moment?
5. Did you not, with others, plot and
plan to put into operation this very program
of delay?
6. Are you not, with others, still plotting
and planning to hold back the thirty-sixth
ratification of the Amendment?
7. Is it not part of this plan, between
yourself and others, that there shall be
a great surface appearance of suffrage
friendliness on the part of both major
parties, but that beneath the surface the
Thirty-sixth ratification is to be held
back by both parties until after the November
elections?
8. Do you not know that, because of
your opposition to woman suffrage and
your misrepresentation of New York
State in the United States Senate, you
will be a weight on the Republican
ticket?
9. Do you not know that leaders in
your own party organization admit it in
their private councils?
10. Are your personal political ambitions
of more concern to you than the
success of the Republican ticket?
A certified copy of the questionnaire
was sent by registered mail to Senator
Wadsworth.
------
CAMPAIGN managers for Secretary
of State Francis M. Hugo, in his
candidacy for the Republican nomination
for Governor, announced yesterday they
had completed a survey of Kings County
with gratifying results.
From their headquarters in the Commodore
Hotel the Hugo Campaign Committee
issued a statement last night declaring
that the twenty-three Assembly
districts of Brooklyn showed, not only
astonishing Republican demands for the
nomination of Mr. Hugo, but much
democratic sentiment as well.
"The collapse of the gubernatorial
boom of Comptroller Eugene M. Travis,"
runs statement, "has set free what
is known as the 'local pride support'
which was behind the Comptroller because
of the wish for a Brooklyn man
for Governor. Practically all his support
has lined up for Hugo. Kings

towards Saratoga for Tuesday's State
convention.
-------
GOVERNOR ALFRED E. SMITH
was in town yesterday for a short
time before going to Good Ground to
spend a few days with his mother, who
is summering there.
It was the governor's first visit to the
city since he started west on June 5 for
the San Francisco convention. He will
return to Albany on Wednesday to take
up the question of calling a special session
of the Legislature to appoint
the members of the State Boxing Commission.
-------
JUST as the Democrats were congratulating
themselves on having gotten
rid of William Jennings Bryan, he comes


DEFEAT
JAMES W. WADSWORTH, JR.
for United States Senator at the Election November 2d
-------
His record during the six years in the New York State Assembly, (five years
as Speaker,) and his six years in the United States Senate, speaks for itself
He was —
AGAINST Direct Primaries. As Speaker, he bitterly opposed Direct
Primary bills. He defeated both the Hughes' primary bills and
also the compromise bill favored by ex-President Roosevelt and
Governor Hughes.
AGAINST the Anti-Race-Track Bill of Governor Hughes, designed to
stop gambling on the race tracks of the state.
AGAINST the right of the United States to tax incomes, the first step
toward taxing wealth instead of poverty.
AGAINST a Minimum Wage Commission for the District of Columbia —
he was one of only 12 Senators opposed. Sept. 13, 1918
(C. R. 10285)
AGAINST an appropriation for a Federal Employment Bureau designed to
prevent unemployment in one part of the country when another
part may be in dire need of labor. (C. R. 7409).
AGAINST prohibiting child labor to the extent that his vote has never been
recorded for the Federal Child Labor Bill.
AGAINST extending government credit to farmers — He was one of only
five Senators who opposed Federal Farm Loans. (C. R. 7412).
AGAINST the confirmation of the appointment of justice Brandeis
to the Supreme Court. (June 1, 1916).
AGAINST increasing taxation on war profits, which helped finance the
war. (C. R. 6503, 6560, 6570).
AGAINST permitting the people of the U. S. to retain their rights
in the great waterpower resources of this country. He voted
for the Shields Water Power Bill, (March 8, 1916, C. R. 3758;
December 14, 1917, C. R. 287; Jan. 15, 1920, C. R. 1648.)
AGAINST Labor. As Senator he voted against 15, and failed to vote on 7,
of the 26 measures which the American Federation of Labor
endorsed.
AGAINST Prohibition. He voted against National Prohibition; (C. R.
5666); against Prohibition for the District of Columbia; (C. R.
1066); against Prohibition in the Philippines (C. R. 1208). During
the last six years there have been 30 direct votes on the liquor issue.
On all he voted with the wets. When the Volstead Act was resubmitted
after the President's veto, Mr. Wadsworth voted for it,
apparently just because the President had vetoed it.
AGAINST the Woman Suffrage Amendment, even after his state had
gone suffrage by a majority of 103,000 and in spite of two unanimous
resolutions passed by the New York State Legislature and of
the request of the National Republican Committee to him to
support it.
DO THESE VOTES REPRESENT YOU?
If not, vote AGAINST Senator Wadsworth.
It is your PATRIOTIC DUTY to GO TO THE POLLS ON ELECTION
DAY and help DEFEAT the man with this record.
Campaign Series No. 6
Non-Partisan Senatorial Committee
37 W. 39th Street, New York     42    Telephone, Murray Hill 6310

never have taken me into their councils on the subject. I know no reason why I 
should name an opposition candidate now. My position is simply the same as it
was a year ago, when I told the Republican leaders they should get a Senate candidate 
who could be elected this Fall. Senator Wadsworth can't be elected.
"They did not come to me and say they would like to have me suggest a 
candidate who could win. Instead they have been saying that, as this is a Presidential 
year, they are certain they can put Wadsworth over. Recently a prominent 
member of the Republican State Executive Committee declared to me:
'We can pull him through!' They want us to vote as the party whip dictates and I
rebelled." 
--------
Miss Hay declared her audience
would be astonished if she mentioned 
the names of some of the leading
men of the city who had said they did
not want to vote for Senator Wadsworth.
"They have said to me: 'Oh, if you
could but give us another candidate." "
said Miss Hay. "Let me say right here
that I am going to lay my cards on the
table. They are not stacked. Everything 
is an open book. Several men had 
agreed, at one time or another, to run
for the Senate nomination, but for some
mysterious reason when their names
reached the machine it was suggested
they should withdraw. 
"The condition in which the Republican 
machine finds itself to-day on the Senatorship 
is no fault of mine. I am opposed 
to any State machine headed by 
William Barnes." Roars of applause and
loud cheers greeted this declaration. "I
did not attend the Chicago convention as
a delegate, but merely as a spectator. 
The reason is known to all you women. 

"What's the matter with Mary Garrett 
Hay?" shouted Miss Adeline Sterling, 
a Democrat, when Miss Hay
finished. 
"She's all right." roared back the
women.
--------
Other speakers who denounced
Senator Wadsworth included Mrs. 
Frank A. Vanderlip. Mrs. Gordon Norrie, 
Mrs. Samuel Beatz of Utica, and 
Mrs. William J. Chowan of Buffalo. 
"If Senator Wadsworth is named at 
the Republican State Convention next
week, or is nominated at the primaries,
it is a challenge to the men and women 
of the State who believe in the square 
deal." declared Mrs. Bentz. "We can
defeat him if we get up our fighting
spirit. Senator Wadsworth's record on 
prohibition, child welfare and suffrage
has disqualified him from serving the 
Empire State in the Senate." 
Mrs. Chowan said the Republican 
women of Buffalo who are opposing Senator 
Wadsworth have been carrying on 
an educational campaign for more than 
a year, pointing out his faults, and declared 
this was bound to have a telling
effect. Mrs. Mabel Falco, of Brooklyn,
suggested the appeal to the Democratic
State Committee for the nomination of 
a Senate candidate whom the women 
can support in opposition to Senator 
Wadsworth. 
"In view of Senator Wadsworth's announced 
candidacy for the Republican
nomination for the United States Senatorship," 
ran this appeal as adopted,
"we women voters of New York State, 
assembled at the McAlpin Hotel, appeal
to you to insure that the Democratic 
party shall nominate a candidate for the 
Senate for whom the women of the 
State, regardless of party affiliation, can
vote with confidence in the twentieth 
century quality of his mind and in his
intention and ability to represent the 
great State of New York with his face
toward the future instead of toward the 
past." 
Under instructions of the meeting, a 
certified copy of this appeal, signed by 
Mrs. Gordon Norrie as chairman, and 
Mrs. C. N. Edge as secretary, was forwarded 
to the chairman of the Democratic 
State Committee.
--------
There was plenty of hot shot in 
the resolution of protest which
the gathering addressed to the Republican 
State Executive Committee.
After reciting the announcement by 
Senator Wadsworth of his candidacy for 
renomination and declaring "Republican
party machinery obviously is being relied 
on to further his candidacy." it 
was "resolved that we, women voters
of New York State, do hereby protest
against Senator Wadsworth's efforts to 
have himself renamed as the Republican 
party's nominee for the United 
States Senate." 
"In particular do we protest any and
all efforts to have Senator Wadsworth's 
nomination fastened upon the Republican 
party by the use of inside organization 
influence." continued the protest.
"Senator Wadsworth has been given 
six years in which to prove his ability
to represent the State of New York
in the Senate of the nation. He has
failed to represent it. In the case of 
woman suffrage his flaunting of the 
people's mandate and the mandate of 
the New York Legislature was as complete 
as it was flagrant. 
"As a member of the so-called Senate
ring in Washington he has been aligned 
on the side of reactionary influences 
hurtful to the public interest. We urge
that his name be not designated by the 
unofficial Republican conference to be 
held at Saratoga on July 27." 
According to the instructions of the 
conference, a certified copy of the resolutions 
was sent to Representative 
Bertrand H. Snell, as chairman of the 
Republican State Executive Committee.
---------
In the questionnaire addressed to Senator 
Wadsworth by the women's 
meeting ten mighty unpleasant queries
are propounded. They follow: 
1. Do you believe that women should vote?
2. In the face of the only honest answer 
that you can make to question No.
1 do you expect to ask New York women 
to vote for you if you enter the Senatorial 
contest in November?
3. Will your plea to those women be, 
"Give me your votes so that I can return 
to Washington and continue to do 
what I can to delay ratification of the 
Federal Suffrage Amendment?" 
4. Is it not a fact that except for your 
refusal to represent the people of New
York in the United States Senate. the
Federal Suffrage Amendment would 
have been submitted to the State Legislatures 
in the regular sessions of 1919.
all the delay and expense of twenty-five
special sessions of 1920 would have been
saved, and all the women of America
would be completely enfranchised at this 
moment?
5. Did you not, with others, plot and 
plan to put into operation this very program 
of delay? 
6. Are you not, with others, still plotting 
and planning to hold back the thirty-sixth 
ratification of the Amendment?
7. Is it not part of this plan, between
yourself and others, that there shall be
a great surface appearance of suffrage
friendliness on the part of both major
parties, but that beneath of the surface the 
thirty-sixth ratification is to be held
back by both parties until after the November 
elections?
8. Do you not know that, because of 
your opposition to woman suffrage and 
your misrepresentation of New York
State in the United States Senate, you 
will be a weight on the Republican
ticket?
9. Do you not know that leaders in
your own party organization admit it in 
their private councils?
10. Are your personal political ambitions 
of more concern to you than the 
success of the Republican ticket? 
A certified copy of the questionnaire
was sent by registered mail to Senator
Wadsworth.
------
Campaign managers for Secretary
of State Francis M. Hugo, in his 
candidacy for the Republican nomination
for Governor, announced yesterday they
had completed a survey of Kings County
with gratifying results.
From their headquarters in the Commodore 
Hotel the Hugo Campaign Committee 
issued a statement last night declaring 
that the twenty-three Assembly
districts of Brooklyn showed, not only
astonishing Republican demands for the 
nomination of Mr. Hugo, but much
Democratic sentiment as well.
"The collapse of the gubernatorial
boom of Comptroller Eugene M. Travis," 
runs the statement, "has set free what
is known as the 'local pride support'
which was behind the Comptroller because 
of the wish for a Brooklyn man
for Governor. Practically all his support 
has lined up for Hugo. Kings
County is sending 142 delegates to the 
Saratoga convention, and, although it 
has been announced these delegates are
uninstructed, the Hugo managers are 
confident a large majority of them will
support Mr. Hugo for the nomination.
"Our canvass shows Mr. Hugo has the 
support of at least fourteen of the Assembly 
districts, with an even break in 
two others. County Chairman Jacob A. 
Livingston is friendly to Mr. Hugo's candidacy, 
although he has adopted a 'hands
off' policy and has not hesitated to insist 
that the candidate must be chosen 
at the primaries. Four-fifths of the 
district leaders are for Mr. Hugo.
"A feature of the situation is that
virtually all the leaders behind Comptroller 
Travis have come over to Secretary 
Hugo and are active in his support.
These leaders, as well as the districts
they represent, are pledged to Mr. Hugo,
whether he be nominated in the convention 
or not. 
"They have agreed to support him in 
the fight he will make between now and 
the primaries."
--------
Five hours late, the Republican delegation 
from this city to the 
Harding notification at Marion, Ohio,
reached New York at 3.30 o'clock yesterday 
afternoon.
Chairman Samuel S. Koenig of the 
County Committee, who headed the
New York contingent, was much pleased 
at the showing made by the local party,
which numbered 110. He personally 
was congratulated by Senator Harding
and by Chairman Will H. Hays of the 
Republican National Committee.
"The Harding speech was a knockout." 
declared John J. Lyons, who was
in charge of the special train. "No man
who can talk like that will be permitted
to confine himself to a porch campaign." 
To-day the New Yorkers will start 
towards Saratoga for Tuesday's State convention.
-----
Governor Alfred E. Smith
was in town yesterday for a short
time before going to Good Ground to
spend a few days with his mother, who 
is summering there.
It was the Governor's first visit to the 
city since he started west on June 5 for
the San Francisco convention. He will
return to Albany on Wednesday to take
up the question of calling a special session 
of the Legislature and to appoint
the members of the State Boxing Commission. 
-----------
Just as the Democrats were congratulating 
themselves on having gotten 
rid of William Jennings Bryan, he comes
out and declined the Prohibition nomination 
for President. 
The Democrats always were out of 
luck with Brynn anyway, and the Republicans 
have the laugh on them again.
Apparently the G. O. P. has got rid of
Senator Robert M. La Follette for good.
---------
When Bryan ran out on the Prohibitionists 
they nominated Aaron
S. Watkins of Ohio for President.
He is the third Ohioan to be in the
Presidential field, with Cox and Harding 
holding the only real honors, however. 
Out in San Francisco Samuel G. 
Blythe defined Ohio as "the mother of
Presidents, now threatened with twins." 
Instead it was triplets!
-----------
There is some good in the world
and some joy, in spite of the dark 
shadow of prohibition.
This was felt by the writer most 
strongly yesterday when he received a 
present of a full quart bottle of whisky
sent by a friend who sympathized with 
his long, dusty ride over the deserts coming 
back from the San Francisco convention.
the label on the bottle proclaimed the 
contents to be "Anderson Whiskey,"
William H. of Anti-Saloon "fame'
please take notice!
--------
Rockland County Democrats
have led off the movement to renominate 
Governor Smith.
At a meeting of the County Committee, 
held at New City, delegates to the 
Saratoga Convention on August 3 were
chosen and resolutions adopted favoring
the renomination of the Governor. The 
national ticket of Cox and Roosevelt
also was ratified. 
James A. Farley, chairman of the 
County Committee, heads the delegation
to the State convention.


DEFEAT
JAMES W. WADSWORTH, Jr.
for United States Senator at the Election November 2d
-----------
His record during six years in the New York State Assembly, (five years
as Speaker,) and six years in the United States Senate, speaks for itself. 
He was--
AGAINST Direct Primaries. As Speaker, he bitterly opposed all Direct
Primary bills. He defeated both the Hughes' primary bills and 
also the compromise bill favored by ex-President Roosevelt and 
Governor Hughes. 
AGAINST the Anti-Race-Track Bill of Governor Hughes, designed to 
stop gambling on the race tracks of the state. 
AGAINST the right of the United States to tax incomes, the first step
toward taxing wealth instead of poverty. 
AGAINST a Minimum Wage Commission for the District of Columbia--
he was one of only 12 Senators opposed. Sept. 13, 1918
(C. R. 10285)
AGAINST an appropriation for a Federal Employment Bureau designed to 
prevent unemployment in one part of the country when another 
part may be in dire need of labor. (C.R. 7409)
AGAINST prohibiting child labor to the extent that his vote has never been 
recorded for the Federal Child Labor Bill.
AGAINST extending government credit to farmers--He was one of only
five Senators who opposed Federal Farm Loans. (C.R. 7412). 
AGAINST the confirmation of the appointment of Justice Brandeis
to the Supreme Court. (June 1, 1916)
AGAINST increasing taxation on war profits, which helped finance the 
war. (C.R. 6503, 6560, 6570). 
AGAINST permitting the people of the U.S. to retain their rights
in the great water power resources of the country. He voted
for the Shields Water Power Bill, (March 8, 1916, C.R. 3758; 
December 14, 1917, C.R. 287; January 15, 1920, C.R. 1648.)
AGAINST Labor. As Senator he voted against 15, and failed to vote on 7,
of the 26 measures which the American Federation of Labor
endorsed.
AGAINST Prohibition. He voted against National Prohibition; (C.R.
5666); against Prohibition for the District of Columbia; (C.R.
1066); against Prohibition in the Philippines (C.R. 1208). During
the last six years there have been 30 direct votes on the liquor issue.
On all he voted with the wets. When the Volstead Act was resubmitted 
after the President's veto, Mr. Wadsworth voted for it,
apparently just because the President had vetoed it. 
AGAINST the Woman Suffrage Amendment, even after his state had
gone suffrage by a majority of 103,000 and in spite of two unanimous 
resolutions passed by the New York State Legislature and of 
the request of the National Republican Committee to him to
support it. 
DO THESE VOTES REPRESENT YOU? 
If not, vote AGAINST Senator Wadsworth.
It is your PATRIOTIC DUTY to GO TO THE POLLS ON ELECTION
DAY and help DEFEAT the main with this record. 
Campaign Series No. 6
Non-Partisan Senatorial Committee
37 West 39th Street, New York    Telephone, Murray Hill 6310

MRS. CATT HITS
AT WADSWORTH
Suffrage Leader Questions the
Republicanism of New
York Senator.

Questioning his Republicanism and
his "quality of representation," Mrs.
Carrie Chapman Catt, president of the
National Woman's Suffrage Association,
attacks Senator Wadsworth in a 
letter to Mrs. Arthur L. Livermore
made public to-day.

Mrs. Livermore, who is chairman of
the Republican women's state executive
committee, made public, in turn,
an appeal to all Republicans to support
Senator Wadsworth in order to
more firmly support Senator Harding.
Mrs. Catt's letter says:
In a letter made public to-day written
to Mrs. Arthur L. Livermore,
chairman of the Republican women's 
executive committee, Mrs. Carrie
Chapman Catt, president of the
National Women's Suffrage Association,
says:
I note in the morning papers that
you appeal to all Republicans to support
Senator Wadsworth in the coming
campaign, and that you do so 
upon the ground that the Republican
President you expect to elect should
have a Republican Senate who will
support his "wishes and policies on 
every occasion."
It may be true, as the headlines
announcing your interview state, that
women are swinging over to the support
of  Senator Wadsworth upon the
appeal that a Republican senator is
necessary to the Republicans' scheme
of things, but it is also true that
many Republicans, both men and 
women, are swinging away from his
support, because they trust neither
his Republicanism nor his quality
of representation.  If the issue is to
be intelligently dealt with by the
voters they should have all the facts
from which to draw their conclusions.
Here are a few:
If Mr. Harding carries the country,
he will carry the Senate without New
York.  Since it is easier to vote a
straight ticket than a scratched one,
most voters do it, and, therefore, the
presidential candidate who carries a
state carries the entire ticket down
to the lowest office, unless there is
special reason for picking off some
individual candidate.  In the coming
election, despite much talk, the calculation
is easy, now that the primaries 
have been held, and if Mr.
Harding carries the country he will
carry the Senate with New York left
out.
Of the sixty-four hold-overs senators,
thirty-four are Republican and thirty
are Democrats.  Forty-nine is a working
majority, and there are thirty-two
senators to be elected.  To secure a
majority, therefore, the Democrats
must elect nineteen out of the thirty-two,
while the Republicans need only
fifteen.  The Democrats with little
question will win in Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, 
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Arizona, Maryland, Nevada,
Oregon, and Idaho, and these thirteen
will raise the number of Democratic
senators to forty-three with six to be
won in the doubtful states.  The Republicans
with no question will win
Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin,
New Hampshire, South Dakota,
Utah, Connecticut, and Illinois,
and these twelve will raise the list of
Republican senators to forty-six, with
three to be won.  The doubtful states
are seven:  Missouri, Colorado, Kentucky,
California, Indiana, Ohio, and
New York.  If the Republicans sweep
the country, they will carry the first

six states and gain six senators, thus
securing fifty-two votes or a majority
of nine, and that without counting
New York at all.  Should the Democrats
carry half of the doubtful six,
they would only have forty-six senators,
and the Republicans would still
have a majority of three.

Any Republican, man or woman,
who wants to vote against Mr. Wadsworth
may do so with a free conscience
on this score.
There is no proof that Senator 
Wadsworth if elected would support
a Republican.  One must look to his
future action, and you know that in
the matter of woman suffrage he opposed
his national Republican convention, 
his state Republican convention, 
his national Republican committee,
his state Republican committee,
his national and state Republican
chairmen, the legislature of his state,
and the personal request of Mr. 
Hughes, who might have been President,
and Mr. Roosevelt, who had
been President.  There were no other
Republican agencies which could
speak to Mr. Wadsworth, and yet he
declined them all, and not only refused
facilities for submitting the
question to the legislature of the
states, but he did what no American
can do and retain the confidence of
intelligent people.

In the closing days of the Sixty-fifth
Congress the necessary two-thirds
or two-to-one vote had been secured
in both houses, on the suffrage
amendment.  To get the vote taken it
was necessary to have unanimous
consent.  It was then that Senators
Weeks and Wadsworth spelled each
other for two days and nights in order
that one of them might be on
hand at all times to object to unanimous
consent.  So devoted to this
task was the New York senator that
he sat on duty the whole of one night.
Thus by a filibuster of two men, two-thirds
of the Senate and House were
successfully flouted and action prevented.
Massachusetts retired Senator
Weeks, and therefore Senator
Wadsworth stands alone responsible
for the fact that twenty-eight governors
have been compelled to call
special sessions at public expense in
order that women may vote in this
presidential year. What Senator
Wadsworth did in Washington he had
previously done in Albany.  Are New
York memories so short that they do
not recall the manner in which he opposed
the wishes and efforts of the
Republican governor, Charles Evans
Hughes, in the matter of the race
tracks (listening instead to the pleas
of the gamblers) and in the matter of
the primaries, listening to the voice of
Boss Barnes instead of his Republican
governor.  What Senator Wadsworth
has done he would do again 
and no loyalty to a Republican President
would change his intention provided it
conflicted with other and
more pressing influences.
3. There is no proof that Mr. Wadsworth
would be present to support a
Republican President's wishes and
policies since he absented himself
from eighty-one roll calls in the last
congress and was absent without
pairing on many of them.  He explains,
for example, that he was absent
when the vote on child labor

was taken - yes but [? ?]
for it.  Had he manifested the same
determination to succor the children
from unnatural labor conditions as
he did to prevent women from obtaining
the vote he would not have overlooked 
the fact that pairing was one
way to accomplish that end. By
telling those who want child labor
laws that he did not vote for the
one federal law because he was absent,
and by serving the manufacturers
who want no child labor laws
through neglect to pair he states a
successful dupe.

4. A vote for Wadsworth is an indorsement
of his record.  You ask
Republicans to repudiate the Wilson
administration and this is fundamentally
a right partisan appeal, for
each presidential election either indorses
or rejects the administration
preceding, but you are yourself befogged
by your own partisanship
and stray away from that fundamental
principle when you ask New 
York to elect Mr. Wadsworth. You 
virtually urge all men and women to
forget, forgive, and overlook his
record, and vote for him on the ground
of some imaginary support of an unelected
President.  A vote for Mr.
Wadsworth is far more definitely an
indorsement of his record than a vote
for Mr. Harding is a repudiation of
Mr. Wilson's record, for Mr. Wadsworth
made his own record and Mr. 
Harding is an unknown quantity.
What is that record? A continuous,
never-pausing opposition to all measures
aiming to restrain, limit, or control
"special interests" which at the
time have been oppressing the people
by overreaching methods; a never-failing
support of invisible government;
a support of government by
filibuster vs. government by majorities.
Not one measure drawn in the
interest of public welfare in his sixteen
years of legislative office has
he introduced and carried through.
On the contrary, many measures designed
to bring comfort and privilege
to the masses he has opposed and not
a few killed by his own hand.  A close
study of this man's record emphasives
Theodore Roosevelt's matured
judgment of him:
"It is rarely that a public man 
champions the right of big business to
do wrong as openly as Mr. Wadsworth."
A vote for Mr. Wadsworth is a vote 
not for the Republican party, but for
the control of that party by the big
business which is in politics "to do
wrong."  A vote for Mr. Wadsworth
is an indorsement of his continuous
service to big business when it has 
opposed the welfare of the people.
The people ere now have been
known to kiss the hand that scourged
them, and it is possible that the conscience
and intelligence of the Empire
State may be chloroformed into obedience
by the specious plea "vote
straight," but if they can get the true 
facts of a case their judgment is
usually right.
CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT.

Mrs. Catt Doubts
[*Catt*]
Wadsworth Will
Support Hard
[*???????? 9/24*]

No Proof Exists
Would Suppo[rt]
can President
She Tells Mrs.

Women voters do not
the hatchet in their
Senator James W. Wa
[ac]cording to an open let
day by Mrs. Carrie C
Mrs. Arthur L. Live
of the Women's State
[com]mittee. The stateme[nt]
equivocally by Mrs. C
exists that Mr. Wad
present to support a
dent's wishes and p
and asserts that Mr
sented himself fro[m]
calls during the l
gress.

"A vote for Wads
continues, "is an I
record, especially
proof that if electe[d]
a Republican." Con
says, in part:

"I note in the morr
you appeal to all Rep
port Senator Wadswor[th]
so on the ground that
President you expect
have a Republican Sena[tor]
port his wishes and p
occasion.

Says Senator Aids

"If Mr. Harding ca
he will carry the Sena
York,

"Any Republican man
wants to vote against.
may do so with a free this score.

"It is rarely that
champions the right of
do wrongs openly as
A vote for him is not
Republican party, but
of the party by the big
is in politics 'to do wron[g]
Mr. Wadsworth is an I
his continuous service t
when it has opposed the
people.

"The people ere no
known to kiss the hand
them, and it is possible
science and intelligence
State may be chloroform
once by the specious
straight,' but if they can
facts of a case their jud
ally right.

His Record on Chi

"Mr. Wadsworth expl
was absent when the
labor was taken - yes,
paired for it. Had he
same determination to
dren frum unnatural
as he did to prevent
taining the vote he
overlooked the fact t
one way to accomplis[h]
telling those who want
that he did not vote
eral law because he w
serving the manufact
no child labor laws th
pair, he stages a succ

"A vote for Mr. W
more definitely an in
record than a vote fo
a repudiation of Mr.
for Mr. Wadsworth
ord and Mr. Hardin
quantity.

"What is that record? A contin
never pausing opposition to all measures
aiming to restrain, limit or control
'special interests'."


New York Primary
[*9/14/20*]

Interest Centers in Nomination of
United States Senator
Special to The Christian Science Monitor
from its Eastern News Office

NEW YORK, New York - Interest in
the primary elections today in this
city and state center about the nomination
of a United States Senator to
succeed James W. Wadsworth Jr.
Mrs. Ella Boole, president of the state
Women's Christian Temperance Union,
and George Henry Payne, city tax
commissioner, are both seeking the
Republican nomination, and Senator
Wadsworth is asking renomination.
Mrs. Boole is supported by large numbers
of women throughout the state,
who object, not only to Senator Wadsworth's
continued opposition to
woman suffrage, in spite of requests
from his party and the state Legislature,
after suffrage was granted to
New York women, to support the federal
measure, but also to his opposition
to prohibition and to other progressive
measures.

Miss Mary Garrett Hay, chairman
of the city League of Women Voters,
and formerly chairman of the women's
division of the Republican National
Committee, has announced that she
will vote for Mrs. Boole at the primaries
and that she will oppose Senator
Wadsworth vigorously, as she
feels that he has not represented his
constituents while in the Senate. As
Miss Hay is one of the best known
women in the state, having been a
president of the State Federation of
Women's Clubs, it is felt that her
stand is indicative of that of a large
body of women voters. It is thought
that many strong Republican districts
will give their votes to Mrs. Boole,
who is considered well qualified for
such a position. The Anti-Saloon
League of New York is also opposing
Senator Wadsworth on account of his
stand on prohibition.

In Democratic ranks Mayor George
R. Lunn of Schenectady is opposing
H. C. Walker, Lieutenant-Governor,
for the United States Senate nomination.
Miss Harriet May Mills, formerly
president of the state suffrage association,
is seeking nomination as secretary
of state.

Each party in unofficial state convention
picked a ticket, but in the Republican
ranks an almost complete
opposition ticket will be presented to
primary voters. State Senator George
F. Thompson, dry, is seeking the
gubernatorial nomination in opposition
to Judge Nathan L. Miller, anti-
prohibitionist. Both Senator Thompson
and Mrs. Boole appear on the
Prohibition ticket as candidates for
nomination for governor and United
States senator respectively.

A large number of congressmen will
be nominated and the five Socialist
assemblymen ousted from the state
Legislature at the last regular session
will be candidates for reelection.
And there are Socialist candidates for
all other offices to be filled.


WOMEN OPEN DRIVE
ON WADSWORTH
[*9/22/20*]

Non-Partisan Committee Will Send
Speakers to Every County
in the State.

The Senatorial Non-Partisan Committee
in a statement issued to-day,
declared it would immediate begin a
campaign in every county in the State
against re-election of Senator James
W. Wadsworth, Jr., and support the
candiacy of Harry Walker, Democrat,
or Mrs. Ella Boole, Prohibitionist.

The committee, which has adopted
the campaign slogan "Wadsworth's
Place Is in the Home," includes Mrs.
Frank A. Vanderlip, Miss Mary Garret
Hay, Mrs. Gordon Norrie, Mrs. F.
Louis Slade, Dr. Katherine Bement
Davis, Mrs. V. Everitt Macy, Mrs.
Maud Ingersoll Probasco and Mrs. H.
Edward Drier.

[*Ewold?*]

Mrs. Raymond Brown, who has
charge of the New York County organization,
said speakers already had been
scattered through the State to urge
support of Mr. aWlker or Mrs. Boole.


Women Have an
Opportunity in
New York to Rebuke
Enemies of
Suffrage
[*Telegraph 9/4/20*]

It is useless to ignore the fact that a very large percentage
of the American people of both sexes doubt the
capacity of women for civic responsibilities and duties.
We do not share their pessimism, but we recognize it, as
every intelligent person must. The advocates of universal
suffrage how have an opportunity here in New York
especially to demonstrate the fitness of the sex for the
ballot; its ability to vote independently, and to reward
and to rebuke those who have contributed to the progress of the movement on
one hand, and those who have thrown obstacles in the way on the other.

Suffrage was accorded the women of this State before the nineteenth amendment
was adopted, and it was made possible by the vote of this and other Democratic
cities, as is clearly pointed out by a correspondent of the New York World.
The Democrats have suggested for the United States Senate an advocate of suffrage,
whereas the Republicans have designated not only an opponent of enfranchisement,
but the most conspicuous opponent of this reform in the United
States. If the women by their votes contribute to the re-election of James W.
Wadsworth they will lend color to the contention that they are not of independent
mind, but that they will follow the leadership of their husbands and their fathers
regardless of principles at stake.


MRS. RODGERS WON'T SERVE
[*Lines?               9/23/20*]

Declines Vice Chairmanship Because
She Opposes Wadsworth.

Mrs. Clara Rodgers of Richmond Hill,
the most prominent woman political
leader in Queens, yesterday refused to
act as Vice Chairman of the Queens
County Republican Committee and as a 
member of the County Committee from
the Fifth Assembly District because of
her opposition to Senator James W.
Wadsworth, Jr.

"There is no use in my opposing part
of the candidates of the organization
and supporting others," she said. "I
am going to get out completely and
have a free hand."

Mrs. Rodgers was appointed County
Clerk of Queens by Governor Whitman
three years ago. For the last two years
she has been at the head of the Republican
Women's Bureau in Queens.

Why Mr. Senator Wadsworth Never
Toasts "The Ladies----God Bless 'Em."
By Eleanor Booth Simmons
The campaign this fall, the first important
one in which women have
been able to participate nationally, in
really effective numbers, will be
marked in New York State by the
thing that reformers have hoped for
and machines have feared.
The committee of women organized
to try to keep James W. Wadsworth
from being reelected United States
Senator has well-known Democratic
names on it--Mrs. John Blair and
Mrs. Alice Duer Miller among others.
But the Republican names are in the
majority, and its the Republican members
who make this move significant
of something far deeper than mere
opposition to one man. When Mrs.
Ogden Mills Reid, Mrs. Lewis Delafield,
Mrs. Frank Venderlip--when
women like that come out flat-footed
against a candidate on the Republican
ticket it means flagrant defiance
of party, the kind the bosses do not
tolerate.
Opposition to party may not mean
much to some people. It's a tragedy
to Mary Garrett Hay. She is a Republican
by inheritance and by
tradition, an "ethnological" Republican.
Miss Hay kept partisanship
under during all the years she was
leading suffragists to victory in New
York City, and probably only a few
of the workers at suffrage headquarters
closest to her--and Mrs. Carrie
Chapman Catt, with whom she has
lived for thirty years--know how in
her heart she cherished the hope of
working as a voter with the G. O. P.
And maybe the G. O. P. didn't welcome
her when she came to it, an enfranchised
woman! Anybody who
has never seen Will H. Hays slap Miss
Hay on the shoulder and grin at her--
they come from the same State,
Indiana--knows what he thought of
her.
Mary Garrett Wouldn't Behave
They made her chairman of the
executive committee of the women's
division of the Republican National
Committee, the appointive body that
headed Republican women before the
Chicago convention, and prepared to
hand her at the convention all the
honors and responsibility that the
Elephant thought proper for his lady
followers. (Some folks say the Elephant
is behind the Donkey in this
matter; but never mind.) And then
Miss Hay's conscience functioned.
There was a luncheon once of the
women's Division, where George A.
Glynn looked Miss Hay in the eye
with a meaning party look which had
Wadsworth at the core of it and said:
"Whoever is nominated by the Republican
convention must have the
entire loyalty of the women of this
committee." And Miss Hay looked
Mr. Glynn in the eyes, and it wasn't 
necessary for her to say anything.
When it became evident that Senator
Wadsworth would be renominated
Miss Hay made her decision.
It would have been interesting to attend
some of the secret councils preceding
and during the Chicago convention
and year what the G. O. P.
leaders offered Miss Hay if she'd accept
Wadsworth and throw her energies
behind the Republican ticket.
Her keynote speech some weeks ago
at the first opening meeting of the
anti-Wadsworth committee, headed by
Mrs. A. Gordon Norrie, showed where
she would throw her energies.
Revenge Denied as Motive
"I want a Republican Senator, for
I am a Republican, but I don't want
Wadsworth," she said. "We women
are accused for making a sex war. We
are not. The men are making a sex
war. Wadsworth was never in favor
of taking in the other half. If Senator
Wadsworth had voted on the 
Nineteenth Amendment as he was instructed
by his State the country
would have been saved the expense of
all those special sessions, for the Legislatures
could have ratified at regular
sessions in 1919. The Republican
party intends to force his reelection.
The leaders have told me that they
think they can do it because this is
a Presidential year. 'He'll go through
with the rest,' they say. Well, not if
we women know it.
"I want no unit rule in my district,"
she continued. "I think it wrong when
women who worked hard for the Republican
party are left at home in
favor of women who obey the crack
of the party whip. Against these evils
in my party I shall always work."
In fact, the women who oppose
Wadsworth make it plain that they
are actuated by no motives of revenge.
Suffrage is not, they say, the
only issue in this fight. Many of the
women frankly say that they count
his opposition to the League of Nations
more objectionable than his
anti-suffragism, and hundreds of the
labor women deprecate his stand
against legislation backed by the
American Federation of Labor.
And how will the women's opposition
focus? They are not telling all
their plans. But this much is open--
the Republican women will make a
strong stand at the primaries for
some other candidate for Senator.
Who? That is not yet known. There
are possibilities in the Republican
party, and the Democrats have recommended
for Senator a men who has
always been a good friend of suffrage.
Possibly some of the G. O. P. women
who are sure to vote for Harriet May
Mills, the Democratic candidate for
Secretary of State, because she is a
woman, may go a little further and
vote for Harry C. Walker for Senator
because he isn't James W. Wadsworth.
They have hinted that they may.

[*Globe*] AND COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER, NEW YORK, THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1919.
WADSWORTH
IN PACKER
INQUIRY
Heney Says Senator Wrote
Swift, Introducing Lawyer
and Saying He May Want
Some Advice.
ALSO NAMES HURLEY
Secretary Houston and ex-
Head of Trade Commission
for Inquiry Such as
Packers Were Hoping For,
By JUDSON C. WELLIVER
(Staff Correspondent of The Globe. Copyright,
1919, by J. C. Welliver)
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16.--Senator
Wadsworth of New York came into
the Heney story about the packers today
as one of the men in Washington
on whom they relied for information.
Mr. Heney read a letter written by
Henry Veeder, attorney for Swift &
Co., from Washington to L. F. Swift.
Veeder was in Washington to get defeated
the Borland resolution for investigation
of the packers. He wrote
to Mr. Swift that he had seen Senator
Wadsworth, Mr. Mann, and the chairman
of the Federal Trade Committee
and learned that the Borland resolution
"would not be taken up at this
session"; also, that if an investigation
by the Federal Trade Committee
were ordered it would be conducted
by the commission's own examiners,
without publicity or public hearings
and without examination and cross-
examination of witnesses. This was
one of the plans the packers particularly
wanted adopted.
Later in the sitting, Senator Wadsworth,
recurring to this letter, said
that "it may be neither important nor
interesting, but I would like to say
that I was not in the confidence of
either Mr. Mann or Mr. Hurley, and
Mr. Veeder got no such information
from me."
Wadsworth's Memory Refreshed.
"Yes, I believe I do recollect being
called on by Mr. McManus," said
Senator Wadsworth.
The story of James R. Mann's relations
with the packers was developed
at length in connection with
the fight over the Borland resolution.
Mr. Heney read from the Congressional
Record of the 1917 session, 
when the Borland resolution was
pending. Mann introduced an amendment
to the agricultural appropriation
bill to appropriate $50,000 for an
investigation of the meat industry by
the office of markets. Department of
Agriculture. It was intended to take
the place of the Borland plan of an
investigation by the Trade Commission,
and Mann, on the House floor,
argued in favor of it, saying that the
office of markets was best equipped
--(Continued on Second Page.)

ance, and certain that no investigation
would be worth while except the one
provided for by the Borland resolution
called on the President. He expressed
sympathy with them, but he doubted
his authority.
Kent Feared for Lamb.
Kent wrote him later a letter, pointing
out without any uncertainty the
full authority of the President to direct
the Trade Commission to make
exactly such an investigation. The
President forwarded this to Hurley,
whose reply already given, in substance
proposed to inter-departmental
inquiry. When this Hurley letter
was forwarded by the President to
Mr, Kent, Kent wrote the President
again. He pointed out that all necessary
powers of real investigation
were lodged with the Trade Commission.
"If it hadn't power to get results,
why should it exist?" He inquired.
Quoting the Hurley suggestion
that the presence of the attorney
general's representative would
exert a useful moral influence, Mr.
Kent retorted that "such a toothless,
unarmed, unorganized attack on the 
armed, powerful, and entrenched
packers" would be worse than useless.
"If the business of the federal
trade commission is to superintend
getting the lamb inside the lion, this
is the way to do it. I am sure, Mr.
President, after reading Mr. Hurley's
letter you must agree with me in
wondering what the Federal Trade
Commission is for."
That letter of "Billy" Kent seems
to have settled it. Heney laid it down
ass he finished the reading, looked
around the committee, and said:
"Then the President wrote to the
trade commission, ordering it to make
the investigation."
That is the genesis of the investigation
in which Heney was engaged
as special council for the trade commission
and which produced all the
sensational matter now coming out
before the Senate committee. The
hearings are only getting fairly begun.
Heney has promised to tell all
eighteen months to a finish.
Hurley to the President.
Then came a letter from Hurley to
President Wilson, or Jan. 1, 1918. The
Borland resolution was still pending.
Congressman William Kent had written
the President, urging an investigation
by the Trade Commission, and 
the President had forwarded it to
Hurley. Replying, Hurley suggested
that if inquiry into high prices were
desired, the Department of Justice
could make it under the anti-trust
law. If an economic study were wanted,
then it would be different in character,
very expensive, and requiring probably
two years to complete. If
the war continued, war-time figures
would be useless when peace returned; 
if the war ended while the
investigation was proceeding, half the
data would be based on war, half
on peace conditions, and the whole
would be valueless. All prices of
necessaries of life had been rising;
meat was only one; so Mr. Hurley
concluded that the only proper procedure
would be a joint inquiry by 
heads of various departments that
have powers to give effect later to
remedies they might suggest.
He would have assistant secretaries
of the department of agriculture and
interior, an assistant attorney general,
and a member of the Trade Commission
make the inquiry; getting the
various interests, "to appear in a
friendly way," and make suggestions;
and he suggested that the moral influence
of having the attorney general
represented would be highly important.
"Most men," added Mr. Hurley,
"will co-operate without being put under
pressure/"
When he had finished reading the
letter, Mr. Heney said:
"This shows Hurley helping carry
but one of the plans which the packers'
lobby had formulated long in advance;
a plan to get into an investigation
so big and expansive and powerless
that nothing would come of it."
A number of Mr. Heney's asistants
in the investigation will be examined
at length about more sensational documents
taken from the vaults of the 
packers' lawyers.
Merely a Beginning.
The whole insides of the fabric of
intrigue by which powerful influences
reached into highest places in congress
and the administration is just
beginning to be exposed. Heney has
all along insisted that Hurley, while
head of the Federal Trade Commission,
was helping the packers prevent
an investigation. Former Congressman
Kent, now a member of the
Tariff Commission, has been actively
co-operating from the beginning in
getting the investigation, and later
in assuring that there should be
full exposure of all the influences that
have been enlisting it. He has been
attending the sittings of the Senate
committee regularly, taking the keenest
interest in developments.
Other developments promised include
the whole story of Thomas F.
Logan, former newspaper man,
charged with being a lobbyist for the
packers. Logan went to Paris with
Hurley when the latter went in connection
with extending economic aid
to Europe; and the committee is curious
to know whether Logan go information
which afterward benefitted
the packers relating to the European
food problems and the government's
policy toward it.

[*Triviality of the testimonies to amiable 
and mutually helpful relations 
between James R. Mann and the big 
meat packers is proving one of the 
most unfortunate features of the 
Heney story about beefsteaks, the gift 
of a horse, and the aid of Mann in 
sidetracking an investigation of the 
packers. The beefsteak story is modified 
by Mr. Mann to the extent of explaining 
that it wasn't a steak at all, 
but a roast. The horse he admits he 
got; no doubt about that. The roast 
was a mighty good one; the horse a 
very poor one, that Mr. Mann used in 
his garden.
The attitude of the old-line organization Republicans gave the*]

NEW YORK, THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1919.
Heney Tells of Letter Regarding 
Advice Written of Swift-
Hurley and Houston Named.
(Continued from First Page.)
for such work ,and if it did it there 
would be no need for the Borland investigation.
"This," said Heney, "was just what
the lobbyists of the packers had reported 
it was desirable for them to 
get. The Office of Markets' investigation 
would be innocuous, purely industrial, 
and ineffective. Mann knew
that was so, because right here in 
this record is a letter from Secretary
of Agriculture Houston saying so,"
whereupon Heney read the Houston
letter, written to Borland.
In reply to Borland's question
whether the investigation would best
be made by the Office of Markets or
the Trade Commission, Mr. Houston
said he was "Definitely of the opinion
it should be by tthe Trade Commission, 
which has the requisite powers,
while the Office of Markets has not."
He showed that the Office of Markets
had not the sort of staff for such
work, and would have to duplicate
both machinery and work proposed
for the Trade Commission.
Both Parties Looked Alike.
"I want to add here," proceeded
Heney, "that Mr. Fitzgerald, Democratic 
House leader, was just as active 
as Mann in opposing the Borland
resolution. In such matters, Democrats 
and Republicans look alike."
Heney proceeded reading from the
report. Borland, in a speech on the
Mann amendment, declared the real 
purpose was to prevent a real investigation, 
and everybody voting for the
Mann proposal would know that was
its object. The office of markets, he
said, had once started on an inquiry
into meat concerns, and the packers
had snapped their fingers in its face
because it had no powers.
Turning from the record Mr. Heney
commented: "Arthur Meeker, attorney 
for Armour, had advised that by
all means the investigation should be
by the office of markets. Mr Mann
in his speech on the floor of the House
declared that his amendment had
never been submitted to the packers,
or had been the subject of conference
with their representatives; that they
knew nothing of it in advance, But
the fact is that the McManus and
Veeder letters show that they did talk
of this very resolution with Mann."
Taking up letters found in the
Veeder vault in Chicago, Mr Heney
read first the letter in which reference 
was made to Senator Wadsworth. 
Then came one from James
R. Mann to Veeder, written Aug. 4,
1916. It was a mere covering note,
in which was enclosed a copy of a
Senate resolution that had just been
introduced, for Veeder's information.
This enclosed resolution, Heney explained, 
was practically identical with
the one Mann had introduced in the
House. providing that the investigation 
be handled by the office of markets.
Then Heney read a letter from the
Federal Trade Commission by Chairman 
E. N. Hurley Aug. 3, 1916, to
Congressman Carlin. Carlin was a
member of the judiciary sub-committee 
considering the Borland resolution
and Heney had repeatedly charged
that he was an earnest worker for the
packers, In this letter Hurley writes
of the suggestion of an investigation
by the Trade Commission. It would
inevitably be, he said, a complex and
difficult one; the costs were estimated
at $142,000. for which special appropriation 
would be necessary, and it
would require the President's assistance, 
and certain that no investigation
would be worth while except the one
provided for by the Borland resolution
called on the President. He expressed
sympathy with them, but he doubted
his authority.
Kent Feared for Lamb.
Kent wrote him later a letter, pointing 
out without any uncertainty the
full authority of the President to direct 
the Trade Commission to make
exactly such an investigation. The
President forwarded this to Hurley,
whose reply already given, in substance 
proposed the inter-departmental 
inquiry. When this Hurley letter
was forwarded by the President to
Mr. Kent, Kent wrote the President
again. He pointed out that all necessary 
powers of real investigation
were lodged with the Trade Commission. 
"If it hadn't power to get results, 
why should it exist?" he inquired. 
Quoting the Hurley suggestion 
that presence of the attorney 
general's representative would
exert a useful moral influence, Mr.
Kent retorted that "such a toothless,
unarmed, unorganized attack on the
armed, powerful, and entrenched
packers" would be worse than useless. 
"If the business of the federal
trade commission is to superintend
getting the lab inside the lion, this
is the way to do it. I am sure, Mr.
President, after reading Mr. Hurley's
letter you must agree with me in
wondering what the Federal Trade
Commission is for."
That letter of "Billy" Kent seems
to have settled it. Heney laid it down
as he finished the reading, looked
around at the committee, and said:
"Then the President wrote to the
trade Commission, ordering it to make
the investigation.",
That is the genesis of the investigation 
in which Heney was engaged
as special counsel for the trade commission 
and which produced all the
sensational matter now coming out
before the Senate committee. The
hearings are only getting fairly begun. 
Heney has promised to tell all
eighteen months to a finish.
Hurley to the President.
Then came a letter from Hurley to
President Wilson, of Jan. 1, 1918. The
Borland resolution was still pending.
Congressman William Kent had written 
the President, urging an investigation 
by the Trade Commission, and
the President had forwarded it to
Hurley. Replying, Hurley suggested
that if inquiry into high prices were
desired, the Department of Justice
could make it under the anti-trust
law. If an economic study were wanted, 
then it would be different in character, 
very expensive, and requiring
probably tow years to complete. If
the war continued, war-time figures
would be useless when peace returned; 
if the war ended while the 
investigation was proceeding, half the
data would be based on war, half
on peace conditions, and the whole
would be valueless. All prices of
necessaries of life had been rising;
meat was only one; so Mr. Hurley
concluded that the only proper procedure 
would be a joint inquiry by
heads of various departments that
have powers to give effect later to
remedies they might suggest.
He would have assistant secretaries
of the department of agriculture and 
interior, an assistant attorney general, 
and a member of the Trade Com-
mission make the injuiry; getting the
various interest, "to appear in a
friendly way," and make suggestions;
and he suggested that the moral influence 
of having attorney general
represented would be highly important.
"Most men," added Mr. Hurley,
"will co-operate without being put under pressure."
When he had finished reading the
letter, Mr. Heney said:
"This shows Hurley helping carry
of the plans which the packers' 
lobby had formulated long in advance; 
a plan to get into an investigation 
so big an expensive and powerless 

that nothing would come of it."
A number of Heney's asistants
in the investigation will be examined
at length about more sensational documents 
taken from the vaults of the
packers' lawyers.
Merely a Beginning.
The whole insides of the fabric of
intrigue by which powerful influences
reached into highest places in congress 
and the administration is just
beginning to be exposed. Heney has
all along insisted that Hurley, while
head of the Federal Trade Commission, 
was helping the packers prevent
an investigation. Former Congressman 
Kent, now a member of the
Tariff Commission, had been actively
co-operating from the beginning in
getting the investigation, and later
in assuring that there should be full
exposure of all the influences that
have been enlisting it. He has been
attending the sittings of the Senate
committee regularly. taking the keenest 
interest in developments.
Other developments promised include 
the whole story of Thomas F.
Logan, former newspaper man,
charged with being a lobbyist for the
packers. Logan went to Paris with
Hurley when the latter went in connection 
with extending economic aid
to Europe; and the committee is curious 
to know whether Logan got information 
which afterward benefitted
the packers relating to the European
food problems and the government's 
policy toward it.

Packers -

WADSWORTH
TELEGRAM IN
PACKER FILES
Investigator Heney Tells Senate
Committee Veeder Wired State
Speaker on Oleomargarine Law
Measure Caused Scandal and Was
Repealed--Says Intrigue Led
to Various Law-Making Bodies
American 1/19/19
By Universal Service.
WASHINGTON, January 18--A web
of packer intrigue lending from Chicago 
headquarter to State Legislatures, 
and even to Congress was disclosed 
to the Senate Committee on
Agriculture to-day by Francis J.
Heney, counsel for the Federal Trade
Commission in its investigation of the
packing industry. He said:
"Money is being constantly spent
by the packers jointly on legislative 
matters in the various States.
The expenditures are charged on
their books to 'educational work.'"
He told of the passage of the oleo-margarine 
bill by the New York
Legislature when Senator James W.
Wadsworth, Jr., was speaker of the
lower house there. The bill set certain 
standards for the product which
could be sold in New York State. He
added:
"Only the oleo made by the 'big
five' packers could meet these requirements. 
They used certain kidney 
fats which gave the 'margarine'
a butter appearance. The law gave
them a virtual monopoly of the
'margarine market in the State."
TELEGRAM TO WADSWORTH.
"Was there any evidence to connect 
the packers with the New
York Legislature?" asked Senator
France of Maryland.
"We found a telegram in the
packers' files sent by Henry Veeder,
of counsel for the packers, to Senator 
Wadsworth, then Speaker at
Albany, urging that the bill be reported 
by the committee on rules
and pointing out to the Speaker
that there remained only ten days
of the session in which the measure
cold become a law."
The oleo law caused a big political
scandal in New York State and has
since been repealed. Mr. Heney continued:
"Fifteen thousand dollars was
spent, according to their books, to
defeat the Borland resolution, providing 
for a probe of the packing
house business."
Mr. Heney thought the packers
were liable under the Sherman anti-trust 
law and its amendments and
under the Clayton law. He again
covered the packer agreement by
which territory was divided among
the "big five." He said:
COUNTRY DISTRICTED.
"From 1893 to 1902 the country
was divided into districts, and the
packers met around a table every
Tuesday afternoon and did business 
among themselves. It was the
time of the 'Veeder pools,' Henry
Veeder, for the pool, collected fines
from any packer shipping more
than his allotment into any city.
This fine was then turned over to 
the 'injured' packer.
"My understanding is that the
packers' agreement now is on purchasing. 
The percentages that each
will take in the various yards was
 pretty well fixed by years of habit
and is prettty well understood.
Packers aer not allowed to buy in
markets in which they have not
been accustomed to buy. The map
has not changed much.
"On selling there is an understanding 
against overstocking any
market. Represetnatives go around
once a month and see what the
 market has on hand and are careful 
against causing a glut by oversupply."

1/25/18
THE EVENING POST
HOW THE PACKERS KEPT 
WATCH ON CONGRESS
LETTERS SHOW EFFORTS TO HEAD
OFF INVESTIGATION.
Name of Senator Wadsworth Introduced 
in Communication from 
Louis F. Swift Asking for Help.
WASHINGTON, January 25 (by A. P.).--
How the packers worked against Federal
investigation of their industry, as proposed 
in Congress during 1916, and how they
kept in touch with political affairs in
Washington in an effort to forestall passage 
of investigation resolution, was disclosed 
to-day by papers from the files of
Swift & Co., read into the record of the 
Federal Trade Commission's inquiry.
A report on the situation signed by R.
C. McManus, J. M. Chaplin, and A. D. 
White, of Swift & Company's legal staff,
and which was sent of G. F. Swift, jr.,
H. H. Swift, and other officers of the firm, 
said: 
"We believe the situation to be serious
and recommend that everything be done
in every direction to head off the present
movement. We believe that as it stands
to-day nothing could stop criminal prosecutions."
The following points were declared by
the report to be in favor of the packers:
"This Administration has not disturbed
business by prosecution, and does not
wish to be known as appealing to the
mob spirit. It does not wish to spend
money, as its revenues are in bad
shape. It must come before the corporations 
for political subscriptions shortly, 
as the convention is almost at hand,
Congressmen wish to go home to attend
to their fences."
As to the authors of the investigation
resolutions, the report had this to say:
"Borland, of Missouri, is seeking renomination. 
He boasts that he has a life
job assured by reason of this  agitation.
Congressman Doolittle (Kansas) is a boy
of small ability. He thinks he sees an
opportunity to secure prominence in
politics."
The name of Senator Wadsworth, of
New York, who, Francis J. Heney said,
is listed as a stockholder in Swift & Co.,
was brought into the testimony in a letter
from Louis F. Swift appealing for help
"in connection with a matter which is
pending in Congress."
THE LETTER TO WADSWORTH.
A letter dated March 9, 1916, to Senator
Wadsworth, was introduced. It reads:
"This will introduce Mr. R. C. McManus, 
general attorney of Swift & Co.,
who needs some advice and perhaps some
help in connection with a matter which is
pending in Congress. Assuring you that
I shall be grateful for any favors you
may grant him, I am,
(Signed) "Yours sincerely,
"L. F. SWIFT."
Evidence that the packers were kept
informed of what the cattlemen were doing 
in their fight to obtain an investigation 
of the meat-packing industry was
contained in a letter addressed to Mr.
McManus and signed by T. W. Tomlinson, 
secretary of the American Live Stock
Association.
E. C. Lasater, of Falfurrias, Tex.,
prominent  ranchman and a leading spirit
in the Cattlemen's Association, was in
the hearing room when tehletter was introduced. 
He was called to the stand by
Mr. Heney and asked if he knew that
such a letter had been written and what
he thought of it.
"I am astounded," Lasater replied. "It
certainly was not a proper thing for the
Association's secretary to have done."
A report from McManus to L. F. Swift, 
dated March 2, 1916, proposed as one of
the steps open to the packers in their 
fight against the proposed investigation
"to see if the Borland resolution could
not be made to die in committee."
It was indicated that the packers were
working to have the Government undertake 
to supply information regarding the
cattle industry which might change sentiment 
which was demanding an investigation. 
The report declare:
"I favor having the Bureau of Markets
of the Department of Agriculture, Mr.
Brand, chief, start the compilation and
regular publication of certain agreed data 
with a sufficient spread for average and 
with sufficient allowance for error, so as
to prove conclusively that at no time over
any period long enough to be reliable does
the profit of the packer on beef vary
more than 25 cents per head . . . I have 
told Mr. Brand that the packer simply reflects 
market when he busy cattle.
"I told Brand I wanted him to start
the development of "Brand's automatic
bet settler' for livestock men and when
this weekly publication had gained respect 
and confidence of shippers, commission 
men and livestock men, every
time a man would start to make a big
talk of what he knew, the other man
would pick up this bulletin and see 'what
Brand says.' I told him, I wanted this
packer talk taken out of livestock discussion, 
and it could only be done by a 
governmental publication."

MRS. J.C. PARK WED
TO FRENCH GENERAL
------
Divorced Wife of C. Mitchell
Depew Marries Gen. Taufflieb
of the 37th Army Corps
-------
AT THE CHATEAU D'ANNEL
-------
President Poincare Gave a Gold
Medal to Then Mrs. Depew in 
Recognition of Her Hospital. 
---------
The cable brought the announcement
yesterday of the marriage of Mrs. Julia
Catlin Park to General Taufflieb, Commander 
of the 37th Army Corps of the 
French Army, and an Alsatian. The
wedding was solemnized at the bride's 
home, the Chateau d'Annel at Longueil-Annel, 
a few miles north of Compiegne,
France. The cable message gave no 
other details, but Mme. Taufflieb's relatives 
here say that the acquaintance has
probably been one of a few months only. 
Mme. Taufflieb's chateau was the first 
hospital for the Allies' wounded soldiers
opened in France by an American so 
near the front. The then Mrs. Depew 
and her daughter, Miss Frances Park,
maintained it and worked in it, from its
opening on Aug. 29, 1914, until driven
f[?]t by the Germans, who were then 
advancing toward Paris. She left for 
England with her family, but returned 
after the French had won the battle of 
the Marne and went on with her war
work in her hospital home. 
Mme. Taufflieb divorced her second
husband, C. Mitchell Depew, a nephew of 
Chauncey M. Depew, in 1916. Mrs. Depew 
then resumed the name of Mrs. J. 
Catlin Park. They had been married in 
London in February, 1911, the wedding
coming as a great surprise to the bride's 
friends here. Mr. Depew had been married 
to Mrs. Leilia Perry Adams, a 
daughter of James C. Perry, who divorced 
him and later married Antonio
P. Fachiri, a London broker. She died 
in 1911. 
Mme. Taufflieb was Miss Julia Catlin, 
a daughter of the late Julius Catline 
of this city. Her first husband
was the late Trenor L. Park, and her 
daughter by him, Miss Frances Park, 
married last December Captain Ernest
Gerard Stanley, an English officer, and 
is with her mother still engaged in 
hospital work at Annel. A year ago
President Poincare of France, on recommendation 
of the Minister of War, conferred
a gold medal on the then Mrs. 
Depew in recognition of her hospital,
the Chateau d'Annel, and a letter written 
by Justin Godart, Under Secretary
of War, accompanying the medal spoke
of her devotion and abnegation in pursuing 
her relief work. 
Mme. Taufflieb is a sister of Mrs. 
Stowe Phelps of New York and has 
many relatives and friends here. She
has lived chiefly abroad for the last 
eight years. 
------
Miss Reierson to Wed Lieut. Fay.
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Larkin Reierson
of Bronxville, N.Y., announce the engagement 
of their daughter, Miss Lucilla 
Reierson, to Lieutenant William
Pickman Fay, son of Mrs. George Barr
McCutcheon.
The wedding will take place on Saturday 
afternoon, March 9, at 4 o'clock,
in Christ Church, Bronxville. 
Lieutenant Fay is a graduate of Harvard, 
class of '15, and served in the 
American Ambulance Corps in France
during 1915-1916. He is now attached 
to the 304th Field Artillery, U.S.R.,
stationed at Camp Upton.
---------
Evans-Raymond Engagement.
Mr. and Mrs. John Walter Spencer
Evans of New Brighton, S.I., announce
the engagement of their daughter, Miss
Judith Olga Evans, to Daniel de Vere
Raymond of this city, son of Mrs. Raymond 
and the late Alva Wing Raymond. 
Mr. Raymond is a lawyer and 
a graduate of Columbia, class of '06. 
He is a member of the National Arts
and Columbia University Clubs.
------
Miss Marion Chapman Engaged. 
Mr. and Mrs. George Lewis Chapman
of 12 East 87th Street have announced
the engagement of their daughter, Miss
Marion Chapman, to Walter B. Pond,
a son of Mrs. Charles E. Lydecker of 
11 East Eighty-first Street. Mr. Pond
is a student aviator. Miss Chapman
is a younger sister of Miss Augusta
Chapman, whose engagement to William 
Randebrock was announced a few
weeks ago, and is a granddaughter of 
the late Stephen Roe Randebrock of
Nyack, N.Y.  No date has been mentioned 
for the wedding. 
---------
Swedish Red Cross Gives Musicale. 
A musicale was given last night at 
the Waldorf-Astoria under the auspices
of the Swedish American Auxiliary. No. 

CHARLES P. FOLLMER DEAD. 
----------
Head of Largest Umbrella Factory
in the World Was 67. 
Charles Pennen Follmer, head of the 
firm of Follmer, Clogg & Co., umbrellas,
parasols, and canes, founded by him in 
1884, died suddenly at Atlantic City on 
Thursday in his sixty-eighth year. He 
was the proprietor of the largest umbrella 
manufacturing plant in the world. 
Mr. Follmer was born in this city, and 
when 15 years old enlisted as a drummer 
boy with the Ninety-ninth Pennsylvania 
Infantry Volunteers for the 
civil war.
He became a partner in the firm of 
William A. Drown & Co., umbrella 
makers, in 1879. His silk mills and umbrella 
factory were at Lancaster, Penn. 
Mr. Follmer was Vice President of the 
Colonial Assurance Company, Chairman
of the Executive Committee of the 
American Lloyds, and had been head of 
the umbrella and cane division of the 
second Liberty Loan of 1917. 
------------
Frederic W. Dillingham.
Frederic William Dillingham, a cotton
broker in Manhattan and a prominent
Brooklyn clubman died yesterday at 
his home, 542 East Twenty-fourth
Street, Flatbush. Mr. Dillingham was
born in Newburyport, Mass., fifty-eight
years ago. He was a member of the 
Crescent Athletic Club, the New York
Athletic Club, the Jamaica Bay and 
Bergen Beach Yacht clubs, Clinton Commandery, 
Knights Templar, Kismet
Temple, Nobles of the Mystic Shrine,
and the Sons of the American Revolution. 
His wife, a son, Lieutenant Frederic 
W. Dillingham, Jr., U.S.N., stationed 
on the battleship Louisiana, and 
a daughter, Mrs. Philip D. Carey, survive 
him.
--------
Mrs. M. Irwin MacDonald.
Mrs. M. Irwin MacDonald, a member
of the editorial staff of The New York
Tribune for the last two years and former 
editor of The Craftsman, died on 
Thursday at the Long Island Hospital
from a complication of diseases. She
had been engaged in newspaper and magazine 
work in this city for twenty years,
having come here from California,
where she had been editor of the magazine 
of The Los Angeles Times.
---------
Mrs. Lydia Hale Crane.
Mrs. Lydia Hale Crane, great grand-niece 
of Nathan Hale of Revolutionary
fame and daughter of the late Richard
Hale of New York Journal of Commerce, 
died suddenly on Thursday at
her home, 509 West 121st Street. She
was born in this city Sept. 7, 1846. Her 
husband was the late Frederick Crane.
Mrs. Crane was interested in religious
and benevolent work, and was a supporter 
of Hampton Institute and the 
National Child Labor Committee.
---------
Marines for Ensign Weed's Funeral.
Special to The New York Times. 
MONTCLAIR, N. J., March 1.--A
company of marines from the New York
Navy Yard will attend the funeral services 
tomorrow morning for Ensign 
Walker Weed, N.S.N.R.F., who died
on Thursday as the result of injuries he 
suffered at Capt May, N.J., when a 
hydroairplane he was operating fell to 
the beach. Services will be held in St. 
Luke's Episcopal Church, where three
weeks ago Ensign Weed was married
to Miss Jean Masson. Word was received 
from Cape May tonight that the
condition of Lieutenant William Bennett 
of Worcester, Mass., whose life Ensign 
Weed saved in sacrificing his own, was
showing improvement.
---------
Obituary Notes. 
CHARLES FREDERICK HAGUE, 33 years
old, a travelling salesman, died on Thursday
at his home, 146 Wilson Street, Brooklyn.
JAMES MALCOLM KENDALL, 44 years
old a master in St. Paul's School, Concord,
N.H., died there yesterday, in his forty-fifth year.
WILLIAM SIERICHS, 59 years old, a retired 
mineral water manufacturer, died at
his home, 433 Knickerbocker Avenue, Brooklyn, 
on Thursday.
WILLIAM H. MARLATT of Hackettstown,
N.J., a veteran of the civil war, died yesterday 
at the home of his son in Washington,
D.C. He was 83 years old. 
MICHAEL J. VIELBIG,  florist in Brooklyn 
and Rockaway Beach for fifteen years,
died from Bright's disease on Wednesday at
his home in Elizabeth, N.J.
Mrs. WILHELMINA SCHNEIDER STEINACH, 
widow of Dr. Adelrich Steinach, died
on Thursday at her home, 624 East Seventeenth 
Street, Flatbush, aged 73 years. 
PATRICK O'NEILL, who had been employed 
as a special officer in Calvary Cemetery 
for twenty years, died on Thursday at 
his home, 36 Van Pelt St., Long Island City. 
He was 77 years old. 
ABRAM F. LOWERRE, 74 years old, formerly 
with H.B. Claflin & Co. and until
two years ago Secretary and Treasurer of
the Southold (L.I.) Savings Bank, died on 
Thursday at his home in that place. 
Mrs. SUSAN VAN NOSTRAND SMITH,
widow of Henry A. Smith, a business man 
of this city and a member of an old Long 
Island family, died on Wednesday at her 
home, 451A Hancock Street, Brooklyn. She
was 76 years old. 
ABRAM L. LOWERRE,  a Trustee of the 
Southold (L.I.) Savings Bank and until 1914
Assistant Treasurer of the bank for twenty-four 
years, died at his home in Southold on 
Wednesday. Mr. Lowerre was born in New-
town seventy-three years ago.
JACOB H. STEELE, who had been a contractor 
in Paterson, N.J., for forty-nine
years, died yesterday at his home in Wyckoff, 
N.J. In 1902, when fire destroyed a 
considerable part of the business section of 
Paterson, Mr. Steele held the contracts for 
the rebuilding of it. 
Mrs. HENRIETTA C. GRIGGS, a former
resident of Brooklyn and wife of William H. 


FEMININITY HAS NOW BECOME
MILITANTLY RAMPANT; LOOKS
ROSY FOR MARY GARRETT HAY
[*Florida k???? ????? 12/16/19*]
--------------------
(By Augustin Lardy, Universal Service
Staff Correspondent). 
New York, Dec. 14.--The gage of battle 
has been cast. Femininity is militantly 
rampant. 
At the Astor last night matters were
rosy for Mary Garrett Hay and the 
demand was made by an assemblage
of 1,000 women for "men fit to represent." 
It was the "get-together"
luncheon of the City League of Women 
Voters and to Miss Hay the following 
tribute was paid:
"From our hearts we offer you our 
love, our homage and our loyalty." 
This evening there is a merry little
women's war brewing. The pink tints
take a darker cast. 
Unless Will H. Hays, chairman of
the Republican national committee,
discharges his special political protege
the said Mary Garrett Hay, appointed
by him to membership in the women's 
Republican national committee,
anti-suffragists declare they are out 
for the political scalps of Hays and
Hay. 
"There is no help for it," said Miss
Charlotte Rowe, field secretary of the 
National Association Opposed to Woman 
Suffrage.
"The tactics of these suffragists are 
simply driving us into meeting them
with their own weapons. Miss Hay, a
Republican, is fighting Republican men
by aiding the Democrats because the 
views of the former are not suffragistic 
enough for her. Well, we'll have 
to fight the same way too. Just now
we aim to show that Hays in supporting 
Hay is untrue to his Republicanism. 
She herself makes no bones about
her infidelity to her party. He must get
rid of her. 
"His name may be Hays, but he's 
like a single straw in the hands of 
his little political pet and near-namesake," 
said Miss Mary G. Kilbreth,
president of the Anti-Suffrage Association. "
Hays may not know it, but
he and politicians like him are mere
cat's paws for the suffragists. These
women know nothing but the bigotry 
of one idea. If one of them succeeds
in squirming herself into the political 
life of the nation she throws party allegiance 
as well as her cap over the 
wind mils and devotes herself to the 
advancement of suffrage. Instead of 

[*Rochester Post Express 12/9*]
playing politics, they are playing sex,
and poor, purblind men men like Hays
are not able to see how they are being 
used. 
"It's high time for Hays to either
dismiss Miss Hay from the Women's 
Republican national committee, financed
by himself out of Republican campaign 
funds contributed for the success
of party candidates and party principles 
or for Hays to stand committed
to Miss Hay's party disloyalty.
"He is at the head of the most important 
Republican organization in the 
coutnry. He is responsible for the subordinates 
he has appointed. He can
not deny the responsibility for Mary 
Garrett Hay. As a Republican he can 
not approve her course. 
"The sooner Mr. Hays declares himself 
the better. If by his subsequent
course he justifies Miss Hay's acts, he 
must not find fault if we adopt tactics
similar to those of the suffragists, but 
in another direction. 
"Miss Hay is one of the five editors
under whom the official organ of the 
suffrage party is published--The Woman 
Citizen.
"United States Senator James W. 
Wadsworth, Jr., is a Republican--a 
loyal, sterling Republican. Miss Hay
says flatly in her magazine that she 
will refuse to support him if he is 
nominated in the primaries, because
of his views on suffrage. She says she 
will cooperate with the Democrats in 
a finish fight against Wadsworth. 
"Can't Mr. Hays see how compromising 
it is to have this type of Republican 
appointed by himself to a 
Republican committee? Outrageous editorials 
have been published in the 
Woman Citizen undoubtedly inspired
by Miss Hay, attacking Senator Wadsworth." 
"I wonder if Mr. Hays knows that 
the suffragettes have card-indexed
every public official from President
Wilson down?" queried Miss Rowe. 
"They have carefully catalogued public 
men so as to know how to approach 
them to gain suffrage ends. The way
this governor likes to have his hair
parted by his pet barber; the way
the other senator likes to gurgle his
turtle soup. Whether this judge is interested 
in Belgian hares or British
bull dogs; whether that congressman
is susceptible to the odor of violets--
every little idiosyncrasy is known to 
them." 

The First of Her Species.
The broadest and least offensive 
characterization of what constitutes a 
mugwump defines him as a voter identified 
more particularly with one party 
who claims the right to vote with another. 
In its ancient connotation of 
chief or leader, the word is of Algonquin 
origin; and Eliot's Bible for the 
Indians called Joshua and Joab mugwumps, 
in order to show the aborigines 
what outstanding sagamores they
were
Every political party in every epoch 
has had its mugwumps; and now in 
our own state the feminine mugwump,
first of her species, has appeared. Mary
Garrett Hay classifies herself as a republican 
and is perfectly willing, and 
competent in her own opinion, to run 
the entire party, if allowed to do so. 
But she calls upon her followers of the 
cantankerous wing of suffragism to vote
the democratic ticket rather than vote
for a gentleman who is now persona
grata in her eyes. Specifically, she
would coerce the party by threat of 
forsaking it, to abandon Senator Wadsworth 
because of his stand on principle 
and conviction that one state has
no right to force a franchise law upon
another. She overlooks, in her personal 
pique, the senator's stalwart 
services to his party and the country
by his wise and fearless stand on military 
service, preparedness, profiteering, 
the treaty, the budget and other
important issues, on all of which he 
has been concededly right. Less concerned 
for republican success than to 
gratify her woman's spite, and threatening 
to bolt the ticket unless it is 
made to suit her, it seems proper to 
call her a female mugwump, since in 
feminine form of the word has yet been 
discovered or coined. 
The party should tell this heady,
not to say bumptious and procacious,
recruit that political scalp hunting
within a party for the gratification of 
personal animosities is shockingly 
poor politics; that she does not voice

the mass of the republican women or 
the state, and that if she feels that she 
really must desert the party on this
issue the party will try to reconcile
itself to her withdrawal and she will 
find her wraps and rubbers in the hall.

[*???? ???? 12/15/19*]
Mary Garrett Hay.
INTERNATIONAL 
CHOSEN TO REPRESENT NEW
YORK G.O.P. AT 1920
CONVENTION.
Miss Mary Garrett Hay, prominent
suffragist, who has been chosen by 
the Republicans of New York state as
one of the delegates to represent
them at the coming National Convention 
in 1920. Two of the other three
delegates for New York state will be 
the United States Senators from New 
York.

[*March 1918*]

[O]ther Timely Subjects

OPPOSED TO SUFFRAGE

Public Sentiment Shown at Sixteen Out
of Nineteen Elections in Many States.

By MRS. JAMES W. WADSWORTH
President National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage

To the Editor of The New York Times:
The article in THE TIMES entitled
"Obstacles in Path of Nation-wide Suffrage,"
by George MacAdam, gives an
array of facts and figures that should
appeal to every sincere student of this
important question, and is the best
statement yet compiled of the popular
strength of the anti-suffrage movement
in this country.
Our organization, of course, has
known for years how popular sentiment
stands on this question. We have
had it proved to us time and again
that the overwhelming majority of the
American people, men and women, are
opposed to woman suffrage. But the
press, like the politicians, has been
harassed, threatened, cajoled, and coerced
into reiterating the suffrage slogan,
"It Is Coming," to such an extent
that it is a most agreeable surprise 
to find the mathematical facts
about this movement again given fair
and prominent display in THE TIMES.
THE NEW YORK TIMES, more than any 
other newspaper in America, I believe,
has truly represented national public
opinion on this question. It has given
"all the news that's fit to print" on
both sides, and it has repeatedly expressed
in its editorials, not the extreme
anti-suffrage viewpoint, but the dispassionate
judgement that has been registered
by the majority of the voters at
the polls.
If we consider the difficulties under
which anti-suffragists have worked, we
realize all the more clearly how public
opinion has indorsed the opposition to
woman suffrage.
This organization has taken part in
nineteen Statewide campaigns.
In each of these campaigns, ours has
been the only organization that worked,
spoke or distributed literature against
woman suffrage.
There has not been one campaign in
which our women have not been subject
to insult and ridicule, in public
and in private.
Yet, in sixteen of these nineteen campaigns,
in spite of all the organization,
publicity, pressure and political power
the suffragists were able to use against
us, the voters defeated woman suffrage
at the polls.
There is no political party, there is
no political candidate, with so magnificent
a record of popular support as that
registered by the anti-suffragists in carrying
sixteen elections out of nineteen
from Maine to Montana by the aggregate
majority four and a half times that
obtained by the suffragists in the States
they have won, as Mr. MacAdam points 
out.

And what of the three elections that 
we lost - Montana, Nevada and New
York? It is an acknowledged fact that
Montana and Nevada were carried for
woman suffrage in 1914 by the increased
Socialist vote. It is a mathematical
facts - whether the suffragists care to admit
it or not - that the Socialists gained
149,895 votes in New York State over
their vote of 1916, and that the suffragists
gained 149,781 votes over their
vote of 1915.
The 145,000 Socialists who voted
against the war and for suffrage in
New York City already claim to be
educating 125,000 women to vote the
Socialist ticket. The suffragists will
educate a number of women to vote
for those measures dear to the heart of the
feminist. The majority of the Democratic
and Republican women, educated 
or not, will practice the doctrine of
"no obligation to vote."
And if the conservative women on the
farms and in the homes, the women
of the old parties, largely remain away
from the polls, while the Socialists,
feminists, pacifists, and other radicals
are doubling their political power, how
long will it be before we have twenty,
instead of ten, Socialists at Albany?

KNITTING BAGS.

How long will it be before we have one
hundred instead of one Socialist in Congress
if the Federal suffrage amendment 
is adopted?
The political bosses who can control
the votes of men can control the votes
of the wives of those men. The radicals
who can get 145,000 men to vote for
socialism in New York City will be
able to get 145,000 women to vote for
socialism in New York City. On the
other hand, the majority of the Democratic,
Republican, and independent
will not only be politically divided
and voting largely against each other,
but they will find it impossible to get
the majority of their women to vote
at all.
This nation cannot fall from outside
attack. Neither did mighty Russia fall
from outside attack.
The founders of our Republic wisely 
realized that there might be domestic as
well as foreign enemies. They have
required every officer of the United
States Government to take an oath
"To uphold and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all 
foreign and domestic enemies."
Who are our domestic enemies? The 
enemy aliens?
Our Department of Justice itself has
stated that the arson and sabotage recently
practiced in this country could 
not be traced to enemy aliens, but to
the American radicals. 
The only dangerous domestic enemies
in this country are what is known as
"The American Bolsheviki." They 
have votes, and it is planned to give
their women votes - while the conservative
women protest against votes and 
largely fail to cast votes when given
the franchise.
The so-called "Woman's Party" is
politically a myth. There is no "solidarity
of sex," no "woman's vote" to
be delivered by any of the suffrage
leaders. The only solidarity connected
with the granting of woman suffrage is
the doubling of the solid radical vote,
while the conservative vote is divided
and relatively decreased.
The question is no longer one of woman
against woman, or woman against
man, but of protecting American institutions
against the organized radicals
of both sexes.
If Congress will give us a fair chance,
if the press will give us the opportunity
to tell the facts, we anti-suffrage women
of America feel confident that we
can pledge ourselves to protect this
country from "votes for women" and
can segregate this menace in the States
where it exists until its repeal is
eventually demanded.
Eighty per cent, of the women of this
nation are wives and mothers. The
majority of them would rather be represented
at the polls by the fathers of 
their children than misrepresented in
Congress or the Legislatures by a [?]
woman politician.
The rights of the mothers of the race [?]
to demand personal exemption from political 
duties, and that their country 
be governed by conservative men, rather
than by radical men and women,
will not always be violated by unthinking,
office-seeking politicians.
The radicals themselves, Socialists 
and suffragists, will show them the
light in New York City, and will force
both Democrats and Republicans to
realize that the great political battle 
of the future will be between conservatives
and radicals.
We trust that the Senate of the
United States, with the war at its most 
critical stage, with the example of fallen
Russia before it, with the American 
Bolsheviki crying, "On to Washington," 
will show statesmanlike vision for the
future of our country; will refuse to 
rob the people of the right to protect
their women from politics and their
property from Socialists of both sexes.
                    ALICE H. WADSWORTH
President National Association Opposed
to Woman Suffrage.
Washington, Feb. 23, 1918.

ready to pick and prod us as we are 
[?] against them in the subway

ASKS HAYS TO OUST
MISS MARY G. HAY
 [*? 12/21/19*]

Head of Anti-Suffragists Assails
Chairman of Women's
Division of Republican Party.

CITES WADSWORTH ATTACK

Tells National Chairman That Her
Editorials Against Senator
Show Party Disloyalty.

Protesting against attacks on Senator
Wadsworth, attributed to Miss Mary
Garrett Hay, which have appeared in
recent issues of The Woman Citizen,
official organ of the National Woman
Suffrage Association, Miss Mary G. Kilbreth,
President of the National Association 
Opposed to Woman Suffrage,
has sent a letter to Will H. Hays, Chairman
of the Republican National Committee,
calling upon him to depose Miss
Hay from the high position she holds in
the woman's division of the Republican
Party, "or you stand committed to her
party disloyalty."
The attacks on Senator Wadsworth appeared
on the editorial page of The
Woman Citizen on Dec. 6 and Dec. 13.
In the Dec. 6 editorial it was asserted
that "Republican women will join with
Democratic women to defeat him (Senator
Wadsworth)." On Dec. 13 Miss Hay
was quoted in an editorial as declaring 
that, "if Senator Wadsworth is nominated
in the Republican Party primary
she will work against him."
Miss Hay is one of the women members
of the Executive Committee of the 
Republican State Committee, appointed
to that position by Republican State
Chairman George A. Glynn. In the 
national Republican organization she is
Chairman of the Executive Committee of
the women's division. She has an office
at the headquarters of the Republican
National Committee in the Knox Building.
Miss Kilbreth in her letter to National
Chairman Hays called attention to the
editorial attacks on Senator Wadsworth.
"There is no doubt," she wrote, "that
these articles are inspired by Miss Mary
Garrett Hay, whom many regard as your
special political protege. She is the First
Vice President of the National Woman
Suffrage Association and one of the five
directors under whose management The 
Woman Citizen is published. Miss Hay
has made it clear on many other occasions
that she intends to fight Senator
Wadsworth to a finish and will co-operate
with Democrats to do it.

Calls It Persecution.

"This campaign of persecution against
Senator Wadsworth is a sample of the
national program of the nonpartisan
League of Women Voters, of which Mrs.
Catt and Miss Hay are co-founders, 
against every man in public office who
defies their dictation.
"You are the head of the most important
Republican organization in the 
country. You are responsible for the
subordinates you have appointed. You
cannot deny responsibility for Miss Mary
Garrett Hay. Do you approve the
course being followed by her and which
is alienating thousands of Republicans?
"It is high time for you either to dismiss
Miss Hay from the Women's National
Republican Committee, financed
by you out of the Republican campaign
fund contributed for the success of party
candidates and party principles, or you
stand committed to her party disloyalty."
The Women Voters' Anti-Suffrage 
Party, the declared purpose of which is
to "co-operate with established parties
against radicalism," in a circular letter
to its members calls attention to the activities
of Miss Hay, which they characterize 
as a "wrecking campaign," 
and ask why she "has been rewarded
for party disloyalty."
"Is it possible," the circular letter
continues, "that certain men leaders
are operating behind the 'sex immunity'
of so-called 'Big Boss Mary Garrett
Hay,' relying on her skirts to shield
them in attacking certain men they
themselves are afraid to fight in the
open, man to man?"
At the headquarters of the Anti-Suffrage 
Party at 280 Madison Avenue it
was said that the view of Miss Hay
are not shared by a majority of the Republican
women in this State.
"It is emphatically not true of the 
rank and file of normal Republican
women who have followed Senator
Wadsworth's admirable record in Congress
and who will work to keep him
there as a bulwark against the inroads
of radicalism."

Tells of Plans of Antis.

Miss Kilbreth announced that the Association
Opposed to Woman Suffrage
was waging an aggressive campaign not
only to prevent the suffragists from 
getting the Federal suffrage amendment
ratified by the necessary thirty-six
States which must give assent before it
can become effective, but to bring about
the affirmative rejection of the amendment
by thirteen States. Thirteen such
rejections filed with the Secretary of
State at Washington, the "antis" con [?],
will mean the defeat of Federal 
woman suffrage.
So far only one State - Alabama - has
taken affirmative action against hte
Federal amendment. In Virginia the
lower house of the Legislature voted to
reject and in Georgia both houses, but a
slight dissimilarity in the phrasing of
the concurrent resolution adopted by
the Senate from that adopted in the
Assembly invalidated the action of the
Georgia Legislature.
The "antis," Miss Kilbreth said, were
prepared to throw a monkey wrench
into the machinery with the possible
effect of leaving in doubt for months the
result of next year's Presidential election,
in the vent hat the electoral vote
should be close. The coup they contemplate 
is contesting the results in at least
seven or eight of the twelve State where
women enjoy the statutory enactment 
and not by constitutional amendment
the right to vote in Presidential elections,
on the ground that the Legislatures, 
in enacting these laws, acted
in defiance of their State Constitutions
and of decisions handed down by the 
United States Supreme Court defining
the limitations of legislative authority
in States where the organic law calls for
a referendum on the fundamental changes
in the electoral franchise.

[*Eagle 12/23/19*]

Mrs. Jessie McGahie and Mrs. Faith
Moore Andrews are planning to enter
the field against those fighting Senator
Wadsworth. Wadsworth buttons, 
a special committee, and other 
features are being considered by Republican
women who are in sympathy
with the party candidate.

[*?Tribune 12/30/19 *]

Wadsworth Says Wilson
Blocks Path of Treaty

United States Senator James W.
Wadsworth jr., on his way from Washington
to his home in the Genesee Valley, 
said last night at the Republican
Club, in commenting on the work of
the Senate:
"The greatest stumbling block to the
ratification of the peace reaty is the
insistence of President Wilson on the
adoption of Article X, as originally
phrased. This involves, as every intelligent
reader knows, the sending of 
American troops outside of the jurisdiction
of the United States. The Senate 
will never stand for it."
Senator Wadsworth said the report
of the Military Affairs Committee, providing
for a reduced army, was ready
but was not printed, and that he could
not discuss it.

SUFFRAGE AND PROHIBITION POLITICS

To the Editor of The World: [*12/24/19*]

As a former Suffragist and worker and supporter
of the cause I am naturally opposed to the re-election
of Senator Wadsworth or any public official who
worked against Suffrage after the people of the State
of New York voted upon it in 1917. But from the 
standpoint of practical politics I would suffest that
if William H. Anderson and his band of pirates come
out against Mr. Wadsworth and join with the Suffs
against him because he had enough good sense to
vote against Prohibition in the Senate, then I concede
Wadsworth's election now. The elections of November,
1919, proved conclusively that any candidate the
Anderson gang came out against was elected to office
by an overwhelming majority, and this is as it should be. 
Whilw we are all in favor of Prohibition to a certain
degree, the American people, except those who
are paid for their Prohibition work, are unanimously
against the methods used by the Anderson crowd
and the Sixty-fifth Congress in putting this measure
through, and what I cannot understand is how Mr.
Wadsworth represented the people of the State of
New York on the question of Prohibition and went
against them on the Suffrage question after the
State had passed it. If the anti-Prohibitionists line
up with the Suffs against Mr. Wadsworth there will
be a number of Suffs who will not come in on that
arrangement. There isn't a Suffrage worker to-day
who does not remember that the W. C. T. U. was 
against Suffrage in the 1915 campaign. It lgoically
belongs with Mr. Wadsworth now and not 
against him. Why the fraternizing now? The Suffs
won their 1917 victory without the aid of Mr. Anderson
and the W. C. T. U. We can defeat Mr. Wadsworth
now without their aid, and any aid they give
us will only mean his re-election.
In view of the fact that a $400,000,000 suit is to be
brought against the Government by the liquor interests
on account of Mr. Anderson's little party,
which the people of the United States will have to
pay, it might be well to bring about legislation to
compel the Anti-Saloon League to pay all Government
expenses in accordance with this stupid Prohibition Amendment.
From the standpoint of justice and equality, if a 
Prohibition Amendment had been passed by the direct
vote of the people of the United States the writer
would bow to the will of the majority and say nothing;
but a rubber-stamp Congress does not express
the will of the people any more than Senator Wadsworth
expressed the will of the people of the State 
of New York when voting against the Suffrage
Amendment after the people of his State had voted
in favor of it. When our Senator's brain works both
ways, how can we go straight?
White Plains, Dec. 18.             M. Louise Gross.

[*Eagle, Jan 2.*]

been invited to participate in the election
of offices of the club on Monday
night. Rehearsals for "very Good,
Eddie," in which Mrs. Caroline Mason
is drilling the chorus, have been resumed, 
the entire east being Washington
Club members.

Plans for a women's committee for 
Senator Wadsworth are being discussed
today. Mrs. Jessie f. McGahie
is the instigator of the plan and
will enlist under her banner many
prominent Republicans. It is expect -

WALKER FOR GOVERNOR,
LUNN AGAINST WADSWORTH

[*St. ? 1/6/2*]

ALBANY. Jan. 6. - Republican
leaders who arrived here tonight
to prepare for the opening session
of the 1920 Legislature Wednesday
noon, will plan their political moves
on the assumption that Governor
Smith will not run again for state
office, that the Democrats next
summer will nominate Lieut. Gove.
Harry C. Walker of Binghampton
for governor, besides selecting
Mayor George R. Lunn of Schenactady
to make the run against
United States Senator James W. 
Wadsworth, Jr.

TIMES
New York City
WADSWORTH STILL
AGAINST SUFFRAGE
Asserts He Cannot Surrender
His Convictions Despite Request
of Albany Legislature.
WAS URGED TO VOTE FOR IT
Women Leaders at Capital Now Believe
They Can Win with Favorable
Vote by Senator Moses.
Special to The New York Times.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15. — The action
of the New York Legislature today in
 adopting a resolution calling upon Senators
Calder and Wadsworth to vote for
the Federal suffrage amendment failed
to change the situation so far as they
are concerned individually.
Senator Calder, who voted for the woman 
suffrage amendment when the test
 vote was last taken in the Senate on
Oct. 1 last, said tonight:
"I bow to the will of the State Legislature
and will vote for the amendment
when it comes up again just as I voted
for it before."
Senator Wadsworth, who has been a
staunch opponent of woman suffrage,
and whose wife is a very active worker
in the National Anti-Suffrage organization,
said tonight that he would not
change his vote.
"I have the greatest respect for the
legislature of the State of New York."
said Senator Wadsworth, "but my vote
against the amendment last October
represented my convictions and I cannot
surrender my convictions in this
matter."
The situation facing the suffrage
amendment is one in which only two
votes are needed for its ratification,
and unless these votes are obtained in 
the forty-eight days elapsing between
now and March 4 suffrage cannot be attached
by amendment to the Federal
Constitution for three years, because
even if the amendment is adopted after
March 4 it will be three years before
enough Legislatures will meet to enable
the suffragists to obtain the support of 
the necessary thirty-six States for making
the amendment valid as part of the 
Constitution.
The suffrage leaders insist that if the
vote is taken in the Senate now they
would be only one she, even if Senators
Wadsworth of New York and Moses of
New Hampshire, both Republicans, 
should vote against the resolution.
When the vote was taken last October
the Senate divided this way:
For the Resolution — 54 Senators.
Against It — 30 Senators.
Paired — 12 Senators.
Total — 96 Senators.
There were 84 Senators voting and 56
constituted the necessary two-thirds
vote.
After the vote was taken Senator
Jones of New Mexico, who had charge
of the bill, changed his vote from the
affirmative to the negative, making the
vote as actually recorded fifty-three for
and thirty-one against. But this change
of vote by Senator Jones was merely 
technical. Under the rules, in order to
be able to move a reconsideration, a Senator
must have voted in the negative
and, in order to be in position at some
convenient date before March 4 to seek
another vote on the measure, Senator
Jones changed his vote to the negative.
Since the vote was last taken there 
have been two changes in the Senate
that might in any way change the poll.
Drew of New Hampshire, who for a few
weeks served by appointment in the
Senate in place of the late Senator
Gallinger, voted against the
resolution in October. He has been
succeeded by Senator Moses, upon whom
the suffragists have been laboring hard
in an effort to swing his vote on the
affirmative side of the tally. Senator
Benett of South Carolina, who was a 
butter opponent of suffrage, has been
succeeded by Senator Pollock, who, the 
suffragists claim, is ready to vote for
the amendment.
Should Senator Pollock vote the way
the suffragist leaders say they feel sure 
he will, if the opportunity for voting 
comes, the vote would stand 55 to 29, or 
one shy the necessary two-thirds, provided 
both Wadsworth and Moses voted 
negative.
ALBANY, Jan. 15. — The New York Assembly,
without opposition, adopted today
the Graves-McNab resolution, which
would request the State's representatives
in the United States Senate to vote and
work for the passage of the Federal suffrage
amendment. The resolution was
adopted by the Senate yesterday and
now will be transmitted to the Senators
Wadsworth and Calder.
SPRINGFIELD MASS [?]
JANUARY 17, 1918
[?RY] 17, 1918
SENATE LEADERSHIP AND WAR INQUIRIES
Vehicles of Publicity Which Give Great Opportunities at Washington for
the Ambitious — New Importance of Military Committee — Democratic
Leaders Appear
From Our Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON, D.C., Wed., Jan. 16
A certain new leadership of more
or less distinctive brand is in the
making at the Senate these January
days. It is coming out of the striving,
the examining and cross-examining,
out of the somewhat stressful efforts
of individuals before the military affairs
committee on the conduct of the
war. Incidentally certain republican 
senators are hardening their muscles
in thir performance, more than democratic
senators, but the process is bipartisan.
Identification with this inquiry 
is the vehicle of publicity now 
available under the capitol dome. And,
of course, vehicles of widespread
publicity are ordinarily the best instrumentalities
of growth and strength
for ambitious politicians. Out of such
opportunities, careers in the public service are builded.
The older republican leadership of
the Senate is thoroughly in sympathy
with ideas for ripping open the war
department to disclose  incompetency
and shortcomings from the highest
efficiency. But the older republican
leadership is not represented in the
military affairs committee. In peace
times military affairs, while important, 
is comparatively a secondary assgnment.
It jumped into first importance
with the declaration of war and its
membership comprised some of the
newer senators. And while the older
republican leaders are by no means
yielding whatever points of vantage
they may have had, a rival group is
rising up into added prominence.
Courageous Senator Wadsworth
The first figure in that connection is
Senator Wadsworth of New York,
young and promising. It requires
courage to appose and criticize, by
which standards Senator Wadsworth
appears to be qualifying. Ordinarily,
when a state goes over to prohibition
or suffrage for women, its senators
and representatives, who have
been antagonistic, shift their position
overnight, run up the flag of their
former antagonists and take on the
zeal of converts. Not so, Senator Wadsworth
certainly as to equal suffrage.
His voting constituency is now half
male, half-female and it would seem
as much as a United States senator's
political life was worth in New
York state to keep on fighting suffrage,
but Senators Wadsworth is doing
that thing.
Apart from any merits of his position,
he becomes thereby a more
noteworthy figure in the Senate, and,
in addition, he looms forth as a leading 
war-preparedness inquisitor. He
hands on the flank of every war department
witness, asserts, asseverates,
analyses and contradicts, so that, as 
a matter of fact, the New York senator
gets more words into the printed record
than the personage who 
happens to be testifying. And it may
not be said yet that this process is
not yielding some information and
contributing something in the way of
conclusions and suggestion that will speed up the program.
Wadsworth Denies He Will
Retire at End of Term
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29. — When
asked if it were tur that he intended
to retire from the Senate at the end of
his present term because of the opposition
of the suffragists and his unwillingness
to vote for the Federal
amendment, Senator Wadsworth said 
to-night he had reached no such decision.
[?] 1/30/18
Suf-
1/1-17
[?] on 
Suffrage

FEMINITITY HAS NOW BECOME
MILITANTLY RAMPANT; LOOKS
ROSY FOR MARY GARRETT HAY
Florida [?] [?] 12/16/19
(By Augustin Lardy, Universal Service
Stage Correspondent).
New York, Dec. 14.—The gage of battle
has been cast. Femininity is militantly
rampant.
At the Astor last night matters were
rosy for Mary Garrett Hay and the 
demand was made by an assemblage
of 1,000 women for "men fit to represent."
It was the "get-together+
luncheon of the City League of Women
Voters and to Miss Hay the following
tribute was paid:
"From our hearts we offer you our
love, our homage and our loyalty."
This evening there is a merry little
women's war brewing. The pink tints
take a darker cast.
Unless Will H. Hays, chairman of
the Republican national committee,
discharges his special political protege
the said Mary Garrett Hay, appointed
by him to membership in the women's 
Republican national committee,
anti-suffragists declare they are out
for the political scalps of Hays and 
Hay.
"There is no help for it," said Miss
Charlotte Rowe, field secretary of the
National Association Opposed to Women
Suffrage.
"The tactics of these suffragists are
simply driving us into meeting them
with their own weapons. Miss Hay, a
Republican, is fighting Republican men
by aiding the Democrats because the
views of the former are not suffragistic
enough for her. Well, we'll have
to fight the same way too. Just now
we aim to show that Hays in supporting
Hay is untrue to his Republicanism.
She herself makes no bones about
her infidelity to her party. He must get
rid of her.
"His name may be Hays, but he's
like a single straw in the hands of
his little political pet and near-name-sake," 
said Miss Mary G. Kilbreth, 
president of the Anti-Suffrage Association.
"Hays may not know it, but
he and politicians like him are mere
cat's paws for the suffragists. These
women know nothing but the bigotry
of one idea. If one of them succeeds
in squirming herself into the political
life of the nation, she throws party allegiance
as well as her cap over the
wind mils and devotes herself to the
advancement of suffrage. Instead of
playing politics, they are playing sex,
and poor, purblind men men like Hays
are not able to see how they are being
used.
"It's high time for Hays to either
dismiss Miss Hay from the Women's
Republican national committee, financed
by himself out of Republican campaign
funds contributed for the success
of party candidates and party principles,
or for hays to stand committed 
to Miss Hay's party disloyalty.
"He is at the head of the most important
Republican organization in the 
coutnry. He is responsible for the subordinates
he has appointed. He can
not deny the responsibility for Mary
Garrett Hay. As a Republican he can 
not approve her course.
"The sooner Mr. Hays declares himself
the better. If by his subsequent 
course he justifies Miss Hay's acts, he
must not find fault if we adopt tactics
similar to those of the suffragists, but
in another direction.
"Miss Hay is one of the five editors
under whom the official organ of the
suffrage party is published — The Woman
Citizen.
"United States Senator James W.
Wadsworth, Jr., is a Republican — a
loyal, sterling Republican. Miss Hay
says flatly in her magazine that she
will refuse to support him if he is
nominated in the primaries. because
of his views on suffrage. She says she
will cooperate with the Democrats in
a finish fight against Wadsworth.
"Can't Mr. Hays see how compromising
it is to have this type of Republican
appointed by himself to a 
Republican committee? Outrageous editorials
have been published in the
Woman Citizen undoubtedly inspired
by Miss Hay, attacking Senator Wadsworth."
"I wonder if Mr. Hays knows that
the suffragettes have card-indexed
every public official from President
Wilson down?" queried Miss Rowe.
"They have carefully catalogued public
men so as to know how to approach
them to gain suffrage ends. The way
this governor likes to have his hair
parted by his pet barber; the way
the other senator likes to gurgle his 
turtle soup. Whether this judge is interested
in Belgian hares or British
bull dogs: whether that congressman
is susceptible to the odor of violets—
every little idiosyncrasy is known to
them."

[?] Post Express 12/9
The First of Her Species.
The broadest and least offensive
characterization of what constitutes a
mugwump defines him as a voter identified
more particularly with one party
who claims the right to vote with another.
In its ancient connotation of
chief or leader, the word is of Algonquin
origin; and Eliot's Bible for the
Indians called Joshua and Joab mugwumps,
in order to show the aborigines
what outstanding sagamores they
were
Every political party in every epoch
has had its mugwumps; and now in
our own state the feminine mugwump,
first of her species, has appeared. Mary
Garrett Hay classifies herself as a republican
and is perfectly willing, and
competent in her own opinion, to run
the entire party, if  allowed to do so.
But she calls upon her followers of the
cantankerous wing of suffragism to vote
the democratic ticket rather than vote
for a gentleman who is not persona
grata in her eyes. Specifically, she
would coerce the party by threat of
forsaking it, to abandon Senator Wadsworth
because of his stand on principle 
and conviction that one state has
no right to force a franchise law upon
another. She overlooks, in her personal 
pique, the senator's stalwart
services to his party and the country 
by his wise and  fearless stand on military
service, preparedness, profiteering,
the treaty, the budget and other
important issues, on all of which he
has been concededly right. Less concerned
for the republican success than to
gratify her woman's spite, and threatening
to bolt the ticket unless it is
made to suit her, it seems proper to
call her a female mugwump, since no
feminine form of the word has yet been
discovered or coined.
The party should tell this heady,
not to say bumptious and procacious,
recruit that political scalp hunting
within a party for the gratification of
personal animosities is shockingly
poor politics; that she does not voice
the mass of the republican women or
the state, and that if she feels that she 
really must desert the party on this
issue the party will try to reconcile
itself to her withdrawal and she will
find her wraps and rubbers in the hall.

Mary Garret Hay
INTERNATIONAL
CHOSEN TO REPRESENT NEW
YORK G. O. P. AT 1920
CONVENTION.
Miss Mary Garrett Hay,  prominent
suffragist, who has been chosen by
the Republicans of New York state as
one of the delegates to represent
them at the coming National Convention
in 1920. Two of the other three
delegates for New York state will be
the United Sates Senators from New 
York.

Wadsworth
on
Suffrage.


WADSWORTH BOWS
TO WOMEN AND DRYS
____________
Drops Opposition to Suffrage
and Prohibition; Both Closed
Incidents, Says Senator.
____________
CANNOT FIGURE IN CAMPAIGN
____________
Believes in Upholding Constitution
and Voted for Volstead
Act, He Asserts.
____________
Times 2/13/20

Friends of woman suffrage and prohibition
need fear no further opposition
from Senator James W. Wadsworth, 
Jr.  Both subjects are closed incidents
so far as he is concerned, he declared
yesterday.  With prohibition already a
part of the Constitution of the United
States and woman suffrage apprently
about to be made so, thirty States having
already ratified the amendment, the
Senator does not see how either can figure
to any extent in the State or national
campaign this Fall.

Senator Wadsworth, who came to New
York yesterday to make a speech at the
Women's Republican Club Lincoln Day
luncheon, said he had opposed both woman
suffrage and prohibition because
he believed they should have been submitted
to the people of each State to
vote upon them, but that since suffrage
had passed the Senate and prohibition
had become a part of the Constitution,
neither the Senate nor any individual
Senator had any further concern in
either matter.

"Are you still opposed to woman suffrage?"
Senator Wadsworth was asked.

"Well, I haven't been converted to it
yet," he replied.  "But it will soon be
in the same position as prohibition.  I 
opposed both reforms, but I believe in
upholding the Constitution.  I voted for
the Volstead Enforcement act because I
believe that, having passed prohibition,
Congress should have the power to provide
for its enforcement.  It is unlikely
that the present Congress will make
any changes in the terms of enforcement.
The plan should be tried out before
any changes are made.  The question
is still before the courts in many
forms, and it may be that in the process
of evolution some plan may be reached 
that will be satisfactory to the overwhelming
majority of the people."

The Senator intimated that in his campaign
for renomination and re-election
he did not expect either the suffrage or
the prohibition issue would be brought
to the front, despite the declaration of
Miss Mary Garrett Hay that she would
oppose the Senator in the primary and,
if he was nominated, at the election,
and regardless of the fact that the Anti-Saloon
League has been attacking him 
because of his stand on prohibition.

Regarding National politics, Senator
Wadsworth declared that he did not
believe the League of Nations would
figure largely in the Republican campaign,
as he thought the peace treaty
would be signed and disposed of this
month.

"I believe the peace treaty will go
through shortly with the Lodge reservations
or their clear equivalent," said
the Senator.

"Do you think Herbert C. Hoover
will be nominated by the Republicans
at Chicago?" Senator Wadsworth was asked.

"I don't believe there is a chance of 
it," he replied.  "Of course, a great
deal of Hoover talk is being heard, but
the Republications will not nominate him
What the Democrats will do is a different
matter."

"What candidate will the New York 
Republican delegation support?" he
was asked.

"Nicholas Murray Butler will have
many friends among the delegates," the
Senator replied, "and he will receive 
their support but I think that the vast majority
of the delegates will go the
convention uninstructed."

The Senator returned to Washington
at midnight.


Wadsworth Gives Up
War Upon Suffrage
_______________
Telegram  2/13/20

Senator Also Asks Fair Play
for Prohibition.
_______________

United States Senator James W. Wadsworth
has reversed his opinion of woman
suffrage since New York State adopted
votes for women.  He said today that he
was not in any way opposed to women
voting and did not intend to be in the
future.

Senator Wadsworth also declared that
the Prohibition Enforcement act should
have a fair trial of two or three years
to enable the people to judge its workability.

"Because it was the duty of Congress to
pass an enforcement act after prohibition
had been put into the constitution," declared
Mr. Wadsworth, "Congress passed
the Volstead bill.  Now that it is a part of
the fundamental law, it should have a fair
trial.  in the next few years prohibition
enforcement will go through a sort of
evolution.  While this evolution is under
way the law should be enforced.

"I was opposed to the method of bringing
about woman suffrage in States that
did not desire it, by the ratification
method.  Since my own State ratified, I
have not ilfted a finger in opposition.  If 
it gets into the federal constitution, that
will settle it."

Senator Wadsworth's change of front
is likely to have a favorable effect on his
candidacy to succeed himself.  The drys
and suffragists were vigorously opposed
to his candidacy.

Mr. Wadsworth does not believe that
prohibition will be a leading issue in the
Republican National Convention.



Telegraph  2/13/20
LINCOLN DAY fittingly was celebrated
by the National Republican 
Club, which, last night, held its annual
Lincoln dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria.

Charles D. Hilles, president of the 
club and formerly chairman of the Republican
National Committee, presided,
the other speakers being Dr. Nicholas
Murray Butler, modestly wearing his
presidential boom, Senator James W.
Wadsworth, Jr., and Representative Julius
Kahn of California.  Bishop Charles
Sumner Burch said grace.

There were fully eight hundred men
and women in the grand ballroom of the
hotel for the event, those seated at the
speakers' table including, in addition to
the presiding officer and the speakers,
General Horace Porter, Miss Helen Varick
Boswell, Mrs. Albert H. Gleason,
Samuel S. Koenig, George A. Glynn,
Mrs. Arthur L. Livermore, James R.
Sheffield, Read Admiral James H Glennon,
Messrs. Walter Damrosch, Alfred
E. Marling, Mrs. Douglas Robinson,
Mrs. Charles H. Sabin, Richard W.
Lawrence, Mrs. John Francis Yawger,
Jacob A. Livingston and Mrs. James
Griswold Wentz.

President Hilles's speech was devoted
in the major part to a discussion of
the life of Lincoln, and wound up with
a per-fervid eulogy of Dr. Butler, whom
he declared to be "a master of world
politics, being one of a limited number
of Americans who has an international
mind."

Dr. Butler talked on Lincoln, while
both Senator Wadsworth and Representative
Kahn devoted themselves to the G. O. P.,
its past and its future, touching 
lightly on the present.
_____________
SENATOR WADSWORTH earlier in
the day "permitted" himself to be
interviewed on the troublesome subjects
of prohibition and woman suffrage, 
endeavoring to square himself on each.

"My principal opposition to woman
suffrage was because there had been no
referendum in other States, such as
there was in New York," said Senator
Wadsworth, by way of letting himself
down easily.  "If there had been I never
would have voted in opposition.  I felt
the amendment was being forced upon
States which had voted against suffrage.

"Since the amendment passed Congress
I regard it as a closed incident as
far as any Senator is concerned.  It's
going through and it's in the same shape
as prohibition.  It's useless to fight either
now.  I voted for the Volstead enforcement
act because I believe as we had 
put prohibition into the Constitution we
should enact an enforcement measure.  I 
believe in trying it out, until through
evolution and elimination we find something
satisfactory to the majority of the 
people.  I don't believe there will be any 
meddling with the Volstead Act by this 
Congress, but the next Congress may
make such changes as may be made advisable
by court decisions.

"I believe the treaty of peace will be
ratified by the Senate with seventy to
seventy-five members voting in favor of 
ratification, with the Lodge reservations
of their clear equivalents.  Regarding the
coming Republication State convention, I
believe the vast majority of the delegates
from this State will be uninstructed,
although Dr. Butler has many friends.

"I don't think the Hoover boom will 
prove to be any factor in the Republican 
national convention."
_______________

EARLIER in the day Senator Wadsworth
addressed the members of
the Women's Republican Club at a
luncheon at Delmonico's, being warmly
greeted.

Dr. Butler also was a speaker, and, as
usual, showed conclusively that, as his
campaign managers daily announce, he
is "doing the thinking for the Republican
party."  He thought for more than
an hour for the benefit of those present.

Mrs. Wentz, president of the club, attacked
the women's third party movement,
declaring no sex party should be
in the field.  Miss Boswell, who spoke
later, endorsed these sentiments.  Mrs.
Douglas Robinson, a sister of the late
Colonel Roosevelt, as another speaker.

Among the mere men permitted to
speak were Chairman Koenig, former
Senator Ogden D. Mills and Chairman
Glynn, who handed out the usual "so
soap."

8 Globe 12/30/19
State Oleomargarine Law
Drawn to Favor Packers
Act Was Framed According to "Expressed Desires" of
U. S. Senator Wadsworth, Then Assembly Speaker,
Battle Food Probe Report Shows.
This is No. 11 in a series of articles by Mr. McCann in explanation of
the significance of the Battle Report on the Council of Farms and Markets.
By Alfred W. McCann.
New York's taxpayers have learned
for the first time, through what can
be described as "official," something
of the manner in which invisible government.
George Gordon Battle's report
to the Governor discloses the modus
operandi.
Of great interest to the governed
who believe they are governed
through their own consent, are some
of the details of this funny business.
Nowhere is to be seen a merrier farce
than the oleomargarine laws of New
York state afford. The history of
the manner in which these laws
found eternal rest on the statute
books of the state will grieve some,
wound others, disappoint vast numbers
and disillusion everybody.
"Henry Veeder, representing the
Chicago packers," says Battle, "was
introduced to Mr. Glanders by the
then commissioner of agriculture,
Mr. Raymond S. Pearson."
The Packer Attorney
Mr. Flanders was counsel to the
legal bureau of the Department of
Agriculture. He is still counsel.
"Commissioner Pearson introduced
the packer attorney to Mr. Flanders
at the instance of the then speaker of
the Assembly, Mr. James W. Wadsworth,
now a United States Senator
for the state of New York," says Mr.
Battle.
"Mr. Wadsworth, according to Mr.
Flanders' testimony, showed then, and
has shown since, considerable interest
in the affairs of the meat packers.
"The law relating to the manufacture
and sale of olemargarine as it 
now stands, was deterimed upon at
a consultation in the Department of
Agriculture at which Mr. Flanders, 
Assemblyman Wadsworth and Swift
& Co.'s attorney were present.
Wadsworth's Desires Gratifies.
Assemblyman Wadsworth, according
to Mr. Flanders, wanted the law
so framed that it would give advantages
to the Chicago packers at the
expense of the manufacturers of the
state of New York. Mr. Flanders confesses
that he played the game as requested
and prepared a law that
would agree with Assemblyman
Wadsworth's expressed desires.
Readers of The Globe have been informed
often enough how absurd this
law is; how the Albany officials have
never dated to enforce it, and how, at
this moment, in defiance of its provisions,
at least three New York state
manufacturers operate outlaw plants
with which no agent of the Council
of Farms and Markets has the audacity
to interfere, notwithstanding
the fact that Mr. Wadsworth's law
still stands on the books, a mockery
and a hoax.
Packer Influences.
In seeking to develop these facts, 
Mr. Battle made a vigorous effort to
obtain them from the Federal Trade
Commission, Washington, D.C.
From April 1, 1918, to Aug. 8, 1918,
agents of the Federal Trade Commission
prowled all over the Empire
State in their investigations of
packer influence upon public officials."
The writer was an examiner
of the Federal Trade Commission and
thus became intimately familiar with
its methods and purposed.
Sept. 17, 1918, accompanied by another
agent of the Federal Trade Commission,
I went to Washington and
examine the data covering the case
reported above. It was complete,
sparing nobody, not even United
States Senator James W. Wadsworth
or New York State's Senator Jimmy
Walker, whose name District Attorney
Swan valiantly tried to keep out
of the records in the John Doe proceedings
conducted before Chief Magistrate
McAdoo a few months ago.
Wadsworth's Home Deleted.
Subsequent to September 17, 1918, the
Federal Trade Commission prepared
another version of the testimony, leaving
out the names of Messrs. Wadsworth,
Walker, and others. A yer
later Mr. Battle tried to get his hands
on the Federal Trade Commission's
evidence. Messengers sent to Washington
failed. Finally, November 20,
1919, Mr. Battle made a formal demand
upon the Federal Trade Commission
for copy of its report on the
New York situation.
"My own investigation is complete,"
he said, "and I am now preparing my
report to the governor. Ideem your
investigation made in 1918 is very important
and should referred to and
annexed to my report. Is there any
way that it may be hurried?"
A Transparent Situation.
Mr. Battle was politely informed
that the commission regretted its inability
to help him. Its report, though
eighteen months old, was still being
worked on and could not be released.
The commission deplored the delay
and was extremely sorry.
The taxpayer can interpret the
facts for himself. One need hardly
comment on a situation so transparent.
Just what the Federal Trade
Commission intends to do with its
"carefully prepared," long delayed report
on the New York situation none
may prophesy, but as Mr. Battle
made an independent investigation of
his own and was not to be influenced
to spare some while condenming others, 
it now makes little difference to
the world at large whether the Federal
Trade Commission suppresses 
the facts or not. Eighteen months is
a long time - in fact just fifteen
months longer than was necessary
for Mr. Battle to get to the truth and
for Governor Smith to act upon it.
During the interim the taxpayers of
New York have learned that they
have little expect from the Federal 
Trade Commission, to the support of
which they are taxed ad nauseam.

The Price of this Paper is 6

f Your Friends as Tragic, but Think What Would Happen if You Got Lost in
SHORT CUT" by C. CRESPIGNEY in THE SUNDAY MAGAZINE

rning Telegraph

FINANCE
THEATRICALS
RACING, POLITICS
MOTION PICTURES
AND
GENERAL SPORTS

YORK, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1917

PRICE FIVE CENTS.

HYLAN, CRAIG AND SMITH ELECTED;
DEMOCRATS SWEEP ALL BOROUGHS;
BELIEVE WOMAN SUFFRAGE CARRIED

SUFFRAGE CAUSE
VICTORIOUS HERE;
BIG VOTE UP-STATE

New York City Goes on Record
as Unquestionably in Favor of
the Amendment to the Constitution
Allowing Equal Franchise
- Runs Ahead Elsewhere
in the State.

WOMEN WORKERS JUBILANT

Following years of persistent struggles
for recognition, woman suffrage came
into its own at the polling places
throughout the city and many parts of
the State yesterday.

The city went on record as strongly
and unquestionably in favor of the
amendment granting the equal franchise,
while in the upstate regions,
which were supposed to have been opposed
to the movement, returns late last
night indicated the question was gaining
a victory throughout the State.

More than a quarter of the returns
were in late last night, showing the suffrage
amendment was running ahead and
presaging a defeat for the anti element.

Suffrage was carried in Manhattan by
9,000 majority.

Local Women Jubilant.

As the local headquarters of the New
York State Woman's Suffrage party the
officers and mar[?] members of the organ-

RIOTING MARKS
SOCIALIST VOTE
ON THE EAST SIDE

Scores of Arrests Follow Interference,
With Balloters and
Police in the Lower Districts.
Many of the Prisoners Are
Women - First Big Disturbance
in the 4th Assembly Section.

CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE TAKEN

General rioting marked the voting in
all the Socialist strongholds throughout
the entire city yesterday, especially on
the lower East Side where Jacob Panken,
Socialist candidate for Municipal
Court Judge in the Second District, was
arrested following a disturbance in the
polling place of the Thirteenth Election
District of the Fourth Assembly District.

Scores of arrests in the lower East
Side were made by police reserves from 
every part of the city, many of the 
prisoners being women who were charge
with attacking the police and
interfering with the voting. The first large
riot occurred in front of the polling place
of the Fourteenth Election District of
the Fourth Assembly District at Rivington
and Ridge streets, where four
women were arrested on charges of 
disorderly conduct.

Then followed the disturbance which
resulted in Panken's arrest at Broome
and Ridge streets. The arrest of the

Hylan's Vote Nearly Equals the Total for All
Other Candidates - Mitchel Runs Second
With Hillquit a Close Third - Swann
Easily Defeats Ransom and Corrigan for
District Attorney.

VOTE OF SOLDIERS IN CAMPS
CANNOT POSSIBLY ALTER RESULT

VICTORS AT THE POLLS

Mayor ..... John F. Hylan, Dem.
Comptroller ..... Charles L. Craig, Dem.
Pres. Board of Aldermen ..... Alfred E. Smith, Dem.
Manhattan Boro. Pres. ..... Frank L. Dowling, Dem.
Brooklyn Boro. Pres. ..... Edward Reigelmann, Dem.
Bronx Boro. Pres. ..... Henry Bruckner, Dem.
Queens Boro. Pres. ..... Maurice E. Connolly, Dem.
Richmond Boro. Pres. ..... Calvin D. Van Name, Dem.
Attorney General ..... Merton E. Lewis, Rep.
Supreme Court Justice ..... John V. McAvoy, Dem.
District Attorney ...... Edward Swann, Dem.

by EDWARD STAATS LUTHER.

Democracy has won its most sweeping victory in the history of Greater
New York. Judge John F. Hylan has been elected Mayor by a plurality that
may reach 130,000 on the completed returns, his total vote being nearly equal
to the combined totals for Mayor John Purroy Mitchel, Morris Hillquis, and
former Senator William M. Bennett.



[?] Telegraph
THEATRICALS
RACING, POLITICS
MOTION PICTURES
AND
GENERAL SPORTS
YORK, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1917. PRICE FIVE CENTS.

HYLAN, CRAIG AND SMITH ELECTED;
DEMOCRATS SWEEP ALL BOROUGHS;
BELIEVE WOMAN SUFFRAGE CARRIED

SUFFRAGE CAUSE
VICTORIOUS HERE;
BIG VOTE UP-STATE

New York City Goes on Record
as Unquestionably in Favor of
the Amendment to the Constitution
Allowing Equal Franchise--Runs
Ahead Elsewhere
in the State.

WOMEN WORKERS JUBILANT

Following years of persistent struggles
for recognition, woman suffrage came
into its own at the polling places
throughout the city and many parts of
the State yesterday.
The city went on record as strongly
and unquestionably in favor of the
amendment granting the equal franchise,
while in the upstate regions,
which were supposed to have been opposed
to the movement, returns late last
night indicated the question was gaining
a victory throughout the State.
More than a quarter of the returns
were in late last night, showing the suffrage
amendment was running ahead and
presaging a defeat for the anti element.
Suffrage was carried in Manhattan by
9,000 majority.

Local Women Jubilant.
At the local headquarters of the New
York State Woman's Suffrage party the
officers and [mar?] members of the organization
received the returns by wire as
they were flashed, not only from the city,
but from the various parts of the State.
According to late reports some of the
cities that proved especially strong for
suffrage up State were Syracuse, Niagara.
Portchester and Schenectady.
Brooklyn went for suffrage by 126,128
votes, while Queens registered a victory
by 22,240.
Mrs. Anna Shaw, upon hearing the
news of victory, declared she had been
waiting for the event for forty years.
Dr. Katharine B. Davis, the Commissioner
of Corrections, declared her district
had been most staunch in its support
of suffrage.
Blackwell's Island gave suffrage a majority
of 24 votes.
As the totals indicated a victory for
the cause, for which they have worked
so faithfully and staunchly, the enthusiasm
and jubilation of the women knew
no bounds and each fresh bulletin of success,
as it was read, was greeted with
cheers that even the rules of propriety
could not restrain.
Throughout the day the women had
been most active in the work
at the polling places of the city.

Acted as Watchers.
Representatives of the State party
acted as watchers at the ballot headquarters,
and they took quite as much
part in the proceedings as the men
watchers.
Few challenges were made, however,
and the voters made it plain as a whole
they were friends rather than foes of
the suffrage cause. Judge Hylan and
Mayor Mitchel both cast their votes for
the enfranchisement of the women and
Governor Whitman, after voting here,
spent several minutes in converse with
the woman watcher at his district, declaring
as he left that he had given the
[?] [expressing a wish]

RIOTING MARKS
SOCIALIST VOTE
ON THE EAST SIDE

Scores of Arrests Follow Interference
With Balloters and
Police in the Lower Districts.
Many of the Prisoners Are
Women--First Big Disturbance
in the 4th Assembly Section.

CANDIDATE FOR JUDGE TAKEN

General rioting marked the voting in
all the Socialist strongholds throughout
the entire city yesterday, especially on
the lower East Side where Jacob Panken,
Socialist candidate for Municipal
Court Judge in the Second District, was
arrested following a disturbance in the
polling place of the Thirteenth Election
District of the Fourth Assembly District.
Scores of arrests in the lower East
Side were made by police reserves from
every part of the city, many of the
prisoners being women who were charged
with attacking the police and interfering
with the voting. The first large
riot occurred in front of the polling place
of the Fourteenth Election District of
the Fourth Assembly District at Rivington
and Ridge streets, where four
women were arrested on charges of disorderly
conduct.
Then followed the disturbance which
resulted in Panken's arrest at Broome
and Ridge streets. The arrest of the
Socialist candidate acted as a signal for
general outbreaks throughout the entire
district, and hundreds of police reserves
from all parts of the city were rushed
to the district. Down in Rutgers Square,
where Socialism has it's strongest hold,
time and time again police had to be
called to quell the disturbances which
threatened to spread to other districts.

Other Disturbers Abroad.
Not alone was the general disorder of
yesterday's election caused by the Socialists.
A notice alleged to have been sent out
from the headquarters of the Honest
Ballot Association, instructing their
watchers to insist upon seeing the State
and Federal registration cards of all
voters, caused many an angry brawl.
The many arrests caused by the same
organization for alleged illegal voting
also added to the confusion, many of the
charges proving without foundation.
An illustration of the complaints made
by the Honest Ballot Association was the
arrest of an Italian voter arraigned in
the Tombs Police Court, charged with
being under the legal voting age. The
prisoner when brought before the Magistrate,
produced his birth certificate, Federal
draft registration card and also an
exemption card from the draft.
Notwithstanding this evidence, the
Honest Ballot agents refused to withdraw
their complaint and the case was
adjourned until to-morrow afternoon.
Panken's arrest followed a challenge
made by one of the Socialist watchers,
upon which the members of the election
board refused to act. The watcher at
once rushed over to Panken's headquarters
across the street, returning with the
[Municipal] Court Judge candidate.

Hylan's Vote Nearly Equals the Total for All
Other Candidates -- Mitchel Runs Second
With Hillquit a Close Third -- Swann
Easily Defeats Ransom and Corrigan for
District Attorney.

VOTE OF SOLDIERS IN CAMPS
CANNOT POSSIBLY ALTER RESULT

VICTORS AT THE POLLS

Mayor ...................... John F. Hylan, Dem.
Comptroller ................. Charles L. Craig, Dem.
Pres. Board of Aldermen ...... Alfred E. Smith, Dem.
Manhatten Boro. Pres ........... Frank L. Dowling, Dem.
Brooklyn Boro. Pres ........... Edward Reigelmann, Dem.
Bronx Boro. Pres .............. Henry Bruckner, Dem.
Queens Boro. Pres ............. Maurice E. Connolly, Dem.
Richmond Boro. Pres .......... Calvin D. Van Name, Dem.
Attorney General ............ Merton E. Lewis, Rep.
Supreme Court Justice ......... John V. McAvoy, Dem.
District Attorney ............. Edward Swann, Dem.

By EDWARD STAATS LUTHER
Democracy has won its most sweeping victory in the history of Greater
New York. Judge John F. Hylan has been elected Mayor by a plurality that
may reach 130,000 on the completed returns, his total vote being nearly equal
to the combined totals for Mayor John Purroy Mitchel, Morris Hillquit and
former Senator William M. Bennett.
[With the returns for Mayor ?????? complete Judge Hylan has ?]
vote of 290,000 in the Greater City, as against 160,000 votes for Mayor
Mitchel, 140,000 votes for Hillquit and 55,000 for Bennett. The Hylan
plurality is greater than the record made by Mayor Mitchel when he swept into
office four years ago by slightly less than 125,000.
The rejection of the entire Fusion administration was emphatic in every
borough of the city, all the Democratic candidates for Borough President having
been elected by large pluralities except in the Bronx, where the result is close.
It looks like a solid Democratic membership of the new Board of Estimate, with
sixteen votes.
The Democratic candidate for Mayor, on incompleted returns, has carried
Manhattan by 45,000, Brooklyn by 40,000, the Bronx by 18,000, Queens by
15,000 and Richmond by 12,000. Mayor Mitchel ran second in each borough
except in the Bronx, where the Hillquit vote was 50 per cent, higher than the
Mitchel vote. The Hylan plurality in the Bronx, as above indicated, is over
Mitchel, as Hylan ran only 8,000 over Hillquit in that borough.
For Comptroller Charles L. Craig, the Democratic candidate, defeated William
A. Prendergast by a plurality that probably will reach 100,000, while
Sheriff Alfred E. Smith's plurality over Robert Adamson for President of the
Board of Alderman, is quite as large.
At every point the voters smashed into the Fusion lines and rejected the
candidates attached to the Mitchel ticket. The Mayor's personal vote was
stunningly humiliating. In Brooklyn Hillquit was such a close third that for a
time it looked as if the Mayor would not finish better than third in that borough,
while in Richmond, where the air is filled with the odors of the Mitchel-Prendergast
garbage plant, the Hylan vote was three times that of the Mayor, with
Bennett running a close third and Hillquit last in the borough. The Hylan vote
in Richmond was considerably more than that for all the others.

Swann Defeats Ransom and Corrigan.
District attorney Edward Swann made short work of the pretentions of
William L. Ransom, Republican Fusionist, and of Joseph E. Corrigan, Independent,
his vote nearly equaling the combined vote of the other two.
From the partial returns to press time, it appears all of the various Democratic
county tickets have won, with the possible exception of the Bronx, where
the Hillquit vote has complicated things. County Chairman Arthur H. Murphy
of the Bronx, however, declared the election of Henry Bruckner as Borough
President to be certain.
Attorney General Merton E. Lewis was defeated in the city by approximately
75,000 plurality for his Democratic opponent, Devoe P. Hodson, of
[?] [the State is fast cutting down this lead for]

[?zation] received the returns by wire as they were flashed, not only from the city, but from various parts of the State. 
According to late reports some of the cities that proved especially strong for suffrage up State were Syracuse, Niagara, Portchester and Schenectady. Brooklyn went for suffrage by 126,128 votes, while Queens registered a victory by 22,240. 
Mrs. Anna Shaw, upon hearing the news of victory, declared she had been waiting for the event for forty years. Dr. Katharine B. Davis, the Commissioner of Corrections, declared her district had been most staunch in its support of suffrage. 
Blackwell's Island gave suffrage a majority of 24 votes. 
As the totals indicated a victory for the cause, for which they have worked so faithfully and staunchly, the enthusiasm and jubilation of the women knew no bounds and each fresh bulletin of success, as it was read, was greeted with cheers that even the rules of propriety could not restrain. 
Throughout the day the women had been most active in the work at the polling places of the city. 

Acted as Watchers.
Representatives of the State party acted as watchers at the ballot headquarters, and they took quite as much part in the proceedings as the men watchers. 
Few challenges were made, however, and the voters made it plain as a whole they were friends rather than foes of the suffrage cause. Judge Hylan and Mayor Mitchel both cast their votes for the enfranchisement of the women and Governor Whitman, after voting here, spent several minutes in converse with the woman watcher at his district , declaring as he left that he had given the cause one vote and expressing a wish other men would see the question as he did. 
Actual figures on the voting on the amendment were not obtainable at the time of going to press, but it seemed, from what returns were at hand, that every borough in the city went in favor of suffrage. 
Several of the interior districts of the State have yet to be heard from, and it [?] these that will decide the issue. 

Give Food to Watchers. 
Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt and Dr. Anna Howard Shaw headed the committee of women who inspected the work of the watchers and distributed food to them. 
In an automobile, they toured the polling places, leaving headquarters in Thirty-eighth street shortly after 1 o'clock. In most cases the men watchers were quick to share their luncheons  with the women.
The leaders of all parties cast their vote for suffrage. In Alice Duer Miller's district Thomas F. Foley, of Tammany Hall, voted in favor of the amendment and opened his ballot to prove to every one present that he had actually done so. Alfred E. Smith of the same district also came out strongly in favor of it. Socialists, Fusionists and Republicans were just as quick to respond to the cause. 
The same business-like, methodical methods which have characterized the whole suffrage campaign were in evidence yesterday. The plans of the party moved off without a hitch. Wherever there was a change in the watchers during the day the shift was made without confusion. Even the tour of inspection made by the leaders was accomplished with a minimum of fuss and a maximum of working results. 
Socialist candidate acted as a [??gnal] for general outbreaks throughout the entire district, and hundreds of police reserves from all parts of the city were rushed to the district. Down in Rutgers Square, where Socialism has its strongest hold, time and time again police had to be called to quell the disturbances which threatened to spread to other districts. 

Other Disturbers Abroad. 
Not alone was the general disorder of yesterday's election caused by the Socialists. 
A notice alleged to have been sent out from the headquarters of the Honest Ballot Association, instructing their watchers to insist upon seeing the State and Federal registration cards of all voters, caused many an angry brawl. The many arrests caused by the same organization for alleged illegal voting also added to the confusion, many of the charges proving without foundation. 
An illustration of the complaints made by the Honest Ballot Association was the arrest of an Italian voter arraigned in the Tombs Police Court, charged with being under the legal voting age. The prisoner when brought before the Magistrate, produced his birth certificate, Federal draft registration card and also an exemption card from the draft. 
Notwithstanding this evidence, the Honest Ballot agents refused to withdraw their complaint and the case was adjourned until to-morrow afternoon. 
Panken's arrest followed a challenge made by one of the Socialist watchers, upon which the members of the election board refused to act. The watcher at once rushed over to Panken's headquarters across the street, returning with the Municipal Court Judge candidate. 

Began to Demand Arrests. 
The disturbance which followed Panken's arrival at the polling place was later described by one of the suffragist watchers who asserted "everybody began waving their arms in the room and started to yell at each other, at the same time demanding that the police arrest everyone but themselves." 
Deputy United States Collector of Internal Revenue Murray M. Strand who was in the polling place demanded that Panken be arrested after the voting had been prevented by the disturbance for almost half an hour. The two uniformed policemen stationed at the polling place were unable to cope with the situation and it was necessary to send for aid from the Clinton Street station. In the meantime Panken had returned to his headquarters where he was later arrested and taken before Magistrate Brough in the Essex Market Police Court. 
Pleading not guilty, the Socialist candidate was held under $500 bail for examination to-morrow. 
The riot at Rivington and Pitt streets resulted in the arrest of four women who, according to Policeman Lipski were yelling to the voters in line: "What's the use of you voting? All the votes are being brought up." 
A crowd, attracted by the scene, soon blocked traffic, and unable to handle the [*(Continued on Page 2, Column 7.)*] 

With the returns for Mayor [??????] complete Judge Hylan has an indicated vote of 290,000 in the Greater City, as against 160,000 votes for Mayor Mitchel, 140,000 votes for Hillquit and 55,000 for Bennett. The Hylan plurality is greater than the record made by Mayor Mitchel when he swept into office four years ago by slightly less than 125,000. 
The rejection of the entire Fusion administration was emphatic in every borough of the city, all the Democratic candidates for Borough President having been elected by large pluralities except in the Bronx, where the result is close. It looks like a solid Democratic membership of the new Board of Estimate, with sixteen votes. 
The Democratic candidate for Mayor, on incompleted returns, has carried Manhattan by 45,000, Brooklyn by 40,000, the Bronx by 18,000, Queens by 15,000 and Richmond by 12,000. Mayor Mitchel ran second in each borough except in the Bronx, where the Hillquit vote was 50 per cent. higher than the Mitchel vote. The Hylan plurality in the Bronx, as above indicated, is over Mitchel, as Hylan ran only 8,000 over Hillquit in that borough. 
For Comptroller Charles L. Craig, the Democratic candidate, defeated William A. Prendergast by a plurality that probably will reach 100,000, while Sheriff Alfred E. Smith's plurality over Robert Adamson for President of the Board of Aldermen, is quite as large. 
At every point the voters smashed into the Fusion lines and rejected the candidates attached to the Mitchel ticket. The Mayor's personal vote was stunningly humiliating. In Brooklyn Hillquit was such a close third that for a time it looked as if the Mayor would not finish better than third in that borough, while in Richmond, where the air is filled with the odors of the Mitchel-Prendergast garbage plant, the Hylan vote was three times that of the Mayor, with Bennett running a close third and Hillquit last in the borough. The Hylan vote in Richmond was considerably more than that for all the others. 

Swann Defeats Ransom and Corrigan 
District Attorney Edward Swann made short work of the pretentions of William L. Ransom, Republican Fusionist, and of Joseph E. Corrigan, Independent, his vote nearly equaling the combined vote of the other two. 
From the partial returns to press time, it appears all of the various Democratic county tickets have won, with the possible exception of the Bronx, where the Hillquit vote has complicated things. County Chairman Arthur H. Murphy of the Bronx, however, declared the election of Henry Bruckner as Borough President to be certain. 
Attorney General Merton E. Lewis was defeated in the city by approximately 75,000 plurality for his Democratic opponent, Devoe P. Hodson, of Buffalo. The Republican vote up the State is fast cutting down this lead for Hodson, however, and it looks as if the Republican Attorney General would pull through by a small margin. 
New York City appears to have voted for woman suffrage by better than 20,000 majority, while the returns from up the State show suffrage to be in the lead there where the heaveist adverse vote was expected. Judge Hylan left his Brooklyn home early in the evening and went to the Democratic Fusion Committee headquarters at 50 East Forty-second street, where he was surrounded by cheering friends. 
"The result speaks for itself," said Judge Hylan when enough of the returns were in to make the outcome certain. "The people have spoken and in no uncertain manner. Democracy once more has been restored to power. The people and not the corporate interests will rules for the next four years. I am grateful for the confidence thus reposed in me by the people of the city." 
When Judge Hylan was asked to say more, he spread out his hands and exclaimed: "What more can I say?" 

Honeaty Is Issue, Says Hylan. 
Upon receiving the news of the result at the polls last night, Judge Hylan declared: 
"The result is a complete justification of the fight we have made for honestly, efficiency and economy in the public service. That was the sole issue upon which the election was decided. 
"I want to make it plain to the world that there was no issue of Americanism or loyalty involved so far as I am concerned. There could be none, for I am as good an American as any man--as loyal to my flag, as loyal to my country and as firm and determined in support of every act of the Government in this war as any man. 
"I ask the editors of the newspapers in this city and in other cities to give prominence to this declaration so that there may not go abroad to the people of this country who have no appreciation of our local situation the slightest intimation that the question of the war or the war policy of President Wilson and the United States Government are in the slightest way involved. 
"My first utterance in this campaign in response to a question put by a reporter, was that I stood uncompromisingly behind the President in support of the acts and policies of my country and that the war must be fought to a conclusion which would bring an honorable peace to America. 
"That statement was made before the primary and the day after my designation as a candidate by the Business 



2
THE MORNING TELEGRAPH, WEDNESDAY, NOVEM
Men's League and the Democratic Fusion Committee of 170. 
"A few days later in response to questions of newspapermen I issued a statement in which I said that while I should be ashamed to attempt to make political capital out of my loyalty to my country I did not want the vote of any man who did not hold the interest of America to be the supreme consideration.
Wanted Patriots Only.
"I said at that time that for any man to question my patriotism or my loyalty would not prove to be a healthy pastime.
"In my formal speech of acceptance I repeated I did not want the support of any man who does not hold the interest of America to be the supreme consideration, and I added, nor will I permit the issues of the campaign to be obscured. Rottenness and wrongdoing must not seek to hide behind the flag. I have not found that any man has a monopoly on patriotism.
"I would be ashamed to make political capital out of the noble sacrifices of men who are giving up their positions, their homes and in many cases their lives to answer our country's call in her hour of need.
"At the opening of the campaign in Prospect Hall in Brooklyn, I said:
"'My country is m yfirst consideration. It is a country for which my [fathers] fought to preserve the Union through the dark days of '61. Corporal Thomas F. Hylan, Company K, 80th New York Volunteers, was one of the first to answer Abraham Lincoln's call.
"'This is the country to whose institutions and opportunity I owe all that I am. This is the country for which I now stand ready to give all that I have. Where my father stood in '61, I stand to-day, ready to uphold the arm of the President as he champions the right of mankind.'
"Those sentiments I constantly reiterated during this campaign. Two weeks ago a local paper sent me a telegram asking me where I stood in the war. I replied to them in substance as I have replied to all such questions."
Tammany Hall Hears News.
Within a few minutes after 7 o'clock those at Tammany Hall had heard of the concession of Hylan's victory and there was jubilation galore.
Charles F. Murphy did not arrive at the Hall until 8 o'clock, and he was all smiles. He made the following statement:
"The result of the election is a gratifying victory for the people over campaign deception and fraud. It demonstrates that they are quick to detect the difference between the true and the sham.
"The returns evidenced the fact that unscrupulous newspapers no longer represent the opinion or sentiment of the people, that the latter do their own thinking and refuse to be misled by misrepresentations or suppression of the real issues.
"The victory also shows that the injection of false issues failed in its design to hide the scandals of the Mitchel administration, that the voters understood the situation and that they recognized the ability of the Democratic party to reform present abuses and to give the city an honest, economical and efficient administration.
Mitchel Repudiated.
"The Mitchel management of the city affairs has been repudiated by the people because of its reactionary methods. The Democratic ticket, in my judgment, has been accepted because the Democratic candidates and platform are progressive and in accordance with the world-wide progressive tendencies of the day.
"In an interview last August I said that all the wealth of the moneybund behind the Republican Fusion forces--and they had nearly $1,500,000 to spend--could not buy this election.
"A lamentable feature of the campaign was the injection of a spurious issue by defaming some of our most loyal citizens in hysterical attempts to impugn their patriotism.
"It is regretable that such eminent citizens as Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Root should have been induced to lend their names to such a contemptible campaign conspiracy.
"But it must gladden the American heart to not that the great loyal American citizenship of New York City, the first city in the land, believe, as do all fair-minded men, that Mr. Mitchel's assumption of a monopoly of patriotism was a false issue, designed to distract attention from the shortcomings of the present administration.
"After all is said and done it is refreshing to all of us to know that in the candidacy of Mr. Mitchel, Mr. Hylan and Mr. Bennett, every voter had the 
BALTIMORE CROWD DENOUNCES MUCK
At Patriotic Mass Meeting at Theatre Musicians Are Hooted At and Hissed.
ONE SPEAKER URGES HANGING
In Resolutions Orchestra Leader Is Condemned and Loyalty to National Anthem is Affirmed.
(Social DIspatch to The Morning Telegraph.)
BALTIMORE. Nov. 6.
Dr. Karl Muck was bitterly denounced and "The Star Spangled Banner" eloquently extolled at the most remarkable patriotic mass meeting ever held in Baltimore this afternoon. Four thousand persons crowded the Lyrie Theatre. They cheered former Governor Warfield, Judge Henry Stockbridge of the Maryland Court of Appeals, Secretary of State Simmons, Captain Hughes of the National Army and other prominent men, and they hissed and yelled every time Dr. Karl Muck's name was mentioned. 
One woman prominent in society, and a leading member of the Daughters of the American Revolution, seated in a box near the stage, shouted "Kill him!" when Governor Warfield mentioned Muck's name.
Resolutions condemning Dr. Muck and reaffirming the loyalty of Baltimore to the anthem were passed by a unanimous and rising vote.
At the beginning of the meeting a letter was read from Cardinal Gibbons in which he stated that he was in hearty accord with the sentiment that "The Star Spangled Banner" should be honored and those punished who refused to do so.
Captain Hughes in his speech said Muck's action was enough to cause Francis Scott Key to turn over in his grave, and he hoped he would rise from his grave and haunt Dr. Muck for the rest of his life. 
Alfred J. Carr, a leading lawyer, advocated the shooting of Dr. Muck and all other German aliens and naturalized citizens who criticized the President and the conduct of the war. "That's the way George Washington did," he said.
At the close of the meeting the entire audience stood with bowed heads for one minute in honor of the Americans killed by the Germans two days ago. The meeting ended with the entire audience singing lustily "The Star Spangled Banner."
It was stated by the management of the Lyric to-day that it was not known whether the Boston Symphony Orchestra would play the other concerts of its projected season here. The money paid for tickets for to-morrow night's concert will be returned at the box office to-morrow.
MUCK, AT CAPITAL, PLAYED IT FIRST
Symphony Leader Ends All Doubt in Washington and Cancels Baltimore Engagement for To-day.
Washington Bureau,
The Morning Telegraph,
Washington, D. C., Nov. 6.
Led by Dr. Karl Muck, the Boston Symphony Orchestra played the Star Spangled Banner before a large audience in the New National Theatre as a preclude to its concert in Washington this afternoon.
There had been some apprehension of a sensational scene owing to the intense feeling in this city, crowded as it is with officers and officials who are devoting all their time and energy to helping this country in the war with Germany. Ample police precautions had therefor been taken. But they proved entirely unnecessary.
When Dr. Muck stepped on the platform he was greeted by applause. Some one in the audience cried out, "Don't applaud him," but the effect was the very reverse. Dr. Muck acknowledged the applause, then turned to his orchestra and the musicians arose, as did the entire audience, while the national anthem was played with splendid feeling and effect. The house applauded vigorously and the tension was over.
Major Higginson was not in Washington, but his representatives refused to make any comment whatever on the action of the Baltimore authorities in forbidding the symphony orchestra to play there to-morrow. The orchestra will remain in Washington to-morrow and not play in Baltimore. The program to-day, which included Tschaikowsky's symphony No. 4, closed with the overture to Tannhauser, which was well applauded.
Mrs. Wilson, wife of the president, was absent from Washington and consequently did not attend the concert, but the cabinet was represented by Mrs. Franklin K. Lane, wife of the Secretary of the Interior.
U.S. READY TO FEED ITS CAPTURED MEN
[image] ABE MARTIN
ENLIST NOW
WE DO NOT SERVE GERMAN CARP
What's worse than gittin' a nice lookin' letter an' wonderin' fer an hour who in th' world it kin be from an' then openin' it only t' learn that somebuddy's Fall goods are all in? Ther's too many folks with things t' sell that have got all ther patriotism flutterin' from a pole.
HYLAN VOTES FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE
Is First of the Candidates for Office at the Polls--Predicts a "Clean Sweep" of Ticket.
MITCHEL APPEARS AT NOON
Woman suffrage received practical endorsement from Judge John F. Hylan yesterday morning at the polls when the mayoralty candidate cast his vote for the cause of the equal franchise.
Judge Hylan was the first of the nominees to appear at the polls, being handed ballot No. 88 in Public School 75 at Grove street and Evergreen avenue, Brooklyn, at exactly 8.32 o'clock. He emerged from the ballot booth in less than three minutes and announced to questioners that he had voted the straight Tammany ticket and had also chalked up a mark for the woman suffrage amendment.
"It's going to be a clean sweep for the whole ticket," he predicted as he left the polls. On his way to the voting place after leaving his home in Bushwick avenue Judge Hylan was greeted by numerous small boys with tin horns, who formed a guard of honor and escorted him part of the way to the polls.
Mitchel Votes at Noon.
It was during the noon hour that Mayor Mitchel cast his vote at the polling place in a wooden shack built in Ninety-eighth street, between Broadway and West End avenue. Mr. Mitchel was accompanied from his home in Riverside Drive by his secretary. Theodore Rousseau and Detective Hines of the Fourth Branch Detective Bureau. The Mayor cast ballot No. 289. After posing for his picture Mr. Mitchel said:
"My advices are that the early voting is very heavy, indicating the independent vote is coming out strongly, which is an excellent sign for Fusion. The understanding of the loyalty and Americanism issue of the campaign is brought out solidly by the people in full numbers."
Charles F. Murphy entered the polling place of the Second Election District of the Twelfth Assembly District, a vacant store at 297 First avenue, at 3.15 in the afternoon. He shook hands and conversed a few moments with Justice Michael F. Blake of the Fourth Municipal Court. He was then handed ballot 338, and after spending a minute and a half in the booth, cast his ballot.
He refused to make any statement when leaving the polling place.
Hillquit's Son Casts Ballot.
Morris Hillquit, Socialist candidate for Mayor, after leaving his home at 214 Riverside Drive, went to the polling place in the basement at Ninety-third street and the Drive, and cast his ballot at 11 o'clock.
His ballot was number 253. His son, Lawrence, a freshman at Wesleyan University, cast his first vote on ballot Number 254, and he announced that it was for the Socialist ticket.
William M. Bennett, Republican candidate for Mayor, residing at 234 Central Park West, voted at the polling place in an upholstery store at 507 Columbus avenue, which is in the Second Election District of the Ninth Assembl [?]. He cast his ballot at 12.05 o'clock. 
After photographers had taken pic
PIMLICO, MD., TUESDAY, NOVEM
Fifth day of the Autumn meeting of the Ma
Eleven days. Mutuels. [?] Weather clear.
Presiding Judges, E. C. Smith and H. F. Conkling, St[?]ter
W. P. Riggs
First race at 1.45, *Indicates five pounds apprentice allowa
Equipment-W, Whip; S, Spurs; B, Blinkers.
5051L FIRST RACE-Five and a half furlongs, (1942)
1,0849 [?] Purse, $700; value to winner, $550;
olds, Claiming. Post 3 minutes, Off at 1.50, Start good;
b g, 2, by Lemberg-Leisure. Owner, W. R. MIZELL, Tra
Index Horses Wt PP St 1/8 1/4 1/2 Fin
5023L SUNNY HILL w 107 8 1 41/2 31 11 1[?]
4858L GARONNE w 1101/2 7 9 5hk 51 21/2 2h
5009L WHIPPOORWILL wb 106 4 4 3h 4h 3 32
(4533L) HEATHER BELLE w 104 12 5 102 101 5hk
5023L PHALERIAN wb 104 10 11 81/2 81/2 62 52
4960L FUSTY BOOTS w 104 9 2 92 91 91 6ak R. ?
4913L SEVENGALI W 111 1/2 6 3 24 23 41/2 71/2 R.?
4960L TEA PARTY W 1021/2 5 10 711/2 6ak 101 81/2 L.?
4793L K. OF THE WIND W 169 13 8 651/2 71 81/2 96 T.R.
4946L TOP BOOTS Wb 164 11 12 114 112 122 10?? M.?
4960L2 GREEN GRASS W 108 1 13 13 13 13 113 A.S. 
5023L JUNE BUG W 114 3 7 121/2 122 141/2 12ak P.L. 
5909L LADY SMALL wb 1034/2 2 6 11/2 11/2 71/2 13 H.E. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mutuel field. Two-dollar mutuels paid--Sunny )field), str???
$10.50. Garonne, place. $32.90 ; show, $18.20. Whippoorwill, show,
Track fast. SUNNY HILL,  a forward contender
in the final drive and just lasted long enough. GA
on the outside. WHIPPOORWILL was going the st??
Overweight--Whippoorwill, 2, Green Grass, 4; Ga
Lady Small, 216; Tea Party, 1 1/2, Scratched--4981L K
Owners--1, W. R. Mizell; 2, F. Mannix; 3, R. 
6. W. M. Roberts; T. H. J. Kennedy; S. J. F. Flana?
11, G. F. Mullem 12. J. W. McLelland; 13, B. John
5052L SECOND RACE--Two miles and a half. 
4.36 1/3. $10,000 added; value to winner
$50. Four-year-olds and upward. The Manly Mem??
Start good. Won easily; place same. Winner, br?g
Trainer, M. Brady
----------------------------------------
Index___Horses______A Wt PP St 1/2___1____1
4750L BROOKS ws 4 139 9 10 8 5 82 8
4749L3 CH'Y MALOOTE w 8 150 7 3 10 1 104 9
(4996L) SILVER DART w ? 150 4 1 11 13 1
(4246L) PLAISIR D'AM'R w 7 138 6 7 78 7? 6
4055L3 MARTIAN w 6 149 11 6 52 42 7
(4749L) St. CHARLCOTE w 5 160 1 3 61 5 1/2 4
4996L BET w 4 142 8 8 9 1/2 92 7
4875L B. OF B. M'WR w 7 144 5 2 38 32 7
4927L SHAN'N RIVER w 9 138 3 4 4 1/2 64 10
4810L SHARPSHOOTER w 5 138 2 5 21 26 ? 
4432L EARLY LIGHT w 7 140 10 11 11 11 ? 
-------------------------------------
Two-dollar mutuels paid--Brooks, straight, $30. 
place. $10.80: show, $5.30. Silver Dart, show (en ti??
Track fast. Coupled, (?)Added starter. BRO
responded with a rush when called on and dre
CHERRY MALOTTE came from a long way back
DART set a fast early pace, but tired in the last
down. EARLY LIGHT fell at the eleventh fence.
Scratched--5010L Reddest, 138; 4996L3 King Sin
Owners---1, J. E. Davis; 2. Greentree Stable; 3
Farm; 6, E. M. Weld; 7, W.R. Coe; 8, W. A.
L. Ross.
5053L THIRD RACE--Six furlongs. (5242K--1.
$700; value to winner, $550; second.
Selling handicap. Post 4 minutes. Off at 2.54.
ch c. 3. by Ethelbert--Bondoir. Owners, NASSA. 
-----------------------------------
Index   Horses          A Wt PP St       1/4
-----------------------------------
5011L BOND  wb 3 100 11 8 10h ?
4997L SEA BEACH  wb 4 114 4 4 3 1/2 ?
(4365L) ALVORD w 3 114 9 5 23 ?
4747L2 THE DECISION wab 4 110 12 1 6 1/2 ? 
3685L NIGEL wb 4 111 6 9 8nk 11
(5014L) MASTER KARMA w 3 111 5 7 91 ?
4039L3 WID'W BEDOTTE w 3 100 1 2 1h 2
4886L OWAGA wb 3 100 1 2 1h 2 
4985L CUDDLE UP w 4 107 8 11 71 7
4774L ?SISTER EMBLEM w 3 108 7 8 5nk 8
5011L GLOAMING wb 5 105 13 10 118 10
3854L3 OLD POP wb 4 108 10 12 122 12
3916L GENESIS wb 3 93 2 13 13 13
-------------------------------
Mutuel field. Two-dollar mutuels paid--Bond, s?
Beach. place, $14.40; show, $7.90. Alvord, show, $3.
Track fast. Winner entered for $1.200; no bid. 
stages. came through on the inside and finished sto
the way. ALVORD, used up making the pace. tired
rush after being taken to the outside entering the 
Overweight--Old Pop. 5: owaga, 5; Nigel, 2. Sc
116; 4997L3 Top o' Th' Wave, 108; 4651L Zouave, 10
Owners--1. Nassau Stable; 2, J. E. Griffith; 3,
man; 6, R. Henley; 7, Mrs. E. Trueman; 8, J. H.
11, H. G. Bedwell; 12, C. A. Crew; 13, F. J. Wrisp
5054L FOURTH RACE--Two miles. (1184H--3.4
to winner, $700; second, $200; third,
Handicap steeplechase. Post 1 minute. Off at 3.21.
ner, b g, 8, by Filigrane--Ethel Thomas. Owner. W
-----------------------------
Index Horses   A Wt PP St 1/4 1/2 1
------------------------------
5010L3 NEW HAVEN w 8 149 2 9 71 62 3
5010L MELOS w 10 130 4 10 10 71 8
4996L3 KING SIMON w 3 143 10 8 51 2h 2
4446L3 MESHACH w 6 143 1 3 65 43 1
5010L ROYAL SPINNER w 7 140 6 7 83 83 5
5010L SUPERHUMAN w 5 132 8 4 3 1/2 5 1/2 6

(4753L) INFIDEL 2ND w 4 140 3 2 91 9 7
4899L GARTER w 7 136 9 5 21 3 1/2 4
(4857L) CARL w 5 139 5 1 11 12 9
4899L3 OTTO FLOTO w 7 143 7 6 4 1/2 Fell
-------------------------------
Two-dollar mutuels paid--New Haven, straight,
$114.20; show, $39.90. King Simon, show, $4.60.
Track fast. NEW HAVEN, rated off the eraly
a rush and won in hand. MELOS, outpaced in the
KING SIMON in the final drive. The latter weaker
fell at the fifth jump.
Scratched--4927L Northwood, 145; 5010L Rhomb, 14
148.
Owners--1. W. Smith; 2. G. F. Lee; 3, A. J. D
Pratt; 7, J. E. Widener; 8, D. Raymond; 9, J. M.
5055L FIFTH RACE--One mile. (3127E--1,39--
value to winner, $530; second, $100; 
ing. Post 1 minute. Off at 3.52. Start good. we
Isidoer--Roxane. Owner. W. P. ORR. Trainer. A. 
----------------------------
Index Horses    A Wt PP St 1/4 1/2
------------------------------
4932L2 LUCIUS wb 3 103 3 3 31 21 
4983L2 SHOOTING STAR w 4 11? 4 3 3 1/2 7 1/2
4998L JACK MOUNT wb 3 103 2 1 21 32
4928L WOODWARD wb 4 115 9 5 42 41
5025L2 HOLIDAY wb 6 116 8 2 11 1?
(5012L) JUDGE W'F'LD w 3 103 6 9 9 81 1/2
4826L VENETIA wb 5 98 1 7 6h 9 
4826L POLROMA w 4 109 5 6 71 5nk
4950L KILMER wb 4 106 7 4 53 62
-----------------------
Two-dollar mutuels paid--Lucius, straight. $4.2
$3.90; show. $6.10. Jack Mount, show. $5.30.
Track fast. LUCIUS, under stout restraint i 
effort and won cantering. SHOOTING STAR mov
gamely. JACK MOUNT ran forwardly the en
Overweight--Lucius, 3; Judge Wingfield, 5; Pol? 
Owners--1, W. P. Orr; 2, A. Lexama; 3, W.
Oliver; 7, P. Sheridan; 8, W. Smith; 9, R. D. 
5056L SIXTH RACE--Six furlongs. (5242K--1
$700; value to winner. $550; second
Pest 1 minute. Off at 4.23. Start good. Won dr
gibby--Southern Belle. Owner, G.D. WIDENER.
--------------------
Index Horses Wt PP St 1/4
---------------------
4929L2 LANIUS w 120 2 5 2h ? 
4615L TRACKSEND wb 112 1 3 12 ?
4616L3 BALLYMOONEY w 106 4 6 6 ?
5027L3 FRAGONARD wh 111 3 2 3h 4
4824L2 VALERIUS w 110 5 4 51 1/2 4 
(1983L) RECOUNT w 114 6 1 4nk 6
-------------------------
Two-dollar mutuels paid--Lanius, straight, $.2
$5.50; show, $5.10. Ballymooney, show. $6.30.
Track fast. LANIUS forced a fast early pace
the stretch; finished with good courage in the fin?
four furlongs, but weakened in the stretch. BALL
through on the inside. RECOUNT was in a jam at 
Scratched--5027L2 Jack Hare, Jr., 127; 4872L Night Win
Owners--1, G. D. Widener; 2, A. K. Macon?be
6, A. Miller. 
5057L SEVENTH RACE--One mile and an e
1.133/5, 1.402/5, 1.54. $1 000 added; 
Three-year-olds and upward. Handicap. Post 1 m
place same. Winner, br g, 4, by Sea King--Toots.
-------------------------
Index  Horses  A Wt PP St 1/4 1/2
-------------------------
4984L3 KING NEPTUNE w 4 108 1 1 11 11 
4826L GEX wb 4 113 2 6 4nk 21
5025L CRIMPER wb 4 112 3 5 3 1/2 31 1/2 
4984L DADDY'S CH'CE wb 4 108 4 2 6 6 
4630L GOLDCREST BOY w 5 109 1/2 6 3 2 1/2 41
4876L3 PIERRE-A-FEU wb 3 102 5 4 54 53
-------------------------------
Two-dollar mutuels paid--King Neptune, straigh
$3.49; show. $2.30. Crimper, show, $2.80.
Track fast. KING NEPTUNE outrain his fiel
al the way; just lasted long enough. GEX broke
the outside; he was gradually wearing the win?
through the stretch or he might have won; Butw?
come to the outside of the leaders. DADDY'S CH
Overweight--King Neptune, 2; Goldcrest Boy,
126; 5056L3 Jack Mount, 98.
Dwners--1, J. S. Tyree; 2, J. Sanford; 3, R. F
Austin, Jr. 

HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS.


am. This is a country for which I
now stand ready to give all that I have.
Where my father stood and '61, I stand
to-day, ready to uphold the arm of the
President as he champions the right of
mankind.'
    "Those sentiments are constantly reiterated
during this campaign. Two weeks
ago a local paper sent me a telegram
asking me where I stood in the war. I
replied then in substance as I have replied
to all such questions."

Tammany Hall Hears News. 

    Within a few minutes after 7 o'clock
those at Tammany Hall heard of
the concession of Hylan's victory and
there was jubilation galore. 
    Charles F. Murphy did not arrive at
the hall until 8 o'clock, and he was all
smiles. He made the following statement:
    "The result of the election is a gratifying
victory for the people over campaign
deception and fraud. It demonstrates
that they are quick to detect the
difference between true and the
sham.
    "The returns evidence the fact that
unscrupulous newspapers no longer
represent the opinion or sentiment of the
people, that the latter do their own
thinking and if used to be misled by misrepresentations
or suppression of the real
issues.
    "The victory also shows the injection
of false issues failed its design
to hide the scandals of the Mitchel
administration, that the voters understood
the situation and that they recognize
the ability of the Democratic party
to reform present abuses and to give the
city and honest, economical, and efficient
administration.

Mitchel Repudiated.

    "The Mitchel management of the city
affairs has been repudiated by the people
because of its reactionary methods. The
Democratic ticket, and my judgment, has
been excepted because the Democratic
candidates and platform are progressive
and in accordance with the world-wide
progressive tendencies of the day.
    "In an interview last August I said
that all the wealth of the moneybund behind
the Republican Fusion forces—and
they had nearly 1,500,000 to spend—
could not buy this election.
    "A lamentable feature of the campaign
was the injection of spurious
issue by defaming some of our most loyal
citizens in hysterical attempts to impugn
their patriotism.
    "It is regrettable that such eminent
citizens as Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Hughes
and Mr. Root should have been induced
to lend their names to such a contemptible
campaign conspiracy.
    "But it must gladden the American
heart to note that the great loyal American
citizenship of New York City, the
first city in the land, believe, as do all
fair-minded men, that Mr. Mitchel's assumption
of a monopoly of patriotism
was a false issue, designed to distract
attention from the shortcomings of the
present administration.
    "After all is said and done it is refreshing
to all of us to know that in the
candidacy of Mr. Mitchel, Mr. Hylan
and Mr. Bennett, every voter had the
pleasant opportunity of voting for a
loyal American citizen.
    "It is gratifying to know how emphatically
the administration of President
Wilson had been endorsed by the
loyal citizens of New York."

———————
FOOD FOR A NATION
IN STORAGE HERE
———————
One Million Dozen Eggs and 100,000,000
Pounds of Poultry
on Ice in City.

    The survey of cold storage plants
in the New York city district made at
the instance of the National Food Administration
has shown that there are 1,000,000
dozen eggs and 100,000,000 pounds
of poultry of all kinds on ice at the present
time.
    Local Food Administrator Arthur William
said yesterday that whatever the
true amount is he will endeavor to have
the storage men release large amounts of
this stock for sale on every Tuesday
which is a meatless day according to the
schedule. There is every prospect that
the storage man will co-operate with him,
it was said.
    The 19,000 food pledge canvassers have
enrolled 513,472 families of the city.
    Governor Whitman and State Food
Commissioner John Mitchell in conference
yesterday decided to create four bureaus
to aid in bringing about co-operation
between the farmer and the consumer.
These bureaus are those of transportation,
production, distribution and
publicity respectively.

[???]
Muck's name.
    Resolutions condemning Dr. Muck and
reaffirming the loyalty of Baltimore to
the anthem were passed by a unanimous
and rising vote.
    At the beginning of the meeting a letter
was read from Cardinal Gibbons in
which he stated that he was in hearty
accord with the sentiment that "The
Star Spangled Banner" should be honored
and those punished who refused to
do so. 
    Captain Hughes in his speech said
Muck's action was enough to cause
Francis Scott Key to turn over in his
grave, and he hoped he would rise from
his grave and haunt Dr. Muck for the
rest of his life. 
    Alfred J. Carr, a leading lawyer, advocated
the shooting of Dr. Muck and
all other German aliens and naturalized
citizens who criticized the President and
the conduct of the war. "That's the
way George Washington did," he said.
    At the close of the meeting the entire
audience stood with bowed heads for
one minute in honor of the Americans
killed by the Germans two days ago.
The meeting ended with the entire audience
singing lustily "The Star Spangled
Banner."
    It was stated by the management of
the Lyric to-day that it was not known
whether the Boston Symphony Orchestra
would play the other concerts of its projected
season here. The money paid for
tickets for to-morrow night's concert will
be returned at the box offices to-morrow.

———————
MUCK, AT CAPITAL, PLAYED IT FIRST
———————
Symphony Leader Ends All Doubt in
Washington and Cancels Baltimore
Engagement for To-day. 

Washington Bureau,
The Morning Telegraph, 
Washington, D. C., Nov. 6.

    Led by Dr. Karl Muck, the Boston
Symphony Orchestra played the Star
Spangled Banner before a large audience
in the New National Theatre as a preclude
to its concert in Washington this
afternoon. 
    There had been some apprehension of
a sensational scene owing to the intense
feeling in this city, crowded as it is with
officers and officials who are devoting
all their time and energy to helping this
country in the war with Germany. Ample
police precautions had therefor been
taken. But they proved entirely unnecessary. 
    When Dr. Muck stepped on the platform
he was greeted by applause. Some
one in the audience cried out, "Don't applaud
him," but the effect was the very
reverse. Dr. Muck acknowledged the
applause, then turned to his orchestra
and the musicians arose, as did the entire
audience, while the national anthem
was played with splendid feeling and
effect. The house applauded vigorously
and the tension was over. 
   Major Higginson was not in Washington,
but his representatives refused
to make any comment whatever on the
action of the Baltimore authorities in
forbidding the symphony orchestra to
play there to-morrow. The orchestra
will remain in Washington to-morrow
and not play in Baltimore. The program
to-day, which included Tschaikowsky's
symphony No. 4, closed with the overture
to Tannhauser, which was well applauded. 
    Mrs. Wilson, wife of the president,
was absent from Washington and consequently
did not attend the concert, but
the cabinet was represented by Mrs.
Franklin K. Lane, wife of the Secretary
of the Interior. 

———————
U.S. READY TO FEED ITS CAPTURED MEN
———————
Ample Food Will Be Sent Through
Switzerland to Our Soldiers Prisoners
in Germany. 

Washington Bureau, 
The Morning Telegraph, 
Washington, D.C., Nov. 6. 

   Official confirmation of the capture of American soldiers along the Lorraine sector of the Western front, was followed to-night by the announcement that arrangements for supplying food and clothing to American prisoners of war in Germany have been worked out in detail by the War and Navy Departments and the American Red Cross. 
   As the first step in the plans regarding American soldiers and sailors captured and confined in German prison camps, the disbursing agent of the Red Cross at Berne, Switzerland, will be supplied with 4,500 tons of food immediately. This will comprise 1,800,000 individual rations, or enough to feed 10,000 men adequately for six months. From Berne the food will be sent at stated intervals in ten-pound packages to the special prison camps in Germany.
   Food for our captured men will be the same in quantity and quality as that supplied by the Government to those in fighting service. In addition to the regular rations for prisoners, a special ration for invalids is now being worked out. This special ration will comprise broth, malted milk, jellied chicken and such valuable helps in convalescence.
   The question is frequently asked whether these food supplies reach prisoners as intended. In this connection it may be stated that the records of the English and French systems show that the percentage of loss from any cause has been virtually negligible. 

[???] WOMAN SUFFRAGE
———————
In First of the Candidates for Office at the Polls--Predicts a "Clean Sweep" of Ticket.
———————
MITCHEL APPEARS AT NOON
———————
   Woman suffrage received practical endorsement from Judge John F. Hylan yesterday morning at the polls when the mayoralty candidate cast his vote for the cause of the equal franchise. 
   Judge Hylan was the first of the nominees to appear at the polls, being handed
ballot No. 88 in Public School 75 at Grove street and evergreen avenue, Brooklyn, at exactly 8.32 o'clock. He emerged from the ballot booth in less than three minutes and announced to questioners that he had voted the straight Tammany ticket and had also chalked up a mark for the woman suffrage amendment. 
   "It's going to be a clean sweep for the whole ticket." he predicted as he left the polls. On his way to the voting place after leaving his home in Bushwick avenue Judge Hylan was greeted by numerous small boys with tin horns, who formed a guard of honor and 
escorted him part of the way to the polls. 

Mitchel Votes at Noon. 

   It was during the noon hour that Mayor Mitchel cast his vote at the polling place in a wooden shack built in Ninety-eighth street, between Broadway and West End avenue.
   Mr. Mitchel was accompanied from his home in Riverside Drive by his secretary, Theodore Rousseau and Detective Hines of the Fourth Branch Detective Bureau. The Mayor cast ballot No. 289. After posing for his picture Mr. Mitchel said:
   "My advices are that the early voting is very heavy, indicating the independent vote is coming out strongly, which is an excellent sign for Fusion. The understanding of the loyalty and Americanism issue of the campaign is brought out solidly by the people in full numbers."
   Charles F. Murphy entered the polling place of the Second Election District of the Twelfth Assembly District, a vacant store at 297 First avenue, at 3.15 in the afternoon. He shook hands and conversed a few moments with Justice Michael F. Blake of the Fourth Municipal
Court. He was then handed ballot 338, and after spending a minute and a half in the booth, cast his ballot. He refused to make any statement when leaving the polling place.

Hillquit's Son Casts Ballot.

   Morris Hillquit, Socialist candidate for Mayor, after leaving his home at 214 Riverside Drive, went to the polling place in the basement at Ninety-third street and the Drive, and cast his ballot at 11 o'clock.
   His ballot was number 253. His son, Lawrence, a freshman at Wesleyan University,
cast his first vote on ballot Number 254, and he announced that it was for the Socialist ticket. 
   William M. Bennett, Republican candidate for Mayor, residing at 234 Central Park West, voted at the polling place in an upholstery store at 507 Columbus avenue, which is in the Second Election District of the Ninth Assembly District. He cast his ballot at 12.05 o'clock.
   After photographers had taken pictures of the candidate and two of his daughters, who accompanied him, Mr. Bennett said that he expected a large vote to be polled in his favor and was confident of election.
   After waiting in line until eighteen voters had preceded him, Governor Whitman cast his ballot at 10 o'clock yesterday morning in the polling place in a florist shop at 980 Sixth avenue.

Whitman Waits His Turn.

   He had made the short trip from the St. Regis in a taxicab and declined the offers of several who were ahead of him in the line to take their places. He chatted with Mrs. T. C. Henderson, the suffrage watcher, while awaiting his turn.
   "You are certain of at least one vote for suffrage in this precinct," said the Governor. "I hope the majority of voters feel the same as I do on this question."
   The Governor was handed ballot 158 and entered the booth at 10.09. Two and one-half minutes after he emerged and cast his ballot. After leaving the polling place he spoke for several minutes with friends on the sidewalk and then returned to his hotel.
   Former Governor Hughes was a caller soon after the Governor had returned from the polling place and remained with the latter for an hour. When questioned as to the probable result of the election the Governor said he was slightly out of touch with the situation, having been on a visit to the camp at Spartanburg.
   "But I feel certain," said the Governor, "that the voters will remember good service and retain the men who are seeking re-election. They will also choose, I trust, the best men aspiring for offices now filled by others."
———————
Faces Perfected for Pictures and Stage. Dr Pratt, 40 W. 34th St. Interview Free —Advt.

[???]
5053L THIRD RACE—six furlough (5242K—1, $700; value to winner, $550; second. Selling handicap. Post 4 minutes. Off at 2.54. eh e. v3 by Ethelbert—Boudoir. Owners. NASSA.
———————————————————————————————————
Index         Horses                        A        Wt     PP   St               1/4
———————————————————————————————————
5011L        BOND                        wb 3   100    11    8               108        ?
4397L        SEA BEACH               wb 4   114     4     4                3 1/3     ?
(4365L)      ALVORD                      w 3   111     9     5                2^5        ?
4747L2      THE DECISION         wb 4   110    12    1                6 1/2      ?
3685L        NIGEL                        wb 4   111     6     9                 80k        ?
(5014L)      MASTER KARMA       w  3   111     5     7                 9^t         ?
5039L3      WID'W BEDOTTE      w  3   111     3      3                4^a        ?
4885L        OGAWA                     wb 3  100     1      2                1^h        7
4985L        CUDDLE UP                w 4   107     8    11                5^1        7
4774L        *SISTER EMBLEM      w 3   108     7      6                5^nk      8 
5011L         GLOAMING             wb 5   105    13   10               11^8      10
3854L3       OLD POP                 wb 4   108    10   12               12^2      12
3916L         GENESIS                   wb 3    93      2    13               13          13
———————————————————————————————————
*Mutuel field. Two-dollar mutuels paid -- Bond, [[?]] Beach, place $14.40; show, $7.90. Alvord, show, $3.
Track fast. Winner entered for $1,200; no bid. 
stages, came through on the inside and finished sto[?] the way. ALVORD, used up making the pace, tired rush after being taken to the outside entering the [[?]]
Overweight -- Old Pop, 5: Owaga, 5; Nigel, 2. S[[?]]
116; 4997L Top o' Th' Wave, 108; 4651L Zouave, 10[[?]]
Owners --1. Nassau Stable; 2, J.E. Griffith; 2,
man; 6, R. Henley; 7, Mrs. E. Trueman; 8, J. H.
11, H. G. Bedwell; 12, C.A. Crew; 13, F.J. Wrisp

5054L FOURTH RACE -- Two miles. (1184H--3, 4
to winner, $700; second, $200; third, 
Handicap steeplechase. Post 1 minute. Off at 3.21
-ner, b g, 8, by Filigrane -- Ethel Thomas, Owner, W
———————————————————————————————————
Index         Horses                        A        Wt     PP   St     1/4        1/2        1
———————————————————————————————————
5010L^3    NEW HAVEN             w 8   149       2    9       7^1       6^2       3
5010L        MELOS                    w 10   130       4   10       10        7^1       8 
4996L^3    KING SIMON            w 5   143      10    8       5^1      2^h       2 
4446L^3    MESCHACH              w 6   145        1    3       6^5      4^3       1
5010L        ROYAL SPINNER      w 7   140        6    7       8^3      8^3       5
5010L        SUPERHUMAN        w 5   122         8    4       3 1/2   5 1/2    6 
(4753L)      INFIDEL 2ND           w 4   140         3    2       9^1      9           7
4893L        GARTER                    w 7   136         9    5       2^1      3 1/2    4
(4857L)      CARL                         w 5   139         5    1       1^1      1^1      9
4899L^3    OTTO FLOTO           w 7   143         7    6       4 1/2    Fell 
———————————————————————————————————
Two-dollar mutuels paid--New Haven, straight, $114.20; show, $39.90. King Simon, show, $4.60.
Track fast. NEW HAVEN, rated off the early [[?]] a rush and won in hand. MELOS, outpaced in the [[?]] KING SIMON in the final drive. The latter weaker [[?]] fell at the fifth jump.
Scratched--4927L Northwood, 145; 5010L Rhomb, 14 [[?]]148.
Owners--1. W. Smith; 2. G. F. Lee; 3. A. J. D[[?]] Pratt; 7, J. E. Widener; 8, D. Raymond; 9, J. M[[?]]
5055L FIFTH RACE--One mile. (5127E--1,39--[[?]] value to winner. $550; second, $100;[[?]]
ing. Post 1 minute. Off at 3.52. Start good. W o [[?]]
Isidor--Roxane. Owner. W. P. ORR. Trainer, A. [[?]]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index                Horses                                  A    Wt   PP   St   1/4   1/2  [[?]]


[*W Journal April 26 1913*]

ROSALIE JONES 
PLANS PAGEANT 

Series of Picturesque Tableaux 
Will Be Held Throughout New 
York State

Miss Rosalie Jones, of "pilgrim" 
fame, has planned a new style of propaganda  
work: a series of pageants, 
or parades, to succeed one another 
through the State during May and June. 
Beginning in Long Island she 
will carry them into Albany and into 
the extreme western part of the State. 
The dates have been made with the 
local organizations, which will be 
ready when the day comes. There 
will be different types of pageant to 
suit the conditions in the different 
parts of the State. In some cases 
there will be parades of automobiles, 
in others of farm wagons, again of 
fancy carts and bicycles, and it is expected 
that even baby-carriages will 
be seen decorated and in all their 
glory. An effort will be made to have 
all the pageants as gay and rich in 
color and design as possible. They 
will follow fast on the heels of one 
another, so that there will be a kaleidoscopic 
effect in the State from one 
end to the other. Of course there will 
be speaking, and literature galore, and 
altogether a pretty and effective 
scene. The women of the State organization 
are vieing with one another in 
planning new and attractive features 
for the work, which will go on vigorously 
all summer.   
 

THE
Woman Voter
No. 4. New York, May, 1910. Five Cents.

THE WOMAN SUFFRAGE PARTY
ITS AIM
THE ENROLLMENT OF 100,000 MEMBERS THIS YEAR
AND THE ATTAINMENT OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN
THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHIN FIVE YEARS

 GRAND SUFFRAGE RALLY
LEGISLATIVE PROTEST
Union Square, Saturday Afternoon, 3 o'clock
MAY 21st
THREE GREAT PLATFORMS IN PROGRESS AT THE SAME TIME
Platform Woman Suffrage Party will be located at the North-east corner of the
Park, 4th Ave. and 17th St.  CARRIE CHAPMAN CATT, Chairman.
Platform Self-Supporting League in centre.  HARRIET STANTON BLATCH, Chairman
Platform Collegiate League North-west corner.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF SPEAKERS LATER. PROGRAM 4 P.M.
COME ONE, COME ALL. Help to give the Legislature your opinion on the
suffrage question.

The Woman Voter
Official Organ of THE WOMAN SUFFRAGE PARTY
A union for political work of existing Equal Suffrage organizations in the City of New York

Published monthly at 1 Madison Avenue, New York CIty
Subscription price yearly, 50 cents  Single copy, 5 cents
Telephone 66 Gramercy  Advertising rates on application

THE LEGISLATURE.
The Legislature of 1910 is upon the eve of adjournment.  The Woman Suffrage
Bill has not passed, but no observer of legislation will question that it has made a
more emphatic impression upon the Legislature and the State than it has ever made
before.  Evidences are numerous.

Mr. Phillips, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, said publicly
that the Committee had given more attention to the Woman Suffrage Bill than
to any other measure which had come before it.  Three times the Judiciary Committee
of the House took a vote upon the bill.  The minority desired to report it, in accordance
with the wishes of the suffragists, even though the report should be adverse. The
majority were opposed to making any kind of a report.  They gave as their reason that
men in the Assembly had begged of them not to let it come before the House, as they
did not wish to go on record before their constituents.

On April 27th, Mr. Toombs, the introducer of the bill, and the assemblyman from
the 17th District in Manhattan, moved to discharge the Judiciary Committee from further
consideration of the proposed resolution to amend the constitution.  A debate
followed, and the ayes and nays were called.  The majority leader, Mr. Merritt, said
significantly, "I am against this measure, but to my regret I must admit that I 
believe women will vote in the near future."

Mr. William M. Bennet, of the 15th Assembly District, who is opposed to woman
suffrage per se, said the women of his district wanted the ballot.  This is a distinct
compliment to the growing power of the Woman Suffrage Party, and in particular, to 
Mrs. Maud Nathan, the leader of that district.

The vote upon discharge stood, 46 for and 87 against.

The Senate Judiciary Committee took action on April 29th, and the vote stood two
for reporting the resolution and six against.  A motion will probably be made to discharge
that Committee, and the ayes and nays called in the Senate.

One of the members of the House Judiciary Committee known to be favorable
changed his vote.  He was asked the reason and promptly acknowledged that he did
so to accommodate Mr. Phillips, the Chairman.  Mr. Phillips was so irritated when he
learned that this fact had reached the women, that he made a public attack in the
debate upon the women who had been doing the work in Albany, calling one of them
by name.  His fellow members pronounced the attack quite uncalled for.

Several members have shown their irritability in one way or another, and there
is no question but that they would have been far happier had the women remained
silent.  But the day for silence and inaction is passed!

No Legislature in New York will be permitted hereafter to remain ignorant or indifferent
to the demand of women for the suffrage.  It would be far more in keeping
with the desire of the women if the Legislature would perform this little act of justice
without disagreeable incident; but since it shows no symptoms of being actuated
by a sense of justice, but has shown unmistakable evidence of being in control of
political machines which have nothing in common with justice, it behooves the women
to arouse the spirit of the people of the State to demand democratic action.

The actual results of the winter's work, disappointing though they are, are clearly
mirrored in the editorials of the Post and Times.  The Post declares:
"Woman suffragists have every reason to be encouraged by their winter's campaign.  Yesterday,
they forced the Assembly to go on record. ** It is agitation that will finally force the issue whether
for or against, and this winter has certainly shown a hitherto unequalled public interest in the question.
The demand for speakers was greater than could be met by the suffragists, and there has been general
recognition that the question has entered the domain of every day politics to stick.  The Republican
leader of the Assembly, although opposed to woman suffrage, recorded his belief yesterday that is is
inevitable.


THE WOMAN VOTER 3
Says the Times:
"The Assembly has acted wisely in refusing to relieve its Judiciary Committee from further consideration
of the Woman Suffrage Bill. ** No matter how many influential supporters the bill has, the
time is assuredly not ripe for legislative action.**  The advocates of such a measure are venturing on
dangerous ground. **  The home is now the basis of society, and when the home is destroyed, there
must be chaos before some new order, of which only the haziest ideas are now entertained. **Assemblyman 
Merritt is not alone, among the present opponents of a movement to weaken the social
structure, in belief that women will vote in the near future.  It may be that the suffragists will win
IF THEY KEEP AT IT."
The Woman Suffrage Party begs to assure the Times, Mr. Merritt, the Legislature,
and the voters of New York that the women will keep at it!

An anti-suffragist was overheard the other day to say that the suffragists have
literally tired us all out with their activities this winter.  They have given no one time
to think of anything else.  They have set back their cause twenty-five years, because they
have made the public so tired of it.  Certain legislators also assured us that our cause
was being defeated through the continual  heckling of members, who were tired of it.

When legislative opponents and anti-suffragists make common cause and become
solicitous about the fate of our Woman Suffrage Bill, tenderly regretting the mistakes
the suffragists are making, it is time for suffragists to shout "Hurrah!"  The opponents
may be tired, but the suffragists are not; in fact, the Woman Suffrage Party
is like a lusty child that is just coming into its full power of strength: every nerve is
alert, with anticipation of the struggle that lies ahead; it smells victory in the air!  It
will know no pause until its task is quite fulfilled.

HISSES.
Hisses are at best a very poor way of manifesting disapprobation.  In this country,
where meetings of all kinds are almost invariably quiet and well-mannered, they
do not often occur.  When hisses are heard, the offense is the greater because they
are unusual.  At the opening session of the National Convention in Washington, when
President Taft came to give a brief address to the Convention, there were some hisses.
No one seems to know whether these came from men or women, delegates or visitors.
It is impossible, in a hall crowded to the utmost, with every inch of available space
taken, to discover who the guilty hissers were.  It was at best a most unfortunate
event.  The President of the United States is supposed to be immune from treatment
of this kind; and in any event, he was the guest of the Convention and, as such, should
have been treated by all other guests in the audience with courtesy.

Nevertheless, it was a curious absence of the sense of proportion which made the
Associated Press telegraph the incident far and near as more conspicuous than any
other incident in a great Convention.  Queries have come from England, France and
Germany, to ask just what did take place.  Several newspapers have written elaborate
editorials announcing that the incident proved the unfitness of women to vote.  The
connection is not apparent.  When the President of the United States is daily
cartooned from one end of our land to another; when he is attacked with every possible
censorious epithet and invective, it is plain that he is not immune from expressions of
disapprobation.  If the few hisses in Washington indicate the incapacity of women to
vote, then the columns of the anti-Taft press offer sure indication of the incapacity
of men to deal tolerantly with political problems.

The suffragists regret the incident in Washington, and proper apologies were made
to the President.  Nevertheless the adverse comments which have been made by the 
press have not been sincere.  They are merely efforts made to blind the vision of the
public and obscure the issue.

The enfranchisement of women is a just cause, and it is bound to win.  The world
is beginning to realize that fact, and instead of arguments upon unsexed womanhood,
deserted homes and neglected children, the opposition has adopted new tactics.

The Woman Voter is not designed to be a newspaper.  It is too small for that.  It is
merely a Bulletin to announce what is coming, to explain policies and report the progress
of local work.  Every Assembly Leader and Election District Captain should subscribe
and thus keep in touch with the Central Committee.

4

THE WOMAN VOTER

ATTENTION. DISTRICT LEADERS!

The following Assemblymen of
Greater New York voted to discharge
the Judiciary Committee from the consideration
of the resolution proposing
the submission of a woman suffrage
amendment:

Manhattan and Bronx: Mr. Oliver,
3rd District; Mr. Levy, 4th; Mr. Walker,
5th; Mr. Kopp, 6th; Mr. Spielberg,
10th; Mr. Boylan, 11th; Mr.
Hoey, 13th; Mr. Bennet, 15th; Mr.
Toombs, 17th; Mr. Higgins, 23rd;
Mr. Levy, 28th; Mr. Donovan, 30th;
Mr. Garfien, 34th.

Kings: Mr. Goodspeed, 1st; Mr.
Weber, 5th; Mr. O'Connor, 9th; Mr.
Colne, 11th; Mr. Lee, 18th; Mr. Weinstein,
21st.

Queens: Mr. Weiland, 2nd; Mr.
Mitzendorf, 3rd.

Richmond: Mr. Shortt.

Those opposed were:

Manhattan: Mr. Caughlan, 1st; Mr.
Smith, 2nd; Mr. McEllegott, 7th; Mr.
Graubard, 8th; Mr. Foley, 12th; Mr.
Herrick, 14th; Mr. McCue, 16th; Mr.
Goldberg, 18th; Mr. Murray, 19th; Mr.
McGrath, 20th; Mr. Conklin, 21st; Mr.
Doherty, 22nd; Mr. Brennan, 24th; Mr.
Ward, 25th; Mr. Joseph, 26th; Mr.
Dana, 27th; Mr. Bates, 29th; Mr.
Friend, 31st; Mr. Burgoyne, 32nd; Mr.
Raldiris, 35th.

Queens: Mr. Zorn, 1st; Mr. Wilsnack,
4th.

Kings: Mr. Gillen, 2nd; Mr. O'Neill,
3rd; Mr. Brown, 4th; Mr. Girken, 5th;
Mr. Harwood, 10th; Mr. Donelly, 13th;
Mr. Fay, 14th; Mr. O'Neill, 15th; Mr.
Clark, 16th; Mr. Ebbetts, 17th; Mr.
Sanner, 19th; Mr. Glove, 20th; Mr.
Lachman, 22nd.

Mr. Hackett, 9th; Mr. Gerhardt, 33rd;
of Manhattan; Mr. Beck, 23rd; Mr.
Farrell, 7th, were absent or not voting.

Mr. Oliver, 3rd Manhattan; Mr.
Bennet, 15th, Manhattan; Mr. Toombs,
17th Manhattan; Mr. O'Connor, 9th of
Kings, spoke in favor. Mr. Goldberg,
18th; Mr. Bates, 29th, Manhattan, spoke
against. 

THE PETITION

On April 18, the National Petition for woman
suffrage was presented to Congress. It
contained 404,825 signatures of which 25,000
were New York City names. Every State
and Territory and Hawaii were represented.
The petition was carried to the Capitol from
the hall, where the National Suffrage Convention
was in session, by the delegates in
automobiles. The officers of the National
Association led the procession and were
followed by a line of seventy-five automobiles,

three containing representatives
of the press. One automobile decorated
with the name of the State on yellow bunting
was provided for each State delegation
and they were arranged alphabetically in
line. Additional undecorated machines
voluntarily joined the procession, which was
more than a mile in length. Arriving at
the Capitol each delegation carried a part
of its State petition to the Senate and a 
part to the House. The rules of the House
permit no speeches on petitions or memorials
of any kind, but the galleries were
filled with interested spectators. For nearly
two hours, the big rolls of petitions were
seen coming in to the members, deposited
in baskets and carried out again to the
Committee rooms. In the Senate several
brief speeches were made. The Congressional
Record for the day devoted two pages
to a record of the petition. The Senate galleries,
not aware of the rules which forbid
applause, manifested enthusiastic approval
when Senator La Follette said in presenting
the petition from Wisconsin, "I hope the
day will come when it shall not be necessary
for a great body of intelligent people to
petition to Congress for rights of equal
opportunity which ought to be permitted in
this free country."

On the following day the Hearings before
the Judiciary Committee of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on
Woman Suffrage in the Senate occurred at
the same hour. The addresses were based
upon the petition. In the Senate Committee,
educational and professional interests
were presented, and in House Committee
the plea of industrial workers was
made.

The delegates agreed that the speeches
at the Hearings were received with more
apparent interest than at any previous
Hearing, and many incidents demonstrated
that the petition, the procession, and the
speeches made woman suffrage the most
talked of theme for some days. It is
doubtful if a single Congressman failed to
realize that the movement to secure Suffrage
for Woman is a problem to be reckoned
with, and that it will not always be put
aside with a sneer.

$10,000 CAMPAIGN FUND
RECEIPTS

Balance from April issue ............ $4,478.68
Mrs. Newbold L. Herrick ............ 5.00
Mrs. Cordelia M. Schnitzer .......... 5.00
Mrs. F. H. Taylor ................... 5.00
Mr. L. E. Opdycke ................... 10.00
M. L. G. ........................... 1.00
Miss Susan Fowler ................. 3.00
Mrs. Stephen S. Wise ................ 5.00
Mrs. Isabella M. Christie ............. 1.00
Miss A. T. Cooper .................. 2.00
Miss Anne Rhodes ................... 5.00
Miss Ellen J. Stone ................. 5.00
Miss Eleanor C. Erving ............. 5.00
Margaret W. Gage ................. 1.00


THE WOMAN VOTER

5

Mrs. Pearce Bailey ................... 5.00
Mrs. Edith Dimock Glackens .......... 10.00
Mrs. Augusta W. Reed ............... 50.00
Miss Edith Philippi .................... 1.00
Mrs. Phebe A. Hart ..................... 2.00
Laura E. W. Benedict .................. 3.00
Mrs. E. C. Henderson ................... 10.00
Mrs. A. G. Williams ................... 1.00
Mrs. Henry S. Gibson ................... 2.00
Mrs. Maud Rittenhouse Mayne ....... 5.00
Louisa K. Boulton ...................... 10.00
Miss Fannie E. Thayer ................... 2.00
Mrs. James Klaber ....................... 10.00
Miss Sophie C. Aus ..................... 10.00
Mrs. Wm. Jay Schieffelin ............ 5.00
Miss Elizabeth Briggs .............. 1.00
Mrs. John R. Rogers ................ 1.00
Mrs. Wm. Tod Helmuth ............. 100.00
Miss Elizabeth J. Hauser ............ 3.00
Miss Helen Potter ................... .50
Miss Sarah Stephenson ............... 5.00
Margaret L. Rogers ............... 1.00
Miss Caroline C. Chichester .......... .50
Miss Hannah A. Babcock ............ 10.00
Sarah H. Emerson .................. 5.00
Frederica W. Trow ................. 1.00
Miss Abigail E. Leonard .............. 15.00
Miss A. Stagen ..................... 1.00
5th Assembly District, Manhattan .... 51.14
6th Assembly District, Manhattan ... .50
15th Assembly District, Manhattan ... 50.00
22nd Assembly District, Manhattan ... 6.50
25th Assembly District, Manhattan .... 191.35
27th Assembly District, Manhattan .... 103.33
31st Assembly District, Manhattan .... 72.22
19th Assembly District, Manhattan .... 11.50
1st Assembly District, Brooklyn ...... 4.00
4th Assembly District, Brooklyn ...... 31.35
10th Assembly District .............. 7.00
16th Assembly District ............. 12.00
30th Assembly District, Bronx ....
32nd Assembly District, Bronx ........ 19.50
--------
Total .......................... $5,362.07

Other friends of the cause are urged to contribute
to this fund.

MARGARET CHANLER ALDRICH
Treas.

The 15th Assembly District of Manhattan
has formed a Political Committee
to keep in touch with the Democratic and
Republican parties during the summer,
when the usual picnics and clam-bakes
of these organizations take place. Much
effective work in breaking down prejudice
can be done at these gatherings. Mrs.
Frederick Nathan is the district leader.

Certain of our ardent suffragists who
have been in the habit of receiving letters
asking contributions for charitable objects
are now sending replies like the following: 
"Dear Sir: As I have become
actively engaged in the organization of
the Woman Suffrage Party, I do not care
to subscribe money in any other direction
until we have accomplished the object
of our campaign." If we are to succeed
in our cause, we must make it our
chief end and aim. Half of the charities
now supported by private benevolence
might well cease to exist, if women were
enfranchised and awake to their duty of
re-organizing society.

The street meetings held during April

under the auspices of the Bedford P. E.
League, at the corner of Bedford Ave.
and Halsey St., Brooklyn, have been most
successful; there has been always an audience
of from one to two hundred persons,
chiefly men. Mrs. Priscilla D.
Hackstaff, Miss Ida Craft and others
have spoken, using an automobile lent by
Mr. and Mrs. Seaman as a rostrum.
There has been always the most respectful
and interested attention; and it is
claimed that all the policemen in attendance
have professed conversion to woman
suffrage. The meetings will continue to
be held through May, every Saturday
night, at Jefferson Ave. and Broadway,
at 8 o'clock. Collections have not so far
been taken, but will be in future. Since
these men on the street are voters, and
must before long pass upon the question
of political liberty for the women of New
York, we must overcome our conservatism,
and carry our gospel to them.

Miss L. L. Dock, leader of the Second
Assembly District of Manhattan, reports
that the women of the Mothers' Club
have sent over fifty cards and letters to
Assemblyman Aaron J. Levy, of the 4th
Assembly District, and as many to Alfred
E. Smith of the 2nd, and that they have
had over twenty replies from these gentlemen.
It is the first time that the
women of these districts have been sufficiently
aroused to desire to help the suffrage
campaign.

The 18th Assembly District of Brooklyn
is planning a series of suffrage teas,
or porch parties, during the month of
May. Mrs. Elizabeth L. Osborne is
leader.

WHAT IS GOING ON.
MANHATTAN BOROUGH

Tuesday, May 3rd - Equal Suffrage League
of New York. Hotel Astor, 3 p. m.
Speakers, Mrs. Montifiore and presidents
of suffrage clubs.

Tuesday, May 3rd - East Side Equal Rights
League. Headquarters, 225 Chrystie Street,
8 p. m. Speaker, Miss Beatrice Forbes-
Robertson.

Tuesday, May 3rd - Open-air meeting, 8
p. m. 125th Street, between Lexington
Avenue and Third Avenue.

Wednesday, May 4th - Equality League of
Self-Supporting Women. 43 East 22nd
Street, 8 p. m. Speaker, Mr. Joseph Day
Lee on "An Actual Election."

Wednesday, May 4th - 27th Assembly District
of the Woman Suffrage Party. Meeting
at Headquarters of the Collegiate
Equal Suffrage League, 20 East 33rd Street,
8 p. m. Social affair. Speeches, Refreshments.

Wednesday, May 4th - Meeting of the 10th
Election District of the 25th Assembly
District of the Women Suffrage Party, 3
Washington Square, 4 p. m., at the studio
of Miss Delahanty. Speaker: Miss Forbes-
Robertson.

6

THE WOMAN VOTER

Wednesday, May 4th - Meeting of the Club
of the 28th Assembly District of the Woman
Suffrage Party. Union Settlement, 248 East
105th Street. Mrs. Katharine Butler,
Leader. 8 p. m.

Wednesday, May 4th - East Side Equal 
Rights League, 225 Chrystie Street. Illustrated
lecture on "The Science of Sex,"
8 p. m. All women welcome. Speaker: Dr.
Anna Mercy.

Wednesday, May 4th - "At Home" of the
19th Assembly District of the Women Suffrage
Party, at the Harlem Forum, 8 p. m.

Friday, May 6th - "At Home" of 31st Assembly
District at residence of Dr. and Mrs.
Robinson, 12 Mt. Morris Park, West. Good
speakers, music.

Saturday, May 7th - East Side Equal
Rights League, Debate: "Resolved, That
Woman Suffrage will benefit the Human
Race." Affirmative, Miss Henrietta Mercy;
negative, Mr. William Bredin. 8 p. m. 225
Chrystie Street.

Sunday, May 8th - Suffrage "At Home," for
the 31st Assembly District of the Woman
Suffrage Party, at the residence of Dr.
Helen Knight, 35 Mt. Morris Park West.
8 p. m.

Monday, May 9th - Musical Reception, given
by the 19th Assembly District Branch of
the Co-operative Equal Suffrage League.
Minnetonka Club, 357 West 119th Street,
8.30 p. m. Guests of honor. Mrs. May
Preston Slosson, Mr. Edwin E. Slosson,
Editor of the Independent. Everybody
welcome.

Tuesday, May 10th - Important meeting
for District Leaders and Election Captains
of the Woman Suffrage Party of Manhattan
Borough, at the home of the Borough
Secretary, Mrs. Andrew McKinley, 471
Park Avenue. All are urged to be present
as important questions of method and of
policy will be discussed. 8.15 p. m.

Thursday, May 12th - Mass Meeting of the
22nd Assembly District of the Woman Suffrage
Party. Labor Temple, 243 to 247
East 84th Street. Speakers: Dr. Maude
Glasgow, Judge William H. Wood, Mrs.
Frederick Nathan, Mr. Max Eastman. 8.15
p. m. All are invited. Stereopticon.

Thursday, May 12th - Meeting of the Joan
of Arc W. S. League, at the studio of Mr.
and Mrs. Herman Lee Meader, 178 Fifth
Avenue, at 8 p. m. An interesting and
entertaining evening. Mme. Van Norman,
president.

Saturday, May 14th - East Side Equal
Rights League. Miss Amy Wren will
speak on Naturalization Laws, 225 Chrystie
Street, 8 p. m.

Wednesday, 18th - 27th Assembly District
of the Woman Suffrage Party. Meeting at
Headquarters of the Collegiate Equal Suffrage
League, 20 East 33rd Street. 8 p. m.
Social affair. Speeches. Refreshments.

Thursday, May 19th - Meeting of the Club
of the 28th Assembly District, of the
Woman Suffrage Party. Union Settlement,
248 East 105th Street, Mrs. Katharine Butler,
Leader, 8 p. m.

Saturday, May 21st - Open-air Rally in
Union Square.

Sunday, May 22nd - Suffrage "At Home,"
for the 31st Assembly District of the
Woman Suffrage Party, at the residence
of Dr. Helen Knight, 35 Mt. Morris Park,
West. 8 p. m.

Monday, May 23rd - Mass Meeting. 19th
Senatorial District of the Woman Suffrage
Party, Corrigan Hall, Broadway and 157th
Street, 8 p. m. Mrs. John Dewey, Leader 
of 21st Ass. Dist.; Miss Elmina Wilson,
Leader of 23rd Ass. Dist.; Dr. Helen
Knight Leader of the 31st Ass. Dist.

The Sunday "At Homes" of the Equality
League of Self-supporting Women will be
held every Sunday in May, at the home of
Mrs. Hilliard, 210 Futh Avenue. All interested
are welcome. Speeches at every
meeting.

BROOKLYN BOROUGH.

Wednesday, May 4th - Th 13th, 14th, and
15th Ass. Dists. of the W. S. P. will meet
at 29 Broome Street, the home of Mrs.
Neazes, at 8 p. m.

Thursday, May 5th - Men's Club of St.
Paul's Church, Sterling Place and N. Y.
Avenue. Woman Suffrage meeting, by request.
Miss Amy Wren will preside.
Speakers: Miss Wren, Mr. Elmer Thompson,
Mrs. M. W. Suffren, and Mrs. Kate
Upson Clark.

Every Saturday, open air meetings will be
held by the Bedford League at the corner
of Jefferson Avenue and Broadway, at
8 p. m.

June 7th. Annual Convention of the Kings
County W. S. Association, to be held at
the club house of the Good Citizenship
League, Flushing, L. I. Speeches by Prof.
Frances Squires Potter, and others. Eminent
guests of honor. Box luncheon.
Public program at 3 p. m. Open air
meeting to follow.

BRONX BOROUGH

Thursday, May 5th - Meeting of the 32nd
Assembly Dist. of the Woman Suffrage
Party, at the home of Mrs. W. W. Penfield,
730 East 242nd Street. Final organization
of the district club and election of
officers.

Every Friday evening during May an
open air meeting will be held at 138th and
Willis Avenue.

QUEENS BOROUGH

Wednesday, May 11th - The Equal Franchise
Society of Flushing will hold a Mass
Meeting in the League Building, in the
interest of woman suffrage. 8 p. m.

THE WOMAN SUFFRAGE
PARTY
CITY OFFICERS

Chairman, Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt.
Secretary, Mrs. Martha Wentworth
Suffren.
Treasurer, Mrs. Margaret Chanler Aldrich.

MANHATTAN BOROUGH

Chairman, Mrs. James Lees Laidlaw.
Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Chas. Beard.
Recording Secretary, Mrs. Andrew
McKinley.
Corresponding Secretary, Mr. Joseph
O'Brien.
Treasurer, Mrs. J. Hedges Crowell.

ASSEMBLY DISTRICT LEADERS

Assembly District No. 1 - Mrs. M. F. B.
O'Connell, 285 W. Houston St.
Assembly District No. 2 - Miss Dock,
265 Henry St.
Assembly District No. 3 - Dr. Anna Mercy,
132 W. Houston St.


THE WOMAN VOTER

7

Assembly District No. 4 - Mrs. Brewer,
283 Rivington St.
Assembly District No. 5 - Mrs. V. G.
Simkhovitch, 26 Jones St.
Assembly District No. 6 - Miss Gertrude
Crystal, 115 Cannon St.
Assembly District No. 7 - Mrs. Sarah J.
Loomis, 162 Ninth Ave.
Assembly District No. 8 - Miss Mary
Alden Hopkins, 95 Rivington St.
Assembly District No. 9 - Mrs. Geo. W.
Eastbourn, 504 W. 43d Street.
Assembly District No. 10 - Mrs. Harold
Spielberg, 132 E. 29th St.
Assembly District No. 11 - Miss Henrietta
Bergen, 413 W. 46th St.
Assembly District No. 12 - Miss Elinor
Lindgren,
Assembly District No. 13 - Mrs. E. Butterworth,
939 8th Ave.
Assembly District No. 14 - Mrs. Rhetta
Childe Dorr, 331 East 31st St.
Assembly District No. 15 - Mrs. Frederick
Nathan, 162 W. 86th St.
Assembly District No. 16 - Miss Margaret
Watson, 414 East 65th St.
Assembly District No. 17 - Mrs. William
Tod Helmuth, 302 C. P. W.
Assembly District No. 18 - Miss Alice P.
Gannett, 446 East 72d St.
Assembly District No. 19 - Miss Alice
Davis, 1230 Amsterdam Ave.
Assembly District No. 20 - Dr. Jane Robins,
535 East 78th St.
Assembly District No. 21 - Mrs. John
Dewey, 49 St. Nicholas Ter.
Assembly District No. 22 - Dr. Maude
Glasgow, 110 East 81st St.
Assembly District No. 23 - Miss E. Wilson,
 619 West 144th St.
Assembly District No. 25 - Mrs. William
Ivins, 55 East 25th St.
Assembly District No. 26 - Dr. Anna Freedman,
1427 East Madison Ave.
Assembly District No. 27 - Dr. Anna Von
Sholly, 27 East 35th St.
Assembly District No. 28 - Mrs. Katherine
Butler, 57 West 124th St.
Assembly District No. 29 - Mrs. Dalziel,
103 East 79th St.
Assembly District No. 31 - Dr. Helen
Knight, 35 Mount Morris Park West.

BRONX BOROUGH

Chairman, Mrs. W. W. Penfield.

ASSEMBLY DISTRICT LEADERS

Assembly District No. 30 - Mrs. J. W.
Johnson, 695 East 137th St.
Assembly District No. 32 - Mrs. Margaret
Moore, Bronx Place, Wakefield, N.
Y. C.
Assembly District No. 33 - Miss Mabel
Sears, 493 E. 162nd St.
Assembly District No. 34 - Mrs. Martha
Poucher, Clinton Ave.
Assembly District No. 35 - Miss Kate A.
Tunney, 2158 Washington Ave.

BROOKLYN BOROUGH

Chairman, Miss Ida Craft.
Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Robert E. Elder.
Treasurer, Miss Sara Stevenson.
Recording Secretary, Miss Amy Wren.
Corresponding Secretary, Miss Ada K.
Turner.

ASSEMBLY DISTRICT LEADERS

Assembly District No. 1 - Mrs. Robt. Elder,
80 Willow St.
Assembly District No. 2 - Miss Mary Buckley,
274 Jay St.
Assembly District No. 3 - Miss Amy Wren, 
215 Montague St.
Assembly District No. 4 - Mrs. Rose Brunner, 
103 Wilson St.
Assembly District No. 5 - Miss Mildred
Bennett, 964 Greene Ave.
Assembly District No. 6 - Dr. Anna Martin
King, 464 Willoughby Ave.
Assembly District No. 7 - Miss Mary E.
Keegan, 634 Third Ave.
Assembly District No. 9 - Mrs. Mame
Fry, 1216 Fourty-ninth St.
Assembly District No. 10 - Mrs. D. F.
Barker, 87 Lafayette Ave.
Assembly District No. 11 - Dr. Charlotte
Woolly, 676 Prospect Pl.
Assembly District No. 12 - Mrs. Anna M.
French, 496 Third St.
Assembly District No. 13 - Mrs. Agnes
Crowell, 978 Lorimer St.
Assembly District No. 14 - Dr. Emma
Antonious, 108 Newell St.
Assembly District No. 16 - Mrs. Margaret
McGill, 1642 E. 13th St.
Assembly District No. 17 - Miss Lenda
Hanks, Nostrand Ave. and Halsey St.
Assembly District No. 18 - Mrs. Elizabeth
L. Osbourne, 484 East 16th St.
Assembly District No. 20 - Miss Ida David,
29 Woodbine St.
Assembly District No. 21 - Mrs. Hussey,
341 S. 5th St.

QUEENS BOROUGH

Chairman, Mrs. James H. Ecob, 100
Sanford Ave., Flushing L. I.
Vice-Chairman, Mrs. John J. Wynn,
Greenwood Ave., Far Rockaway, L. I.
Secretary, Miss Valentena Whiting, 251
Sanford Ave., Flushing, L. I.
Treasurer, Mrs. Adele Miln Linville, 6
Madison Ave., Jamaica, L. I.

ASSEMBLY DISTRICT LEADERS

Assembly District No. 2 - Mrs. H. P.
Huling, 51 Elmhurst Ave., Elmhurst.
Assembly District No. 3 - Mrs. Richard
Mott, Far Rockaway.
Assembly District No. 4 - Mrs. Cora Perry
Hamilton, 36 Park Ave., Jamaica, L. I.

RICHMOND BOROUGH

Assembly District No. 1 - Mrs. William
Goodenew Willcox, 115 Davis Ave., W.
New Brighton.

8
THE WOMAN VOTER

Woman Suffrage Party
STATIONERY, PENHOLDERS
PENCILS and BUTTONS..
For Sale at
HEADQUARTERS
ONE MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK CITY
TELEPHONE 66 GRAMERCY

JOHN V. GARTLAND
FURNITURE, ANTIQUES
BRIC-A-BRAC, REPAIRING
POLISHING, UPHOLSTERING
303 FULTON STREET
BROOKLYN, N.Y.
One Block from Borough Hall

HOTEL ST. GEORGE
BROOKLYN HEIGHTS
NEW YORK CITY

THE NAME
REMINGTON
means Typewriter and more
for it means the sum-total of typewriter merit.
THE new Remington models 10 and 11 combine every
merit associated with the word Remington, every
merit associated with the broadest use of the word
Typewriter, with fundamental improvements hitherto
unknown to the users of the writing machine.
REMINGTON TYPEWRITER CO, Inc.
New York and Everywhere

HORTON'S
ICE CREAM
Is used by nearly everybody
Try you will like it
Sold nearly Everywhere
DEPOT, 305 4th AVE.

CLARENDON HOTEL
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
WASHINGTON - JOHNSON - FULTON ST.
JOHN HILL

Phone 3117 Main
Frank Doudera, Pres.
CHAS. DOUDERA
INC.
INTERIOR REMODELING
AND DECORATION
Embracing Wall and Ceiling Decorations, Architectural
Woodwork and Mantels, Imported
and Domestic Wall Papers, Wall Hangings in
Silks, Burlaps, Leathers and Grass Cloths
EXTERIOR PAINTING
EIGHTY COURT STREET
BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN

11

Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.