Washington, DC, 2000.
Preceding element provides place and date of transcription only.
For more information about this text and this American Memory collection, refer to accompanying matter.
The National Digital Library Program at the Library of Congress makes digitized historical materials available for education and scholarship.
This transcription is intended to have an accuracy rate of 99.95 percent or greater and is not intended to reproduce the appearance of the original work. The accompanying images provide a facsimile of this work and represent the appearance of the original.
ADDRESSES
AT THE
DINNER
TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
BY THE
CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON
UNDER THE AUSPICES OF
THE BOARD OF TRADE
AND
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
SATURDAY EVENING, MAY EIGHTH
NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINE
PRESS OF W. F. ROBERTS COMPANY WASHINGTON
Introductory Address of Mr. Edson
Address of Honorable Wendell Phillips Stafford
Address of the President
Reproduction of Contents of Souvenir
By transfer
The White House
March 3rd, 1913
Mr. President:
Your presence here to-night is keenly appreciated, and great pleasure and value are attached to the occasion.
It is the first time in the memory of any of our people that the President has accepted an invitation to dinner, to meet and confer with the citizens of Washington upon District matters. The interest you have shown at this early date in your administration is unprecedented, and quickly inspires the citizens of Washington with the belief that a clearer and a more correct understanding will be brought about as to the true relation of the Federal and local governments. While the nation, we are sure, feels a great pride and interest in the nation's Capital, the administration of purely municipal domestic affairs has often not been understood by the country, nor even by Congress.
Our present government has been, in the main, the most successful municipal government in this country. In the thirty years of its history not a single instance of scandal has occurred, nor a hint of corruption, nor of the existence of rings. Practically every dollar expended by
Yet with this good record, the defect referred to exists, which is growing more complicated as our population and importance increase, and that is, in not fixing a demarcation between what is properly intended to be a Federal control and what should properly and wisely be accorded the people of Washington, in the administration of the government, in purely local affairs, such as hospitals, penal institutions, police and fire regulations, and especially schools and charities.
Whenever it is apparent that any improvement can be made in any branch or in any detail of the machinery of the government, it will be wise to make the change, unless it is plain that the effort to do so is, for the time being, likely to endanger the main structure.
Mr. President, this dinner was tendered to you by the Board of Trade and the Chamber of Commerce on behalf of and representing all the citizens of the District of Columbia. The Board of Trade was organized about twenty years ago, and the Chamber of Commerce has had several years of activity. It was soon found, after the establishment of the present government, that there was no way in which the people of Washington could collectively voice their sentiments on local public matters. Several ineffectual methods were adopted, and, finally, the Board of Trade was organized. It is not a trade body, as its name would imply. It has proved almost wholly to have been engaged in civic effort. It numbers over seven hundred public-spirited citizens, embracing practically all reputable professions and business occupations.
It has always been the purpose of the organization to consider carefully all questions arising in civic matters, and never to declare itself on any subject until certain that its position was right. The effect has been that the organization enjoys the confidence of the general and
The Chamber of Commerce, with a larger number of members, was organized more particularly to correct a really neglected branch of public effort in the commercial, manufacturing, and business interests of the District, and it also engages in many civic activities. In the short time since its organization much has been accomplished by its efforts, and the city's material business interests and importance thereby have made substantial progress and improvement. It has made intelligent and comprehensive plans for the future, and these plans, we feel confident, will prove valuable and successful.
We feel sure, Mr. President, that we have in both these bodies and in the citizenship of Washington, a people who, in character, culture, public spirit, patriotism, and philanthropy, will compare favorably with the citizenship of any city in the nation.
So impressed are we with this innovation, and the fruitful results that are certain to follow, that I venture to suggest that this happy occasion may establish an annual function, where the people may meet The President and confer about what has been accomplished and what is the best way to accomplish the most in the coming of each year. It should be the yearly mile-stone in the progress and welfare of the District of Columbia.
I believe, if this suggestion is carried out, it will be looked forward to each year with the greatest possible pleasure, as the greatest event of the year to the citizens of Washington, and in the best interest of the Nation's Capital.
The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has Federal and local jurisdiction. In this respect it differs from any other court in the United States, and therefore, it has become the custom to appoint jurists, part from the States and part from the District of Columbia.
Justice Wendell Phillip Stafford was appointed from Vermont by President Roosevelt May 1, 1904—just five years ago.
In this time he has become well acquainted with the people of Washington and with District affairs—more so, probably, than any of his predecessors or associates in the same length of time.
We have learned to respect and esteem him as an able, upright judge; a scholarly, cultured gentleman; a splendid citizen, and an ideal neighbor and friend—Justice Stafford.
Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States, and you, my Fellow-citizens:
I pledge you in a sentiment that is almost a prayer: “May this prove a fortunate day for the District of Columbia.” Without doubt the people of the District look upon the occasion that has drawn us here as a most happy augury. The Chief Magistrate of the nation, not more respected than beloved, has signified his willingness to sit at their board, to break their bread and taste their salt. It is a proof of interest and kindness that has touched all hearts. We who are seated around these tables are only a handful out of many thousands who in thought and sympathy are with us at this feast. Presidents have come and gone, doing their duty by the District as they saw it, but in the press and throng of larger duties too often prevented from giving to local matters the attention they deserved. Never before has a President at the beginning of his term thus held out the hand of friendship to our people. Our President has seen much of Washington. But more than that, he has traveled far and wide, he has studied the capitals of other countries, their institutions and their laws. And thus he adds to the true promptings of a generous heart the wisdom of a ripe experience. Those are the qualities that are needed here and now. It is the hour for a statesman. The population of the
The men who made the Constitution were absolutely certain of one thing, and that was that this Federal government must have a home of its own. “Over such a district,” the Constitution in so many words declares, the Congress shall “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.” So far as general legislation is concerned, there is no power in Congress to delegate this authority. It must legislate itself. When it attempted once to bestow upon a Territorial legislature for the District the authority to make general laws, the court declared the attempt unconstitutional and vain. The utmost it can do in this direction is to authorize the enactment of local regulations. No attempt to legislate for Washington will be worth the making unless it is made in the same spirit in which the founders worked. It was said of an Eastern temple, “It was designed by Titans and finished by jewelers.” The tribute is capable of a double meaning. A great work should be grandly conceived and then executed with minutest pains. We wish as much for Washington. But the jeweler must not meddle with the architect's design. If he does, men may say: “It was planned by Titans; it was finished by pygmies.” Less than half a century had elapsed from the founding of the Capital before a congress was found pusillanimous enough to surrender and cede back thirty square miles of Federal soil, and the noble patrimony the nation had received from the Father of his Country was broken in two, and the Virginia portion cast away. Our task to-night is to put the Washington of our day to the test of the great principles that controlled the
What do we mean when we say the District of Columbia? There are at least three meanings in which the expression may be accurately used. It may mean the mere territory, the seventy square miles of land and water. It may mean the municipal corporation which has been created by the act of Congress. It may mean the political community, which may be called, and by the Supreme Court has been repeatedly called, for certain purposes, a State. In this third sense it is not a mere municipal corporation, but is filled with the sovereignty of the United States of America. It is of the utmost importance to distinguish between these meanings, especially between the second and the third, if we would keep our thinking clear. Let us take a moment to trace this distinction in the transactions of a century.
When the United States, in 1800, took possession of this territory it found local self-government here. For two generations it left it undisturbed. “Prior to 1871,” said Mr. Justice Bradley, in a case before the court of last resort, “the government of the United States, except so far as the protection of its own public buildings and property was concerned, took no part in the local government. The officers of the departments, even the President himself, exercised no local authority in city affairs.” In 1871 the Congress created here a new government expressly for “municipal purposes.” It had its governor and its legislature—the latter, of course, elected by the people. It had also a board of public works, whose members, including the governor as its head, were appointed by the President and Senate. This board laid out the money raised in taxes, and assessed the owners benefited by improvements. The court held that its acts were binding on the District, and that, in spite of its appointment by the President, it was only a branch of the municipal government.
Nevertheless, the contention was made before the Supreme Court of the United States that the effect of the new act was to destroy the District of Columbia as a municipal corporation, except in name, and to make it nothing more than a department of the national government. The contention was ruled down. The fact that its officers were appointed by the President, said the court, did not make the District of Columbia any less a municipal body corporate. Recognizing the general desirableness of local self-government, it held that the principle of representative government was legally satisfied when the appointment of local officers was made by other officers who themselves had been elected by the people, saying: “The people are the recognized source of all authority, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately or by a circuitous process.”
Whether a flaw is to be found in this reasoning as applied to the situation before the court, inasmuch as the people of the District of Columbia, the people to be governed, never did have a share in electing the President and Senate, who were the appointing officers, I will not stop here to inquire; for my present purpose is to point out the separation that has always been recognized between the District of Columbia, as a mere municipal corporation, and the District of Columbia as a quasi state.
There is only one sovereign in the District of Columbia: Indeed, in respect to sovereignty, the situation is precisely the same as if there were no other domain affected by the central government; as if all its functions were performed here. Why, then, it may be asked, should there be such a municipality as the District of Columbia at all? Why
In the meantime the city, growing by leaps and bounds, has doubled and trebled its present population, and we have here a million people, without a word to say, in theory or fact, directly or indirectly, about the streets they walk, the water they drink, the light they burn, or the education of their children—everything done for them, and done by officers in whose selection they had no voice and who have been selected with no particular reference to their opinions or their needs. To some of us that is not a pleasing spectacle.
Certainly we must not forget that this is a national city. There is little risk of that. But there are institutions, many and important, which are not national in their aim or character. They are exactly such institutions
Those courts of the District which deal not exclusively with local controversies, but in large measure with disputes to which the nation is a party, may perhaps be fairly made up, one-half of members drawn from the locality and one-half from the nation at large. This seems the more appropriate, inasmuch as those who hold these offices hold them during good behavior, and when they come here come hoping to behave well enough to remain through life!
But many offices relate exclusively to this community, at least as much so as the offices of any community can be said to relate to itself alone, and why should not these be filled by local citizens? Even if there should be no statute thus restricting the selection, ought not such a course be pursued as a permanent policy? Why should the people of the District have their deeds recorded by a man from California? Why should Washington be the only city in the land that cannot have a postmaster appointed from among its citizens? If we are to keep up the form of municipal government at all, does not a fair consistency demand that we should treat it as municipal, as existing, among other purposes, to care for all that is peculiar and local in the interests and needs of the community? Will it not be wisdom to treat it so? Let us not forget that there are thousands upon thousands here who have no other abiding place. Their roots have struck deep into the soil. They love the city with
Who knows? Perhaps we have come already to the parting of the ways. Little by little the local hold is lost. Here a hospital is drawn under the control of a department. There the jail slips out of the hands of the District into the hands of the Attorney General. Now it is proposed that the schools be placed under a bureau; and now, that the city shall be officered on the principle of efficiency alone, by any one who can be found who is most competent, though he never saw Washington before. It would be something to assume that among 350,000 such as we find gathered here, not a single man could be found capable of conducting the business of the city. But if it could be conjectured that in some far off place a commissioner might be found somewhat more efficient, would that difference in efficiency make up for the sacrifice of one more bond—sometimes it seems as if it were the last—between the government and the locality?
The problem of city government is not altogether, I venture to think, a matter of perfecting the machinery. Men are not altogether machines. They have sentiments; they have hearts. And if there had not been sentiment and heart, as well as brain, there would be to-day no Washington.
As far as the municipal government is concerned, the people of the District seem to have settled down to the arrangement that there should be no suffrage. They accept it—very much as Lord Dundreary's brother Sam accepted his embarrassment in being born and especially in being born bald-headed. “You see
Sir, I am not inclined to discuss to-night the various proposed changes in the constitution of the city government. These concern a possible increase of efficiency in the municipal machine. In what I am yet to say I prefer to dwell upon a broader question. But no one ought to refer to the form of government that has given shape to our affairs since 1874 without doing justice to the splendid advanecs that have been made under its direction. In 1878 the plan was adopted of raising upon the ratable property here a tax of 1½ per cent. and of matching that with an equal amount from the national Treasury.
Up to that time the District had carried the burden year by year, almost or quite alone, and was sinking under a debt of many millions. Under the new arrangement Washington has sprung to her feet. Parks have been laid out, avenues extended, bridges built, public buildings erected, grade crossings abolished, railway terminals improved, a magnificent new station built, the sewerage and water systems practically made over, millions upon millions spent toward making the city in health and beauty what it ought to be. Meantime absolute fidelity in the discharge of duties, no stain or hint of corruption, scarcely a dishonest transaction even charged. Surely that is a record for any city to cherish and for those who have had a share in making it to look back upon with pride.
Some forbidding obstacles have been encountered and are met with still. One is, this being compelled to pay for permanent improvements out of the current income. What other city is expected to pay for its great works, to last for generations, out of its ordinary receipts, meanwhile taking it out of its schools and scrimping its legitimate expenses? Any other city would raise the money on bonds and pay them a little at a time. Washington need not be bonded, since the national treasury can supply it with a loan and let it be paid back at a reasonable rate; but the principle is sound It is enforced by the late Secretary of the Treasury in his able report for 1908, where he sets forth with great lucidity the need of a national budget to bring about an adjustment between disbursements and receipts, with a rigid separation between expenditures for the ordinary service of the government and those for permanent public works, the latter to be met by bond issues.
But there are obstacles of graver import, and they constitute defects radical and without remedy in the present relation between nation and District. They can be removed only by a change in that relation itself. We shall all agree that to legislate wisely requires two things—first, a lively interest in the object of legislation; second, a clear intelligence touching the subject in hand. There being no representative from the District itself in either branch of Congress, it becomes necessary to commit the interests of the District, and the interests of the nation in the District, to hands unfamiliar with the subject and without any lively interest therein.
The Congress as a whole cannot be expected to supply these requisites. No one pretends it does. It is engaged upon a thousand subjects, many of which appear to its members to be vastly more important than any that concerns the District. We cannot wonder at it; it is in the nature of things that it should be so. The step logically required by this condition is next taken.
A committee in the House and a committee in the Senate are specially charged with these affairs. Not that theirmembers
of these bodies, with the prestige that belongs to members; not figureheads, not lobbyists, not delegates, but a member of the Senate and two members of the House, able, enlightened, informed, fit to represent the will and judgment of 350,000 citizens gathered within these bounds.
But that requires an amendment of the Constitution! So it does. An amendment in strict accord with the principles of the Constitution, made necessary by the changed conditions of 120 years, made unavoidable and inevitable by the changes that will take place in the fifty or one hundred years to come. Do you imagine that when 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 shall be swarming in our borders they will be the only people in this broad domain to have no hand in the government of this magnificent republic, no word in the election of its President, no tongue in the national assembly?
When 1,000,000 men are here, when they ask why they alone can have no part in a republican form of government, do you imagine they will call it a sufficient answer to be told “Because you live in Washington? If you lived in Pumpkin Hook or Bloody Gulch, you might, but not while you live here.”
Bear in mind, I am not speaking of municipal suffrage. I am speaking of the right of a million of simple American citizens to have a share—less than a one hundreth part, it would be—in the legislation that concerns their country and its Capital. Suppose they have no more right than the same number of people who live anywhere else in the United States. Have they not as much? And that is all the right of which I speak.
But I hear it said, “The people of the District do not care for suffrage.” Well, all I can say to that is this: If the people of the District of Columbia do not really care
USERFILE.
“Say, seignors, are the old Niles dry?”
I cannot believe that the human heart has changed. I cannot believe that principles have lost their power. I cannot believe that the deep instincts that built up this wonderful fabric of free government have died out here in the very seat of its majesty, and that here alone the “bright consummate flower” of liberty has gone to seed. There is no doubt that they need quickening. There is no doubt that they have sunk into the torpor of faculties disused. But hold before their eyes the hope of what I am describing, and you shall see whether self-respect and the desire for self-government are dead.
Sir, if I had it in my power to-night to dispose of this matter as I would, do you know what I would do? I would not change the constitution. I would not give the people of the District suffrage. What I would do is this: I would set to their dry hearts the flame of that old Promethean torch, the love of liberty. I would fill them with divine unrest at their condition. I would set beside that condition, a picture of the dignity and power they might enjoy as real citizens of their country. I would move them first to desire and then to demand their portion of our heritage. I would nerve them to toil for it and fight for it through years of bitter opposition—and then at last, when the agitation had created a new Washington, when 400,000 or 500,000 people were calling as with one mighty voice for the great prize of representative government—then, then, I would bestow it on them. And, sir, I believe that is exactly what the god of time will do.
A city of the dumb! Mr. Chairman, I have heard you speak of a little village on an island off the New England coast inhabited entirely by deaf mutes. They live unto themselves. They marry and intermarry and rear children who are dumb as they. They go about their tasks, but speak no word. The busy hum of life goes on
But that is not the Washington that shall be. Only let the agitation begin. Let it start here to-night. Why not make the occasion historic? Let every true son of Washington, native, or adopted, go out from this feast strengthened and heartened for a long enlistment. Let him know for once in his life the glory of being possessed by a grand idea—the sublime enthusiasm of being lost in absolute devotion to a great cause. Let them meet and join hands and stir one another's hearts, quicken one another's minds, and sustain one another's courage. Let it go on. It will meet with opposition; it will meet with ridicule; it will meet with censure; it will take years; it may take many—but it can have but one possible outcome if the sons of Washington are worthy of the name they bear.
Again I say, I am not speaking now of municipal suffrage at all. Let the present arrangement, or some improved substitute for it, be continued if you please. What has that to do with the broad and fundamental fact that the hundreds of thousands here should have their due and proportionate representation in the National Assembly—should have the same right that other citizens enjoy of giving their votes in the election of the Chief Magistrate of the republic?
The republic! It is not alone for the District of Columbia that I bring the proposition forward. The interests of the nation would be served as well. They would be served first of all by the increased efficiency and propriety of the laws that would be enacted; in the next place, by the fact that the members from the District, being familiar with the local situation, and serving on the local committees, would relieve the members from other States of much of their present burden, leaving them freer to perform the duties for which they were specially selected. Further, it would serve the nation by adding to
But, more perhaps than all the rest, the change would serve the interests of the whole nation by recognizing the grand principle of representative government here, in the most conspicuous position in the country, where hitherto it has been cast aside. Men could no longer point the finger of scorn at us, and say: “Washington gives the lie to your pretentions. Look! In the very seat of national greatness you acknowledge by your acts that your form of government is a failure.” Until we are honest enough to live up to our principles, we shall deserve all our troubles; and, sir, from the bottom of my heart I do believe that the greatest troubles we have spring from this very fact, that we have turned our back upon those principles. We shall never find peace or safety until we return to them again.
Shall we say we fear the suffrages of ignorance and vice—the ignorance and vice that we ourselves are to blame for—that could not last a generation if we did our duty by our fellow-men? Shame on the race or the community that holds in its hands the wealth of the continent and carries in its brains the accumulated culture of the centuries and yet refuses to lift that ignorance and vice to the level of enlightenment and virtue! Tear down your shacks and shanties. Let in the sun upon your noisome alleys. Build decent habitations for the poor to dwell in. Make your prisons moral hospitals instead of breeding cells for crime. Spread education broadcast in the streets. Let us do the work of Christians at our doors before we admit that our fathers were fools and that democratic government is all a dark mistake. Never until the men of wealth and education have spent their last surplus dollar and exhausted the ingenuity of their brains in the effort to make their fellow-men worthy to be sharers in the government, never until then will they have a right to hide behind an excuse like that.
I admit that an ignorant and degraded class armed with the ballot is a menace to the safety of the state; but I
We must find fault with the Creator if we wish to complain that wealth, virtue, and culture cannot be safe in the neighborhood of poverty, ignorance and vice. He means that it shall be so. He sees Blagden's alley as well as Dupont Circle, and He has made it certain by the laws of nature, by every wind that breathes across the city, by every tiny insect that takes its unregarded flight from home to home, that Dupont Circle shall not be safe while Blagden's alley is rotting with disease and filth. The laws of nature are democratic. It is just the same in government. A community that has the power to lift ignorance and vice to its own level and will not stretch out its hand to do it, deserves to be endangered by ignorance and vice; and eternal justice will see to it that it is so. We cannot escape our duties; let us face them, then, like men.
If Franklin or Jefferson were here to-day and saw this mighty population with no voice in its affairs, he would lay his finger, like a wise physician, on the body politic and say: “Here—here is where you are ailing. Have faith in the principles that brought us through.” Let us take up the stitch our fathers dropped. Let us apply to our situation the rules of government they applied to theirs. If you should say to Jefferson, “Why should we be disturbed? Will it give us more interest on our money?” Jefferson would answer you, “That I cannot tell, but this I know, that the man who loves freedom for anything but freedom's self was made to be a slave!”
Even if we should fail, men would write over our graves the profound saying of Guizot, “The struggle itself supplied in some measure the place of liberty.”
Sir, the danger to this country lies not, as we sometimes think, in the poor immigrant who flees to us from afar, still smarting from the lash of tyranny—ignorant and low-minded though he be. The prize of citizenship will appeal to him. He will clutch it and hold it fast as “the immediate jewel of his soul.” The danger lies in him who, “like the base Judean, throws a pearl away richer than all his tribe,” in the man who will share the blessings of liberty without bearing its burdens; in the man who is willing that impudence and theft shall sit in the seat of power, so long as he is left free to pile up his millions or scatter them like a lord on the playground of Europe.
The Capital of the United States—what is it? It is not marble palaces nor lofty domes nor splendid obelisks. If it is anything, it typifies a great idea. The deepest word that was ever uttered to interpret that idea was wrung from lips that trembled between hope and despair upon the field of Gettysburg—“of the people, for the people, by
And now, Mr. President, at the end as at the beginning, we turn to you, not to express the hope that you may discharge the new duties with clearer sight or firmer fidelity than you discharged the old—for that would be impossible—but that in your more exalted station you may find a wider field for your beneficent endeavors, cheered, as you will be, by the personal love of millions of your fellows and supported by the unwavering faith of all America.
Address of
the President of the United States
Mr. Chairman, and the
Solid Men of Washington:
I wish to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the courtesy that you have extended to me this evening in this magnificent banquet, and in your coming here to take part in this occasion. I am proud of it, if it be the case, and I must believe it from the assurances given tonight, that this is the first time that a President of the United States has ever had the pleasure of meeting on such an occasion and under such circumstances, the business men of Washington. I hope for close intimacy; I hope that we may come together and we may discuss these things, because certainly we need it. I take the utmost personal pride in the city of Washington. It thrills my heart every day to look out of the back windows of the White House—for the short time I have been there—and whenever I get the opportunity, to see this beautiful city in which we are permitted to live—these avenues and streets, constructed on a magnificent plan, looking forward for centuries; these trees, planted with great foresight to make every part of Washington a park; these vistas into which always creeps unbidden that beautiful shaft that marks the memory of the founder of this city.
I have not been here very long in the city of Washington, as some men count it long. I was here two years,
In spite of that experience, with respect to Washington I am a nationalist. This city is the home of the government of a nation and when men who were just as much imbued with the principles of civil liberty as any who have come after, Washington at the head, put into the constitution the provision with reference to the government of the District of Columbia, they knew what they were doing and spoke for a coming possible eighty millions of people who should insist that the home of the government of that eighty millions of people should be governed by the representatives of that eighty millions of people; and that if there were in that eighty millions of people men who desired to come and share in the grandeur of that capital and live in a city of magnificent beauty as this was, and enjoy all the privileges, then they come with their eyes open as to the character of the government that they were to have, and they must know that they must depend not upon the principles ordinarily governing in popular government, but that they must trust, in order to secure their liberty—to get their
Now I want to say, with deference to this discussion, that if this meeting, or subsequent meetings, are to be devoted to securing an amendment to the Constitution, by which you are going to disturb the principle of two Senators, from every State, and you are going to abolish the provision that was put in there
ex-industria
by George Washington, you will not get ahead in the matter of better government in Washington by such meetings. I do not want to seem to be abrupt, but I believe it is possible by such meetings as this to arouse the interest of Congress, and the Executive, to the necessity of consulting the people of Washington, to let them act as Americans, act when they don't have the right of suffrage—let them act by the right of petition, and are they not exercising that right all the time? Isn't it possible to determine on the part of the committees of the House and the Senate what the attitude of the Washington citizens is? Why, the government that we have today in Washington everybody admits is a good government. Has it not been brought about through the aid of those very committees in the House and Senate who you say know nothing about Washington, and who make their knowledge, or lack of knowledge, ridiculous by showing it? We are all imperfect. We cannot expect perfect government, but what we ought to do is to pursue practical methods, and not, I submit with deference to Judge Stafford, make it seem as if the people of Washington were suffering some great and tremendous load and sorrow, when as a matter of fact they are the envy of the citizens of other cities.
Washington intended this to be a Federal city, and it is a Federal city, and it tingles down to the feet of every man, whether he comes from Washington State, or Los Angeles, or Texas, when he comes and walks these city streets and starts to feel that “this is my city; I own a part of this Capital, and I envy for the time being those who are able to spend their time here.” I quite admit that there are defects in the system of government by
Now, I am opposed to the franchise in the District; I am opposed, and not because I yield to anyone in my support and belief in the principles of self-government; but principles are applicable generally, and, then, unless you make exceptions to the application of these principles, you will find that they will carry you to very illogical and absurd results. This was taken out of the application of the principle of self-government in the very Constitution that was intended to put that in force in every other part of the country, and it was done because it was intended to have the representatives of all the people in the country control this one city, and to prevent its being controlled by the parochial spirit that would necessarily govern men who did not look beyond the city to the grandeur of the nation, and this as the representative of that nation.
I have got over being frightened by being told that I am forgetting the principles of the fathers. The principles of the fathers are maintained by those who maintain them with reason, and according to the fitness of the thing, and not by those who are constantly shaking them before the mass of the voters for the purpose of misleading them.
Now, the question arises: What shall we do with the government of Washington? Shall we have the present board of three; shall we have one or shall we have some other form? I confess I do not know. My predecessor has recommended a change of the present form so as to give the responsibility to one, with the view of visiting that one with the responsibility. On the other hand, it is said that three have worked well; that it gives more opportunity, possibly, for counsel, and that it takes away the bureaucratic character of the government. As I have said, I have reached no conclusion as to what recommendation I shall make to Congress on the subject. I fully concur with Justice Stafford in thinking that it would be most
Now, I want to talk about the future. And the future of Washington! What an enormous development is before us! Why, I am not an imaginative man, but I would like to come back here a hundred years hence and see the beauties of which this city is capable, right here, under our noses for a time, under our very eyes, are those beautiful Potomac flats that are going to make as fine parks and parkways as there are in the world.
Then, Justice Stafford, in his very eloquent remarks, called attention to the fact that in 1846—I am sorry to say it ought to be characterized, at least as far as that is concerned, as a day of small things—when the Congress could have recited this: “Whereas, no more territory ought to be held under the exclusive legislation given to Congress over the District, which is the seat of the general government, than may be necessary and proper for the purposes of such a seat. Therefore, we give back all that we get from Virginia”. It is true the early statute said that no buildings should be put on anything but t he Maryland side of the river, and perhaps they felt
Now my dear friends, I want to say to you that I have got into a constitutional discussion here that I did not anticipate, but I hope it has not clouded my meaning, which I intended to make as clear as possible, that I am deeply interested in the welfare of the District, I am deeply interested in securing good government to every man, woman and child in this District, and to secure so far as is possible, with the original plan under the Constitution, such voice as the people of the District may require in their local matters. But, when it comes to defining how that is to be given, I can not be any more explicit than to say it must rest ultimately on the right of representation and petition. I do not see how you can do anything else. I am sure that if you will constantly agitate, and if you will have as eloquent an orator as Justice Stafford talk to the committees of the House and Senate every year, he will rouse them to such a desire to save you from the “slavery” that he has pictured that you will get the attention you deserve.
THE SOUVENIR
CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING
DINNER TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
BY THE
CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON
UNDER THE AUSPICES OF
THE BOARD OF TRADE
AND
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
SATURDAY EVENING, MAY EIGHTH
NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINE
The Vice-president of the United States
The Speaker of the House of Representatives
Hon. Philander Chase Knox
Hon. Franklin McVeagh
Hon. Frank Harris Hitchcock
Hon. Charles Nagel
Hon. Henry B. F. MacFarland
Hon. Henry L. West
Maj. Wm. V. Judson
Hon. Wm. O. Bradley
Hon. Morgan G. Bulkeley
Hon. Elmer J. Burkett
Hon. Thomas H. Carter
Hon. Spephen B Elkins
Hon. Duncan U. Fletcher
Hon. Thomas H. Paynter
Hon. Nathan B. Scott
Hon. Benjamin R. Tillman
Hon. Eaton J. Bowers
Hon. Albert S. Burleson
Hon. Philip P. Campbell
Hon. Wm. J. Cary
Hon. Julius Kahn
Hon. J. Van Vechten Olcott
Hon. George A. Pearre
Hon. Thetus W. Sims
Hon. Samuel W. Smith
Hon. Edward Livingston Taylor, Jr.
Hon. Edward B. Vreeland
Colonel Spencer Cosby
Captain Archibald Butt
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS
Mr. John Joy Edson
Chairman of the Joint Committee of the
Washington Board of Trade and the
washington Chamber of Commerce
ADDRESS
Hon. Wendell Phillips Stafford
Associate Justice Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
ADDRESS
The President of the United States
PINEAPPLE. NEW WILLARD
CELERY
OLIVES
RADISHES
SALTED NUTS
CLEAR GREEN TURTLE
BROOK TROUT. SAUTE MEUNIERE
HOT HOUSE TOMATO
RACK OF LAMB EN CASSEROLE. BOURGEOISE
FRESH WHITE ASPARAGUS, HOLLANDAISE
TERRAPIN, MARYLAND
SORBET FANTAISIE
SQUAB CHICKEN, ROASTED
SALAD DE SAISON
SNOWBALLS SAUCE CHANTILLY
ASSORTED CAKES
COFFEE
The New Willard
Washington
United States Marine Band Orchestra
Lieut. W. H. Santelmann, Leader
1.
March
Norma
Bellin
2.
Overture
Merry Wives Of Windsor
Nicolai
3.
Excerpts From
Rigoletto
Verdi
4.
Waltz
The Bachelors
Santelmann
5.
Sextette
Lucia
Donizetti
6.
Southern Sketch
Way Down Upon The Suwanee River
Myddleton
7.
First Waltz
Durand
8.
Scenes From
The Merry Widow
Lehar
9.
March
The Fairest Of The Fair
Sousa
Mr. Byron S. Adams
Mr. Milton E. Ailes
Mr. Allen O. Albert, Jr.
Mr. Dwight Anderson
Mr. R. P. Andrews
Mr. Wm. H. Baldwin
Mr. B. F. Barnes
Mr. Lester A. Barr
Mr. John Barrett
Mr. Charles J. Bell
Mr. Claude N. Bennett
Mr. Ira E. Bennett
Mr. John O. Bennett
Mr. W. Berens, Jr.
Mr. H. C. Bergheimer
Mr. Emile Berliner
Mr. Frank H. Bethell
Mr. Gist Blair
Mr. Henry P. Blair
Mr. W. J. Boardman
Mr. Scott C. Bone
Hon. George M. Bowers
Mr. Morgan Bradford, Jr.
Mr. Alexander Britton
Mr. Chapin Brown
Mr. Percival M. Brown
Mr. T. Janney Brown
Mr. Aldis B. Browne
Mr. Charles S. Bundy
Mr. Achille E. Burklin
Mr. P. G. Burton
Mr. L. White Busbey
Mr. D. J. Callahan
Mr. David S. Carll
Mr. Fred. W. Carpenter
Mr. Albert Carry
Mr. Tileston F. Chambers
Mr. W. W. Chiswell
Mr. W. A. H. Church
Mr. Appleton P. Clark, Jr.
Mr. Murray A. Cobb
Dr. Horace B. Coblentz
Mr. Myer Cohen
Mr. F. G. Coldren
Mr. Robert Cook
Mr. James C. Courts
Mr. William V. Cox
Mr. A. P. Crenshaw
Mr. H. H. Darneille
Mr. Henry E. Davis
Mr. Wm. H. Delacey
Mr. Thomas J. Donovan
Mr. J. Maury Dove
Mr. P. A. Drury
Mr. G. E. Dunkum
Mr. George J. Easterday
Mr. John Joy Edson
Mr. John Joy Edson, Jr.
Mr. Joseph R. Edson
Mr. F. B. Eichelberger
Mr. George W. Engel
Mr. William J. Eynon
Mr. Henry H. Flather
Mr. Wm. J. Flather
Mr. G. W. Forsberg
Mr. W. H. Franklin
Mr. Daniel Fraser
Mr. George H. Gall
Mr. W. T. Galliher
Mr. Isaac Gans
Mr. Julius Garfinkle
Mr. S. Gassenheimer
Mr. E. Gerstenberg
Mr. Henry H. Glassie
Mr. C. C. Glover
Mr. M. Goldenberg
Mr. R. H. Goldsborough
Mr. Philip F. Gormley
Mr. E. C. Graham
Mr. Thomas Grant
Mr. Benjamin S. Graves
Mr. Gilbert H. Grosvenor
Mr. A. Gude
Mr. William F. Gude
Mr. Benjamin W. Guy
Mr. George E. Hamilton
Dr. W. S. Harban
Mr. Robert N. Harper
Mr. Carl A. Droop
Mr. Edward H. Droop
Mr. William A. Easterday
Gen. George H. Harries
Mr. A. K. T. Harvey
Mr. Giles F. Heilprin
Mr. James B. Henderson
Mr. R. W. Henderson
Mr. Wm. G. Henderson
Mr. James S. Henry
Mr. J. William Henry
Mr. Alexander T. Hensey
Mr. J. Whit Herron
Mr. Christian Heurich
Mr. W. B. Hibbs
Adml. Philip F. Hichborn
Mr. Wm. A. Hill
Mr. Joel Hillman
Mr. Walter E. Hilton
Mr. W. B. Holtzclaw
Mr. James C. Hooe
Mr. Wm. D. Hoover
Mr. Lewis Hopfenmaier
Mr. Thomas S. Hopkins
Mr. George Howard
Hon. George F. Huff
Mr. J. E. Hurley
Mr. Hennen Jennings
Mr. C. A. Joerissen
Gen. John A. Johnston
Mr. O. H. Perry Johnson
Mr. Sigmund Kann
Mr. Simon Kann
Mr. Rudolph Kauffmann
Mr. D. J. Kaufman
Maj. L. M. Kelley
Mr. George A. King
Mr. Harry King
Dr. Richard Kingsman
Mr. L. H. Kinnard
Mr. D. E. Kleps
Mr. Wilton J. Lambert
Mr. Charles C. Lancaster
Mr. James Lansburgh
Mr. John B. Larner
Mr. Ralph W. Lee
Mr. Charles Linking
Mr. A. Lisner
Mr. Alvin M. Lothrop
Mr. Otto Luebkert
Mr. John G. Luke
Mr. A. B. Lyon
Mr. William W. McClench
Mr. John McElroy
Mr. Frederic D. McKenney
Mr. Edward McLean
Mr. John H. Magruder
Mr. Arthur D. Marks
Mr. S. J. Masters
Mr. L. H. Mattingly
Mr. Wm. F. Mattingly
Mr. Wm. A. Mearns
Mr. Samuel W. Meek
Mr. Robert L. Middleton
Mr. Frank P. Milburn
Mr. Fred W. Miller
Mr. John H. Miller
Mr. Lewis M. Miller
Mr. Wendell W. Mischler
Mr. Lester D. Moore. Jr.
Mr. Samuel H. Moore
Mr. Arthur C. Moses
Mr. Wm. H. Moses
Mr. Edward S. Munford
Maj. Edwin H. Neumeyer
Mr. H. T. Newcomb
Mr. W. W. Norman
Mr. Clarence F. Normen
Mr. Harry Norment
Mr. Theodore W. Noyes
Mr. Thomas C. Noyes
Mr. Howard S. Nyman
Capt. James F. Oyster
Mr. E. Southard Parker
Mr. Myron M. Parker
Mr. James L. Parsons
Maj. D. C. Phillips
Mr. Robert A. Phillips
Mr. Arthur G. Plant
Mr. D. S. Porter
Mr. A. D. Prince
Mr. Frederick B. Pyle
Mr. Arthur T. Ramsay
Mr. A. E. Randle
Mr. George C. Rankin
Mr. E. E. Rapley
Mr. W. H. Rapley
Mr. Charles Rauscher
Mr. Albert M. Read
Mr. Frank M. Reed
Mr. Frank P. Reeside
Mr. Benjamin W. Reiss
Mr. Clarence B. Rheem
Mr. Max M. Rich
Dr. Chas. W. Richardson
Dr. J. J. Richardson
Mr. W. F. Roberts
Mr. Wm. L. Robbins
Mr. Cuno H. Rudolph
Mr. Joseph I. Saks
Mr. F. R. Sale
Mr. F. T. Sanner
Mr. B. F. Saul
Mr. Ewald Schneider
Mr. George F. Schutt
Mr. Charles W. Semmes
Mr. J. Albert Shaffer
Mr. Wm. E. Shannon
Mr. Edgar D. Shaw
Mr. N. H. Shea
Mr. Wm. Morgan Shuster
Mr. Henry K. Simpson
Mr. John C. Simpson
Mr. A. Leftwich Sinclair
Mr. John B. Sleman, Jr.
Mr. J. H. Small
Mr. B. F. Smith
Mr. Emmons S. Smith
Mr. E. Quincy Smith
Mr. George Linville Smith
Mr. Odell S. Smith
Mr. Thomas W. Smith
Mr. T. Towson Smith
Gen. Ellis Spear
Mr. E. B. Spence
Mr. O. G. Staples
Mr. E. J. Stellwagen
Mr. Joseph Strausburger
Mr. G. W. F. Swartzell
Mr. J. Selwyn Tait
Mr. Alfred P. Thom
Mr. S. Percy Thompson
Mr. W. B. Thompson
Mr. John M. Thurston
Mr. Charles E. Tribbey
Mr. George Truesdell
Mr. Perry B. Turpin
Mr. Wm. P. Van Wickle
Mr. F. H. Walker
Mr. John H. Walker
Mr. W. H. Walker
Mr. E. J. Walsh
Mr. Thomas F. Walsh
Mr. Harry Wardman
Mr. B. H. Warner
Mr. John L. Weaver
Mr. Joseph I. Weller
Mr. M. I. Weller
Mr. Hylas T. Wheeler
Mr. Geo. W. White
Mr. H. K. Willard
Mr. Louis C. Wilson
Mr. Simon Wolf
Mr. Levi Woodbury
Mr. S. W. Woodward
Dr. Wm. C. Woodward
Mr. Geo. Y. Worthington
Mr. O. B. Zantzinger
Dr. A. K. P. Harvey
Mr. Alfred P. Thom, Jr.
Percy S. Foster
Mr. J. E. Defebaugh
Mr. Snowden Ashford
Mr. Thomas P. Bones
Mr. E. B. Grandin
Mr. J. Harry Cunningham
Mr. John Joy Edson, Chairman
Mr. Charles J. Bell, Treasurer
Mr. D. J. Callahan, Secretary
Mr. Allen D. Albert, Jr.
Mr. Scott C. Bone
Mr. Wm. F. Gude
Gen. George H. Harries
Mr. Edward McLean
Mr. Arthur C. Moses
Mr. Theodore W. Noyes
Capt. James F. Oyster
Mr. J. H. Small. Jr.