A Rhetorical Criticism of Invention of William E. Borah’s Senate Speeches on the League of Nations, 1918-1920

487 22 27MB

English Pages 530

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

A Rhetorical Criticism of Invention of William E. Borah’s Senate Speeches on the League of Nations, 1918-1920

Citation preview

A RHETORICAL CRITICISM -OF I N M T T Q N : OF WILLIAM Ev'-^ORAH’S SENATE — ;v SPEECHES ON TEE LEAGUE OF NATIONS^ 19*8-1920

by Waldo Warder Braden

A dissertation submitted i n 1partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Department of Speech, in the Graduate College of the State University of Iowa July, 1942

ProQuest Number: 10831752

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uest ProQuest 10831752 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

ii

T i a + a

6 >7'38

'

c o p -^

PBmCB The writer is obligated to many for contributing to this study.

He is indebted to the librarians, especial

ly to Hr. St. George Sioussat of the Library of Congress, who have given so generously of their time and effort in making available the source materials.

Further he is in-

^ d e b t e d to the many acquaintances of William B. Borah who

2

T have so willingly supplied what information they could. The writer wishes to express his appreciation to Mrs. William E. Borah and Dr. Budolf Clemen of American University for their confidence and their permission to use the Borah Papers. The writer is indeed grateful to Dr. A. Craig Baird for his guidance and inspiration. The suggestions H ce “of Dr, Lester Thonssen have been extremely helpful. 94 5 a Of those who may read this study in the future, a

^ t h e writer wishes to request that no direct quotations ^from private papers contained in this dissertation be re­ p r o d u c e d without his permission.

iii

CONTENTS Chapter

Page Introduction

I

The Speaker's Background. . . . . . . . . . A• B. G. D. 1.

IX.

IV

...................... 198

f o r e w o r d ............................. • 198 The Senate Audience....................193 The Popular A u d i e n c e .......... 860 Summary. . 303

The Speeches . A.

91

The Rise of the Controversy. . . . . . . . 91 » The Pre-Covenhht Debate............ 96 The Initial Attack on the Covenant . . • 118 TSfe Treaty Before the S e n a t e ......... 135 The Second Defeat of the Treaty....... 178 Summary............................... • 187

The Audience . « . , A. B. C. D.

13

foreword................. .. ............ 13 Early Training . . . . . . . . ......... 14 Later Speech Experience............. • • 45 Attitudes Toward Speech Preparation. . . 66 S u m m a r y ............................... 85

The Occasion: TheLeague Controversy, 1 918-1 9 8 0 ............. A. B. C. D. 1. f.

III

1

...........................

309

The Nature and Relationship of the S p e e c h e s .................. 309 B. The Speaker's Sources and Specific Preparation. .................... 318 C. The Motives of the S p e a k e r ........... .. 333 D. The Structure of the Speeches. . . . . . 335 E. Basic Premises ............. . . . . . . 353 P. Lines of Argument...................... 367 G. forms of S u p p o r t .......... 390 H. Refutation and Rebuttal. . . . • • • • • 451 X. Summary....................... 478

iv

CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter V

Page Conclusions. Bibliography •

........................ 479 ............................. 504

A p p e n d i x ..................................... 519

INTRODUCTION At present when the nation has apparently thrust aside the isolationist philosophy, some are prone to curse the name of William E. Borah, one of the leading exponents and defenders of the ideology.

He was called an "obstruc­

tionist” , a "trouble maker", "the great thunderer", "the straddler magnificent", and numerous other names frequently levelled at public figures.

During the League debate the

venerable Dr. Henry Van Dyke from a New York pulpit re­ ferred to him as a "pagan pessimist".1

Usually those who

^The New York Times. March 10, 1919, p. 4. indicted the Idahoan disagreed principally with his ideas, Z but they did not impugn his motives, and certainly they did ©

See section on motives, Infra, p. 333. not question his ability as a speaker. Few will deny that during the past several years the Senator from Idaho was among the foremost American political speakers.

In the Senate, at the political rally, 3 and more recently over the radio, he spoke frequently, 2 For the period of his senatorial career, a partial list, collected by the writer,includes over five hundred speeches.

and was lauded by friend and foe for his effective and forceful expression of ideas.

"The most successful debater

in the Senate,” said Walter Lippmann.^

Henry F. Pringle

1 Walter Lippmann, "Concerning Senator Borah,” Foreign Affairs, 4:214, January, 1926, appraised him as "the best orator" in the upper chamber.

2

2 Henry F. Pringle, "The Real Senator Borah,” World Work. 57:13o, December, 1926. Equally profuse, Raymond Clapper described him as "first... 5 in the force of his words.” Beverly Smith contended that

13

Raymond Clapper, "Senate Leaders and Orators,” Review of Reviews, By:2b, February, 1954. he was "the most powerful and most feared member of the Senate.

Powerful because of his compelling oratory.”

4

4 Beverly Smith, "The Lone Rider of Idaho," The American Magazine. 113:37, March, 1932. By no means do these expressions exhaust the laudatory re­ marks concerning the Idaho senator, for many equally flatter­ ing tributes may be quoted from other prominent Washington § columnists. Moreover teachers of speech have pointed to 5 Kirke Simpson, "Borah in Action Draws Crowd at Senate Chamber.” Idaho Daily Statesman, September 9, 1929, Scrap­ book. No. 8, February, 1929 to March, 1930, p. 105; Turner

o

Gatledge, "Thunder In the Senate," New York Times, September 24, 1939, Seot. 7, p. 10; Clinton W. Gilbert, "The Daily Mirror of Washington," New York P o s t , January 24, 1924; William Hard, "Borah the Individual," Review of Reviews, 71: 149-153, February, 1925; Arthur Sears Henning, Ohioago Daily Tribune, January 20, 1940, p, 1; Bob Washburn, "Washburn Washington Weekly," The Boston Transcript. May 9, 1925, p.15. Borah as a model for their students.

In the light of this

l XA, Craig Baird, Representative American Speeches. The Reference Shelf (New York": H.W. Wilson Co.,), Vol. XIII," No. 3, 1938-1939, pp. 29, 35; Vol. XIV, No. 1, 1939-1940, p. 38; W.N. Briganoe and Ray Immel, Speeofamaking (New York: S’.G. Crofts and Company, 1938), pp. 205 , 248-249; Lionel Crocker, public Speaking for College Students (New York: American Book Company, 1 9HT. p. 140; Alan H. Monroe, Principles and Types of Speech, Revised Edition (New York: Scott Foresman and Company, 1939), Plate One; Andrew Weaver, Speech (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1942), p. 88. reputation a study of some phase of Mr. Borah's speaking seems justified and desirable. The extent of the senator's public life and the frequency with which he spoke make a study of his entire speaking career impracticable.

Therefore choosing to con­

centrate on a significant period in his public speaking career, the writer has selected for consideration Borah's Senate speeches delivered between 1918 and 1920 in opposi­ tion to the participation of the United States in the League of Nations. These speeches were a part of the dramatic debate which came at what some analysts have considered a critical

moment in history.

With the catastrophic conflict of the

previous four years won, the allies faced the task of de­ veloping machinery which would prevent the repetition of such horror and sacrifice.

Woodrow Wilson and other

delegates to the Peace Conference agreed that the hope of the world depended upon the creation of a league of nations, which looked toward the pacific settlement of international disputes.

But the decision as to what part

the United States would play in the proposed organization rested not upon the President, but upon the United States Senate.

Upon it fell the momentous choice between positive

collaboration and an attempt to return to traditional hemi­ spheric isolation.

The first course, predicted William E.

Borah, meant "forfeiting the independence of the Republic." The second, warned President Wilson, would "break the heart of the world."

These were high stakes.

The importance of

the debate and the recognition which the Idaho senator has received for his leadership of the Irreconcllables justifies concentration upon this period. Furthermore, since Borah died in 1940, it seems wise to limit the investigation to an earlier period in the orator's career.

The lapse of over twenty years permits

the critic a better perspective and insures him more copious

materials from which to render judgment.

Published letters,

autobiographies and biographies of contemporaries, mono­ graphs, historical treatises, and available private papers greatly facilitate understanding and evaluation of the speaker and his efforts. Method and Problem The purpose of this study is to make a rhetorical criticism of invention employed by Borah in his twenty-five Senate speeches on the League of Nath6na« The aim of rhetorical oriticism is to explain and to evaluate the man as a speaker, a debater, an orator, rather than as a politician or as a political philosopher. Rhetorical criticism is concerned with the methods and materials which the speaker purposefully utilizes to oontrol and to direot the thoughts and actions of his auditors. Its ultimate goal is to estimate to what degree the speaker achieved his preconceived aims.

Involved in such criticism,

therefore, is an attempt to understand the four interacting forces of the speaking situation, namely the speaker and his potentiality, the occasion and its contributing forces, the extent and limitation of the audience, and the subject matter as influenced by the other factors related to the problem of communication.

The ancient rhetoricians divided the oratorical process into five steps:

invention, arrangement of ideas,

style, memory* and delivery,

The present study is limited

to an evaluation of the first of these steps which con­ cerns primarily the speaker's investigation and analysis. Believing that invention was the core of rhetorical theory, Aristotle defined rhetoric as "the discovery in the parti­ cular case what are the available means of persuasion."*' _ _ _ Lane Cooper, translator, The Rhetoric of Aristotle (New York: D. Appleton and Company7~"l93£T7 p. 7. Cicero spoke of the inventive process as the effort of the orator "to discover and to decide what to say . . . " discussing the concept he concluded:

After

"Therefore he /The

oratojJ will exerolse Judgment ana will not only discover something to say but will estimate its value."

2

Charles

i Cicero, Orator, translated by A.M. Hubbell, XXI!, 43-49, Found in Gioero*s Brutus - Orator (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 19&4), p. 339.' Bears Baldwin tersely summarizes the Roman's concept as "the % investigation, analysis, and grasp of the subject matter."

5 1 " Charles Sears Baldwin, Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1924), p. 43. To summarize, a rhetorical analysis of invention

necessitates on the part of the critic (1) an appreciation of the speaker's background, his attitudes and predisposi­ tions; (B) an understanding of the historical trends and the specific events that motivated him to speak; and (3) an awareness of the attitudes, beliefs, prejudices of his im­ mediate and secondary audiences.

It encompasses an attempt

to ascertain and to evaluate the speaker's motives, methods of preparation, basic assumptions, lines of argument, forms of support whether they be logical, emotional, or ethical appeals, and his efforts to adapt himself and his materials to the speaking situation. Other Studies Five masters' theses have dealt with Mr. Borah's speaking.

At the University of Iowa, Laverne Bane analyzed 1 the explicit and implicit proofs used by the Idaho senator 1 The terminology of George B. Collins and John S. Morris, Persuasion and Debate (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927)", i in three of his speeches

on the League of Nations.

He

o jfhere are at least forty-seven, twenty-five of which were delivered in the Senate,

concluded that Borah's use of the explicit (logical) elements

s

were "predominant.”

Because Bane was principally interested

in identifying techniques, he made little attempt to inter­ pret the speeches in 1 speaking situation,

light of the components of the

*Xaverne 0. Bane, "A Critical Study of Selected De­ bates of W.B. Borah" (unpublished M.A. Thesis, State Uni­ versity of Iowa, I93Q). Three studies have been made at the University of Wisconsin.

Winston Brembeck made a statistical study of

style and an analysis of motive appeals of eight speeches, Z ranging in date from 1899 to 1928. In considering style he Winston L. Brembeck, "William E. Borah*s Speech Style and Motive Appeals" (unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1938), noted Borah’s preference for direct quotation, interroga­ tion, use of personal pronouns, comparison and contrast. He found that the Idahoan frequently employed motive appeals to state and national honor, to reverence for great Ameri­ can®, to self-preservation and acquisitive wants, to senses of justice and fair play, and to the preservation of the Constitution and democratic Institutions.

Using terminology

suggested by W.C. Shaw in his chapter on "Strategy" in the Art of Debate, Theodore Case analyzed Borah’s use of

0

strategy in five selected debates,3* concluding that "Senator 1

Theodor© Case, "The Debate Strategy of William 1* Borah" {unpublished Ph.M. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1935). Borah has a definite preference for offensive types of strategy."

N. Barr Miller included Borah in his vocabulary

study of four American orators,

2

which involved a considers*

2 H. Barr Miller, "A Vocabulary Analysis of four Ameri­ can Orators" (unpublished fh.M. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1933)• tion of 40,000 words or 10,000 selected from ten speeches of each Man.

This study showed that Borah*s speaking

vocabulary compared favorably with those of Theodore Roosevelt, William J. Bryan, and Woodrow Wilson. Miss Jean DeHaven at the University of South Dakota attempted in l e s s H h a n one hundred pages an analysis of Borah*s use of "argumentation" in his entire congression3 al debating career. All of the studies mentioned were 3 Jean DeHaven, "An Investigation of William S. Borah*s Use of Argumentationlln Congressional Debate"(unpublished M.A. thesis, University of South Dakota, 1939). limited by few primary source materials. On© book-length biography, Borah of Idaho, by Claudius 0. Johnson of Washington State College, has been

1(

1 published§

Primarily a study of political activity, it

Claudius 0* Johnson, Borah of Idaho (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 193677 has comparatively little to say about the Idaho senator’s oratory and debating techniques.

The treatment of the

League debate is abbreviated and incomplete.

Notwithstand­

ing, it is a valuable and, in some cases, the only source concerning some of the events of Borah’s early life.

While

he was writing his biography, Johnson had the opportunity S of frequently interviewing his subject. Unfortunately he 2 Borah opened his office with a desk and access to his interview of Miss Cora Rubin, 1940, Washington, B.C., June

to Johnson, providing him private papers. Based on an Borah’s secretary from 19074, 1941.

foiled to give the source of much of his material. Aside from numerous magazine articles there are five other brief and eulogistic sketches in contemporary 3 studies of public figures. All are strikingly similar to Clinton W. Gilbert, Mirrors of Washington (New York: Putnams Sons, 1921), pp. 245-256; Walter Lippmann, Men of Destiny (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927), pp. 140183; Edward Lowry, Washington Closeups (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1921), pp. 824-232; R.T. Tucker, Sons of Wild Jackass (Boston: L.C. Page and Company, 19327, pp. 70-95; Q.G. Villard, Prophets, True and false (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928), pp. 51-63.

articles which their authors had previously published in magazines.

These sketches are valuable principally because

they reflect contemporary estimates of Borah, Sources The sources used in this study are the private papers of Borah, John Sharp Williams, and Henry Watterson, deposited at the Library of Congress; the fifty-five volumes of Borah Scrapbooks, deposited at the University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; several interviews with persons intimately acquainted with the senator and his work; contemporary newspapers and magazines; a number of letters to the writer from acquaintances of Borah; the biographical material pub­ lished in book form; published collections of speeches; memoirs, letters, and biographies of contemporaries; public records relating to Borah’s activity in Kansas; the Congressional Record, and other government publications. The texts of the speeches selected are found in the Congressional Record,

Although they admittedly are

not strictly verbatim, they are undoubtedly the most authen* tic texts available.

Slight changes in language, which

may have occurred before printing, naturally have altered the style, but have affected the ideas to a much less

degree.

Therefore, since this investigation is primarily

Loren Reid, "Factors Contributing to Inaccuracy in the Text of Speeches," Papers In Rhetoric, editor, Donald C. Bryant (St. Louisa printed by subscription, 1940), pp. 59-45; Zon Robinson, "The Accuracy with Which Speeches are Reported in the Congressional Record," Eastern Public Speaking Conference, 1940, editor, Harold FT Harding iNew York! The H.W. Wilson Company, 1940), pp. £90-300, ■, — . -„..... ■— -k— — a study of ideas, not style, these texts have been consider­ ed adequate •

Chapter I THU SPEAKER’S BACKGROUND A.

Foreword

Long ago Quintilian, the Roman rhetorician, pointed out that the orator’s training begins at birth*1

More re-

Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory» translated by John 6i Watson ( L o n d o n : H e n r y Bohn, 1856),Vbls. I and II, passim* cently studies of famous speakers hay© verified this con­ clusion.

Furthermore, present day psychologists stress that

opinions and attitudes are compounded out of many earlier 2 experiences.

2 "It is probable that the opinions held by adults have been compounded out of many experiences and that with the passage of time most of the original determinants of the opinions have fused to an extent defying identification." Charles Bird, Social Psychology (New York: D. Appleton* Century Co., lb'4oJ7"p.'T41T* The untangling of all the earlier experiences which contributed to Borah’s thinking and speaking on the League of Nations admittedly would be a difficult if not impossible task.

But even the more discernible factors aid

in understanding and evaluating a man’s work.

Upon this

premise, common to biographical studies, Chapter One is based.

0, Early Training Influences of Homo and Elementary School Like many of their neighbors the Borah family moved to southeastern Illinois from Kentucky.

They arrived in

1820 when the first families were establishing homes in Wayne 1 County. This part of the state, far from any large cities, — History of Wayne and Clay Counties. Illinois (Chicago: Globe Publishing Co., 18§4), pp. 215-816, 209, 50, 52. remained predominantly rural, had fewer foreign born, and was more sparsely populated than other sections of the state.

2

Through the years the Borah family became well

2

Ernest Bogart and Charles W. Thompson, The Industrial State 1870-1893 (Springfield; 111. Centennial Comm., 1920), pp. 34, SO. established in the community and won a reputation for contributing "Christian and moral stamina.”

3

From the first

3 History of Wayne and Clay Counties, Illinois, op. clt., p. 80911 they had been active supporters of the neighborhood school, the first in the county, and the Tom’s Prairie Cumberland Presbyterian Church, organized in 1822,^ 4

Ibid. , pp. 58, 58. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church, an off-shoot of the Presbyterian, was organized about 1810 and was named after the Cumberland country in southern

Ji

Kentucky and northern Tennessee*, In 1800 a revival move­ ment swept through Kentucky. The Presbyterian Church, re­ fusing to recognize the efforts of many of the selfappointed frontier pastors, formally dissolved the Kentucky Synod in 1809. As a result the disgruntled ministers organized the new sect which won many converts in Kentucky, Tennessee, Southern;Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Ala­ bama, Mississipplt and Arkansas. Robert 7. Foster, 11A Sketch of the History of the Cumber­ land Presbyterian Church,” A History of the Methodist Church South, the United Presbyterlan^huroh, The Cumberland Presbyterlan Church, The Presbyterian Church South In the Unit ed States (Hew Yorki The Christian Literature Co., 1894}, pp. 258-303. William N. Borah, the father of the Idaho senator, was a hard working fanner whose education was limited to that which he had received at the Tom's Prairie country school*

The Idahoan is quoted as saying concerning his

fathers

”1 know that father was land-poor.

ren had plenty to eat and plenty to wear.

But we child­ There was nothing

of that kind of poverty which breaks the heart. 1 didn't have money to educate his children.”

But father

James O'Donnell Bennett, "Presidential PossibilitiesBorah," Liberty Magazine. March 3,1928, p. 32. The elder Borah, a thorough student of the Bible, was a strong supporter of the neighborhood church, and when 2 a minister was not available, he filled the pulpit. He 2

Ibid.

encouraged his son to read the Bible and attempted to mold his moral attitudes.

Years later the Senator said;

"I am

a believer in fundamental principles of religious liberty. It was instilled into me by my father's earliest teaching, although he was a most devout Presbyterian elder . . . " , -

1

Letter wbo a man in Idaho", quoted in Claudius 0. Johnson, Borah of Idaho (Hew York: Longmans, Green and Co . , 19367, p7 5. Likewise from his father the future statesman re­ ceived his earliest instruction in politics.

The elder

Borah, a staunch Republican, served five times as supervisor of his township.

His interests were not entirely confined

2 The History of Wayne and Clay Counties. Illinois, p* 815,

to local politics, for

occasionally, Johnson

relates, "such

a well-known figure as Senator John A. Logan was a gueston 3 the Borah farm." "My father," said Borah, "was a student g

~ : Johnson, 0 £. cit. , p. 5.

of politics, both here

and In other

parts of

the world.He

often discussed public

affairs with

me, and I perceived

that the mistakes of the great men of the Civil War period

came from their blind partisanship.”

Best,"

1

Quoted in article by Jonathan Mitchell, "Borah Knows The Hew Republic. 85: 333, January 29, 1936, Probably the oratorfs great admiration of Lincoln

was first nurtured in this early environment, for, accord­ ing to Johnson, "the Emancipator was a saint in the Borah 2 household.” His first impressions of war were those he

2 Johnson, ©£. oit., p. 5. received from hearing his father, the Reverend William M, Murray,

5

or the neighbors tell of the Civil War, which

3 According to Mrs. Mattie Rinard, Reverend Murray, the minister at the Tom’s Prairie Church, was a frequent visitor in the Borah home, Murray had served as a private in the Hlnety-eighth Illinois Infantry, The History of Wayne and Olay Counties, Illinois, pp. 26-27. had come so close to that part of the state.

A little later,

while In school at Enfield, he wrote an essay based on these stories, which won special recognition from the head of the 4 school. 4

Johnson, op. oit..p.

11.

Little is known of Borah’s mother, Elizabeth West Borah, except that her people had come from Indiana and that

she had changed her religious affiliation from Methodist to Cumberland Presbyterian when she married William N. Borah.1 ^“Based on interview of Mrs. Mattie Rinard, sister of William E. Borah, who lives at Fairfield, Illinois, September 4, 1940. Johnson characterizes her as wa retiring sweet, gentle mother who allowed her children to tease her into granting them many little favors and indulgences frowned upon by a 2 stern father.** 2 Johnson, op. oit., p. S. The family library was small.

The Bible, as g pointed out above, had a prominent place in the home, g ; Based on interview of Mrs. Mattie Rinard, Fairfield, 111., Sept. 4, 1940. Among the other books were Pilgrim*s Progress. biographies of Washington, the Autobiography of Franklin, a few of Scott*s novels, Daniel March’s Night Scenes in the Bible> Also a newspaper or two such as the Chicago Inter*Ocean 4 found their way to the Borah farm. The parents encouraged 4 Johnson, op.. oit.. p. 7. their children to read; consequently, many of the Idaho

IS

senator’s reading tastes were developed during these early y e a r s H o w e v e r , u n d e r parental disapproval, he became an 1 James R. Stotts, "Bill Borah - the Story of His Life." The Evening: Capital Hews (Boise, Idaho), January £4, 1936, p ~ . admirer of Ingersoll, reading and rereading his Mistakes of £ Moses*. Ingersoll may have stimulated young Borah to be2

James B, Morrow, nDrama of Untamed Vilest,” Washington (D*C.) Herald, Aprill?, 1910, Pt. 4, p. 1. come more observant of style and to aspire to the perfection of his own. One would conclude that the Idaho orator came from a conservative, rural background in which great emphasis was placed upon moral values and absolute standards of right and wrong. Another early influence in the future orator’s life was the little Tom’s Prairie country school, a mile or so from the Borah farm, where he received his first formal education.

The teacher, in most eases poorly trained, had

twenty-five or thirty pupils to supervise.

He received

little for his efforts, and his tenure was short. school term was about six months in length.

The

Before young

William finished his first eight grades the one-room school was replaced by a two-room structure.

In this school the

teacher was given an assistant to aid with the lower grades % a s @ d on interviews with Mrs. Binard and Frank Heidinger of Fairfield, Illinois, and on letters from T.W. Beidinger of Oarhondale, Illinois, all of whom attended school at Tom’s Prairie while William S. Borah was there. Also based on letters from Mrs. Elizabeth Fuller Mackey, W.W. Fuller, and Mrs. Bora Fuller Priee, whose father, Will Fuller, taught the Tom’s Prairie School for two or three terms between I860 and 1884. The History of Wayne and Clay Counties. Illinois, p. 211. Under these conditions the future Senator learned his read­ ing,

writing, and arithmetic.

2 Like Albert I, Beveridge,

Borah studied the

Herald T. Ross, "The Oratorical Principles and Prac­ tice of Beveridge," Archives of Speech. 1 j 99, September, 1936. McGuffey Reader*

3

From this source he read for the first

3 Interview of Mrs. Rinard, Fairfield, 111*, Sept. 4, 1940. time some of the oratorical efforts of Daniel Webster, Patrick Henry, Wendell Phillips, Henry Ward Beecher, William Wirt, and Lord Chatham.

The works of many of these

men he reread later and frequently quoted in his con­ gressional debates.

In this school his interest first was

stimulated in history, probably through the medium of

Normal United States History.^* This was an interest which The books used in Wayne County schools were as follows: McGuffey’s Revised Series: McGuffey’s Revised first Eclectic Reader McGuffey’s Revised Se cond Eelectio Reader McGuffey’s Revised Third Eclectic Reader McGuffey’s Revised fourth Eclectic Reader McGuffey’s Revised Fifth Eclectic Reader McGuffey’s Revised Sixth Eclectic Reader Whitef8 New Elementary Arithmetic White’s New 0 ompleteArit hme11c New Eclectic Two Book Series: Eclectic Elementary Geography Eclectic Complete Geography Harvey’s Two Book Series: Harvey’s Revised Elementary Grammar and Composition Harvey’s Revised English Grammar Patterson’s Common School Speller Henry’s Normal United States History &.B. West, County Superintendent, in presenting the above list, stated that after ejjaMnation of the text books used in the four districts, he concluded "the four districts have uniformity of Text Books". In light of this he recommended the above list. ’’Circular” No. Z Office of County Supt. of Schools, Fairfield, Sept. 1, 1885. This circular is pasted on page 7 of School Superintendents Record of Wayne County Of 1885, deposited in the office of the County Superintend­ ent, Fairfield, 111, he maintained throughout life.

Here the future orator

probably received his first training in speechmaking.

a

2

At

o Mr. G* Douglas Wardrop wrote to Borah inquiring about his ’’mhiden sp eech." •;Xn /rep ly > ;after.stating that he had no impressions concerning M s "maldS'h spjeedhjiBorah said: "I began my first public sp eak ing ,-b.etwe an ’two ifoft& of corn In a southern Illinois corn fieid^^thith^-fahole earth for my auditorium and one indifferent/mnl©&’ s ‘My auditor. . • . from this arena I glided into d e b a t e ^ - ‘common school, and I cannot remember that I suffered"'any embarrassment by reason of the change of scene. . . . ” Borah to G, Douglas Wardrop, November 3, 1914, Borah Papers.

least the literary sooiety was an important part of the school and community life and the Borahs participated in the program. 1 “I Letters from Mrs. Mattie Rinard, and from T.W. Heidinger, of Oarbondale, and an interview of Mr. Frank Reidinger. Wayne County Record (Fairfield, Illinois), March 6, 1884, p* 4. In retrospect, it appears that Borah’s elemen­ tary education was obtained under adverse conditions and was probhbly deficient in many respects.

No matter how con­

scientious the teacher may have been, he was severely handi­ capped by too many duties and too little equipment.

As in

some of our modern country schools, no doubt the pupil hcd to rely on his own initiative if he wanted more than the first rudiments of the three

R*s.

Secondary Education During the year of 1881-188S William commenced his secondary education at Southern Illinois Academy, a Cumberland Presbyterian institution, located at Enfield, Illinois, about twenty-five miles south of the Borah farm,

a

a' In 1883 the school was re-chartered as Southern Illinois College. It operated from 1880-1893. In 1906 it was revived for a short time* A. Edison Smith, "The Acad­ emies and Seminaries of Southern Illinois" (unpublished M. A, thesis, University of Chicago, 1937), pp. 87, 91.

The Enfield Academy, as it was popularly called, occupied a two story brick building with eight classrooms, and poss­ essed only meagre equipment, because it was dependent for its Income solely on tuition and irregular gifts from the 1 church. An indication of this meagerness is the library Jbid., p • 89. which contained only two hundred volumes when the institution £ closed in 1893. The faculty was composed offbur or five Report of the Commissioner of Education 1893-1894 (Washington: Gov’t, printing Office, 1896), Vol. II, p. 2020• members and the president, M.A. Montgomery,

who had a

8 Based on a letter from Mrs. Kellie Gowdy Montgomery of Los Angeles, California, Sept. 28, 1940, Borah stayed at the home of Mrs. Montgomery’s father. Mrs. Montgomery was in school with Borah and graduated in the first gradu­ ating class,1884. Later she taught in the institution, following which she married the younger brother of Frofessor Montgomery. master’s degree from

Lincoln University, Lincoln, Illinois.

4 History of White County. Illinois (Chicago: State Publishing C o . , 1 8 8 3 ) , p. 725.

Inter-

Students enrolled at any time during the school year that was most convenient; they took work according to their needs

and attainments#

1

At the beginning of the fall term when

1 A# Edison Smith, op. eit. , p. 58# young Borah entered, sixty-three were enrolled, and by the olose of the following spring term the enrollment had inersased to one hundred twenty.

2

2 History of White Countyt pp. 707-708. The town of Enfield and the Academy provided the kind of environment the elder Borah preferred for his six­ teen year old son.

The Infield reporter of the Carml paper

recorded that parents could not find a better place for children, for no liquors were sold in the town, and there were four churches:

Presbyterian, Cumberland Presbyterian, 3 Methodist, and Christian. The 1890 catalogue announced the SThe Carml (111.) Times. April 5, 1881, p. 2. purpose of the institution as follows: . . a school in which young men and young women are trained for active life, for a proper enjoyment of its pleasures, a right appreciation of its duties and obligations, and the ultimate accomplishment of its highest objects . • • the greatest good to humanity and the greatest glory to God." The school, of course, required enrollees "to attend Church and Sabbath school services" and the morning chapel, "unless

1

excused by the faculty” ,

Tenth Annual Catalogue of Southern Illinois College. 1889-90 (Enfield: Carmi Democrat Tribune Press, 1889}, pp. 3, 13. Quoted in Smith, op. oit., pp. 54, 89. During his year at Infield the future senator probably studied arithmetic, history, geography, physical 2 geography, and Latin. A review of the curriculum, pubg These subjects are recorded for his "junior prep” year in Register of the University of Kansas for 1885, p. 816, The record is deposited in Office of Registrar. lished in the 1889-1890 catalogue of Southern Illinois College, indicated that Borah may have taken other subjects, 3 not recorded by the authorities at Lawrence. In discussing Course of, Study in the English Department "Junior Year"/2First TearJ7 First term: Arithmetic, Grammar, Geography, reading and spelling, through the year. Second term: Arithmetic, Grammar, history of the United States, physical geography. Third term: Algebra, history, anatomy, and physiology, English Analysis. Tenth Annual Catalogue of Southern Illinois College. 188918$O', op. clt., p. 14, quoted in A. Edison Smith, op. cit.. p. 65. this period, Borah's biographer suggests that Borah had difficulty with mathematics,excelled in Latin, but preferred the study of literature and history.* 4Johnson, 0 £. oit.. p. 11; Mrs. Montgomery, op. clt.. reports that he was interested mostly in history and poll-

tical science.

At Enfield under the tutelage of Professor Mont­ gomery, Borah and Wesley Jones, later senator from Washing­ ton, received additional guidance and encouragement in speech making.

The practice they received was largely

through the medium of the school literary society.

Mrs.

Montgomery, who was in school with the two future senators, states: The Literary society was mad© a very import­ ant part of the school work and Will ^Borah/ took an active part in it. Prof. Montgomery, who was himself a very fluent speaker, gave much time to the training of the students along that line. Many times Jones and Borah faced oath other in debate with as much zeal, if not as much dignity, as in Washington, D.C. 1 1 Letter from Mrs. Nettie Gowdy Montgomery, Los Angeles, Calif., Sept. 28, 1940. The programs of the society must have attracted consider­ able attention in the little community, for severe complaint was registered when a rule was passed barring the attendance of outsiders.

2

The young orator undoubtedly acquired a

o "The College Literary Society is rather a selfish in­ stitution excluding all except its members from its meet­ ings, There ought to be sufficient talent in the school now to make the Society entertaining and instructive to the public, and we think it would be encouraging to the Society for the people to take an interest In their work." Carmi (Illinois) Times, April 11, 1882, p. 2.

reputation as a speaker, for on one occasion, a community victory celebration for Garfield, when the scheduled speakers failed to appear, Borah was selected to address the crowd, a task he accomplished to the satisfaction of his listeners. During his year in Enfield his interest in politics was heightened by several other rallies that he attended. Johnson, probably quoting almost the exact words of the Senator, suggests that he had no "political ambitions" at this time,

"He merely liked political campaigns for the

opportunities they presented for oratory. 1 drama of the thing."

He liked the

1 Johnson, op, clt., pp. 1£, 13. However the young Borah spent only one year at the Cumberland Presbyterian Academy,

Possibly because of a

slight breach of discipline, partly for financial reasons, and partly because he disapproved of his son's ambition to become a lawyer, the elder Borah failed to provide the necessary funds for his son's return the second year.

As a

result the next year William remained at home, helping his father run the farm.

During this year he seriously con­

templated joining a traveling Shakespearean troupe.

Evi­

dently he had acquired an admiration for the work of the great Bard the previous year.

Although for some reason he

was deterred from this choice, he never lost his love of

tli© plays of the English dramatist.

He loved to see Shakes­

pearean plays on the stage and never missed an opportunity 1 to see one even after he was in Washington. Interview of Miss Cora Rubin, who served in Borah’s office during his entire residence in Washington from 1907 to 1940, June 4, 1941. After a year at home, young Borah, now eighteen and more eager to be a lawyer, went to Lyons, Kansas, to live with a sister, the wife of A.M. Lasley, an attorney. In the young m an’s mind was the hope that he could finish his law training in the office of his brother-in-law.2 S

"I didn’t know how I was to get an education, nor had I any definite plans, but I thought fate in some manner would take care of my case.” Quoted James Morrowf q p « cit., p. i. During his first year in Kansas he attended the Lyons public school.

The records at the University of Kansas

indicate that he enrolled in Latin, Constitution / “govern-

mentJ7* and Grammar.3

The school records of Lyons were

^Register of University of Kansas, 18BS, p. 216. long ago destroyed and the local paper gives little hint as to school activities.

However, the aspiring young

lawyer probably participated in the literary exercises on

Friday afternoons.

1

1 These exercises are mentioned in Lyons (Kansas) Republican. Nov. 15, 1883. The little frontier town offered other advan­ tages,

In 1883 a library society had been organized and

after several entertainments to raise the necessary funds, a small circulating library was purchased.

The local

newspaper reveals that it contained books on scientific subjects, religion, biography, poetry, collections of essays, and fiction.

The organization subscribed for at

least three magazines: Century. Atlantic Monthly, and 2 Graphic. One can imagine that the book-hungry, aspiring 2Ibid. , December 13, 1883, p. 5. young lawyer availed himself of the opportunities that the small library offered.

The management of the local

opera house brought many entertainments to Lyons, which must have appealed to a young man who had considered joinin® a traveling Shakespearean troupe.

3

Borah affiliated

SIbid. . June M , 1865, p. 5; August 28, 1884, p. 5; March 20, 1884, p. 5; February 22, 1884, p. 3. with the Presbyterian Church and the "Yfeiung People*s Band".

His reputation for speaking must have spread

30

beoause the local paper records that on three different oc­ casions, as a part of the program of this group, he gave speeches.

For one of these events when the Band gave a

public entertainment to raise funds, "W.l. Borah gave the opening address".^

On the other two occasions, probably

1lbid,, March 13, 1884, p. 5. monthly meetings, the program included "oration - W.I. Z Borah” • 2

Ibid., April 2, 1885, p. 5; September 3, 1835, p. 5, la preparation for teaching Borah attended the

Rice County Normal Institute held in Lyons for a few days during the summer of 1S64.

The main stress of the meetings 3 was placed on teaching methods. As a part of the Institute, Ibta., July 17, 1884, p. 5; July 84, 1884, p. 8.

"NormaTTjotas". the teachers presented a public program, a part of which was an "oration" by William Borah.*

_____

In order to get his

The program Included the following: music, prayer, reading the minutes, music, oration, recitation, essay, German solo, discussion, music, essay, recitation, and miscellaneous business. Ibid.. Inly 17, 1884, p. 5.

ox

teaching certificate Borah took examinations in some, if not all, of the following:

reading, bookkeeping, constitution,

physiology, history, geography, graiamar, natural philosophy, orthography, and arithmetic.1

The review for this exaraina-

questions for the above subjects are given in The Lyons Republican. August 7, 1884, p. 1. tion prepared him also for the entrance examinations he took the following year at the University.

During the four

month term, 1884-1885, he taught the Wabash one-room country school, earning thirty-five dollars a month or a total of 2 one hundred forty dollars. Little is known about the o Annual Report of District No. 22 for the year ending July 31st, 1885. Filed by E.L. Phoebus, clerk of District 22, the 25th day of August 1885. This record is deposited in the office of the Comity Superintendent, Rice County, Lyons, Kansas. activities of Wabash School or the teacher during that year; no school notes appear in the local paper.

However, years

later Borah confessed that he was "so engrossed in reading history and law" that he failed to give as much time to his teaching as he should have.

Much to his dissatisfaction

he did attend "protracted meetings" at the nearby Prosper Church.

Twice during the term he appeared on the monthly

Johnson, op. cit.. p. 16.

programs of the County Teachers Association, delivering each 1 time what were advertised as "orations". This year of 1

The Lyons Republican, Oct. 9, 1884, p. 5; January 8, 1885, p. 4.

teaching was undoubtedly important in the development of the orator because it gave him a review of his elementary sub­ jects, more leisure time to pursue his reading of law and history, and additional opportunities to practice the art of speaking.

One can imagine that the pupils of Wabash

school served many times as would-be audiences for premature orations.

Since the community life probably centered around

the little school, the teacher was forced to use his initi­ ative and to assume some of the responsibilities of leader­ ship.

Borah*s desire for further education must have been

heightened because the following year he enrolled as a subFreshman at the University of Kansas at Lawrence. The University of Kansas The University of Kansas offered young Borah many advantages which he had not had in the small rural towns of Fairfield and Infield, Illinois, or Lyons, Kansas. The school, with its faculty of twenty-four, offered work in five departments:

Science, Literature and

Arts; Law; Elementary Instruction; Music; and Pharmacy.

The physical plant consisted of three buildings.

The en­

rollment was four hundred nineteen, one hundred fortythree of whom were sub-Freshmen, similar to Borah.^

One

^The Twentieth Annual Catalogue of the Officers and Students of the University of Kansas 1885-1886. tTopeka: Kansas Publishing House, 1886), pp. 6-7, 9, 50. of the most attractive features to Borah was the University library, which contained 7100 volumes "besides a large 2 number of unbound pamphlets"• About a thousand dollars a

aIbia.. p. 86. year was spent for new books,

3

and three hundred were added

3

Carrie M. Wilson^ > History of Library", Quarter Centennial history of Oniverslty of Kansas. 1866-1891. Edited by Wilson Sterling (Topeka, Kansas: Geo. W. Crane and Co., 1891), p. 110. during Borah’s first year.4

In this part of the campus Borah

4The Weekly (Kansas) University Courier. December 16, 1386, p « 1• spent much of his time5

and according to his own testimony

Interview of Clin Templin, fraternity brother and classmate of Borah, published in the Lyons Daily News, January 20, 1940, p. 2. he was "more of a reader than a student, sacrificing his

1 class work for general reading. . ." 1 Johnson, oj>. oit., p. 17. When he entered tke University in 1885, ke enrolled as a sub-Freshman

Z

because ke kad had only two years

Z Tke catalogue explains: "A course of sub-Freshman studies is therefore presented for tke accommodation of those who cannot find at home tke full preparation necessary to fit them for admission to tke collegiate classes. This course is arranged in suck manner as to omit so far as poss­ ible those studies which may generally be found in tke better Grammar and High Schools of tke State, while classes are retained in tke University for beginners in Latin, Greek, German, and French. Classes will also be continued In Natural Philosophy, Drawing, English Composition, Algebra, and Geometry. Candidates for admission for the s\A>-Freshman class will receive credit, either upon e x ­ amination or by certificate, for so muck of this work as they have completed in other schools." The Twentieth Annual Catalogue, op. oit., p. 63. of secondary education.

He must have written and passed

"creditable examinations (at least seventy percent}" in arithmetic, algebra, history of United States, descriptive and physical geography, English Grammar and Composition, and Constitution of the United States.

3

During that year

3Ibld. , p. 63.

4 according to the records in the office of the Registrar ,

4Register, op.

cit. . p. 216.

he enrolled in English,

1

natural philosophy, Cicero,

2

and

^The Catalogue describes these courses as follows: "Essentials of English".

2 "Cicero’s Orations against Catiline, the oration for the Paul Archias, and the oration for the Menelean Law, with Latin prose composition, one term". Vergil3 (not completed).

For some unknown reason, Borah

Vol. 44, Ft. 4, pp. 3985-3990; July 1, 1909, Ibid., pp. 3991-4000; February 10, 1910, Ibid.. 61st Cong., 2nd sess,, Vol. 45, Pt. 2, pp. 1694-1698; July £2, 1913, Ibid., 63rd Cong,, 1st sess., Vol. 50, Pt, 3, pp. 26112617. driving force behind the demand for direct election of n United States senators.-* M i t o r i a l columns throughout the I . Ibid., 61st Cong., 3rd sess., Vol. 46, Pt. 1, pp. 847, 849, 927; Pt. 2, pp. 1168-1169, 1884-1892, 1219-1222; Pt. 3, pp. 2645-2657, 2770-2771, 2950-2951; 62nd Cong., 1st sess., Pt. 1, pp. 787, 924; Pt. 2, pp. 1074, 1136, 1735, 1884-1892; Pt. 3, pp. 2940. entire country lauded him for his persistence and his vigorous utterances.2

As a true representative of his

2

In a Borah Scrap book devoted entirely to this subject there are over two hundred fifty editorials, bearing dates between December, 1910, and March, 1911, and coming from papers in twenty-five states. Borah Scrapbook, Vol. 14, Dec. 19, 1910 - March, 1911. home state and the lest In general, he made some forceful speeches advocating more lenient homestead laws and more flexible conservation and reclamation.3

His speech against

See speech delivered January 17, 1912, Cong. Reo.. 62nd Cong., 2nd sess,, Vol. 48, Ft. 1, pp. 1011-1022, See speeches delivered on following dates: May 11,1910, Ibid,, 61st Cong,, 2nd sess., Vol. 45, Pt. 6, pp. 6066159?. June £0, 1910, Ibid., Vo.. 45, Pt. 8, pp. 85098522. February 13, 1913, Ibid., 62nd Cong,, 3rd sess., Vol. 49, Pt. 4, pp. 3061-3067. December 5, 1913, Ibid. , 63rd Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 51, Ft, 1, pp. 284-311.

60

th© recall of judges, delivered August 7, 1911, marked him as a student of the Constitution and Judiciary.1

On the

"^Ihid. , 62nd Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 47, Pt. 4, pp. 3681-3696. This speech was included in the volume of his best speeches, American Problems (Hew York: Green, Buffield and C o., 1924)'. much debated tariff issue he advocated protection of Amer2 3 lean agriculture and Idaho ore and lumber. His activity

2

See speeohes delivered on following dates: June 28, 1911. Cong. Hec.. 62nd Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 47, Pt. 3, pp. 2573*2581. August 13, 1915, Ibid., 65rd Cong., 1st sess., Vol* 50, Ft. 4, pp. 3345-3OTT 61st Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 44, Pt. 2, pp. 1879, 2325*2524. during this session marked him ©s a progressive. During his second term, Senator Borah continued to manifest interest in progressive reforms, agreeing many times with the Democrats on th© need but disagreeing on the solution.

Long an enemy of th® trusts, he advocated ex­

tension of the Sherman Act and urged a clearer definition as to what constituted a violation thereof; but he opposed the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission on the ground that they regulated instead of abolished illegal combinations.4

Likewise he recognized the need for reform

4See speeches delivered the following dates: June 26, 1914, Ibid., 63rd Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 51, Pt. 11, pp. 11186-11119; June 27, 1914, Ibid., pp. 11232-11236; August

61

18, 1914, Ibid., Ft. 14, pp. 13918-13925; August 19, 1914, Ibid. , PP.TOT77-13979. pf the banking system and advocated a central bank which 1 would control issuance of currency. Many persons accused •%©© speeches delivered on following dates: December 12, 1918, Ibid., 63rd Cong*, 2nd sess.,-Vol. 51, Ft. 1, pp. 763-767T~December 17, 1913, Ibid., Vol. 51, Ft. 2, pp. 1065-1072. him of inconsistency on the woman suffrage issue.

In a

speech on March 17, 1914, defending his position* he an­ nounced that, although he favored woman suffrage, he con­ sidered the enactment of a federal amendment an invasion of the rights of those states opposed to it.

2

In what seemed

2Ibid., 63rd Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 51, Ft. 5* pp. 4959-49677 to many a reversal of this position, he supported the pro­ hibition amendment, maintaining that in this case such legislation was the only way to protect the dry states from the liquor traffic.

In 1916 he made a vigorous speech in

^Speech of luly 6, 1917, Ibid., 65th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 55, Ft. 5, pp. 4718-4722. support of prohibiting interstate shipment of goods made with

62

child labor*

1

Whan th© question of developing Alaskan

XIbid., 64th Cong*, Vol. 53, Pt. 12, pp. 12080-12090. natural resources came before the Senate, he took the floor in favor of the program.

2

He spoke in favor of Philippine

^Speech of January 15, 1914, Ibid. , 63rd Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 51, pt. 2, pp. 1707-1715. Speech of September 24, 1914, Ibid., Pt. 15, pp. 15622-15627. « independence.

The above review shows the manfs wide

3 Speech of January 24, 1916, Ibid., 64th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 53, Pt. 2, pp. 1433-1446. Speech of August 16, 1916, Ibid., Pt. 13, pp. 12712-12715. interest in domestic issues. Although his service on the Senate Foreign Rela­ tions Committee commenced in 1911,4 the Idaho statesman made resslonal Directory, 62nd Cong., 1st sess., May 1911, p. 159 few statements relative to foreign affairs until the Mexican issue became paramount.

As a strong nationalist and an

admirer of Theodore Roosevelt, he vigorously advocated the protection of American rights and th© pursuance of a stern policy.®

The discussions as to whether American ships

Speech of April £3, 1814, Cong., Reo., 63rd Cong., 2nd sees., Vol. 51, Pt. 7, pp. 7121.7123. Speeoh of January 13, 1915, Ibid.. 63rd Cong., 3rd sess., Vol. 52, Pt. 2,

6S

pp. 1495-1503. Speech of January 12, 1916, Ibid.. 64th Cong,, let sees., Vol. 53, Pt. 1, p. 943. Speech of March 13, 1916, Ibid., pp. 4003-4004* should be required to pay toll to use the Panama Canal aroused him to make several speeches favoring the exemption of American vessels.

These utterances ©how that he had

made a careful study of Anglo-American relations, parti­ cularly the Clayton-Bulwer and the Hay-Baunoe fote treaties.^ % p e e e h of May £8, 1914, Ibid.. 65rd Cong., 8nd sess., Vol. 51, Pt, 9, pp. 9024-9031, Speech of June 11, 1914, Ibid.. Pt. 10, pp. 10216-10221, The reading he did on this question served as valuable back­ ground for his debate on the League issue. The war raging in Europe brought th© nation face to face with many new problems.

The neutrality controversy

caused him to advocate a policy of insistence that belligerents respect the rights of American citizens.

2

He

^Sarch 3, 1916; Ibid.. 64th Cong., let sess., Vol. 53, Ft. 4, pp. 3470-3471. opposed federalizing the National Guard, on the grounds that it was an invasion of state rights.

When war was declared

SAprll 1, 1916, Ibid., Vol. 53, Pt. 6, pp. 5277-5284. April 4, 1916, Ibid., pp. 5409-5415. May 17, 1916, Ibid., Pt. 8, pp. 8123-81291

64

he voted with the majority of his colleagues.^

Nevertheless

^Xbld., 65th Gong., 1st sess., Vol. 55, Pt. 1, p. 261. during debates on the war measures he jealously guarded the right ofiindividual citizens, refusing to support the selee£ tive draft, which he considered un-American, and opposing —

-

^

..........

Ibid. . ?Ol. 55, pt. £, pp. 1442-1446. and voting against the espionage act of.1917, because he believed that it impaired the citizen's freedom of speech and press and thereby violated the Constitution.'- He adSSpeech of April 19, 1917, Ibid.. Vol. 55, Pt. 1, pp. 831-837• vooated taking the profits out of war by Increasing income taxes,4

His war speech which received the widest attention

^Speech of September 3, 1917, Ibid.. Pt. 7, pp. 65426543. was one he delivered March 18, 1918, exhorting successful 5 prosecution of the conflict. This speech, extensively re^Ibid., 65th Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 56, Pt. 4, pp. 3654-3§t?7

65

printed,

1

was widely distributed in England,

2

^The New York Times, March £4, 1918, Sec. V, p. 1.

2

Johnson, op,. cit. , p. 208. Although he seldom missed a session of the Senate,

he failed to speak as frequently and as lenghily as many of hi® colleagues.

An important part of his speech philosophy

was to wait until he had something he considered important to say and then to say it in the minimum of time.

3

His

jj Of . POSt, pp. 81-82. legislative career previous to 1918 was crowded with con­ sideration of domestic issues, namely, income tax, direct election of senators, recall of judges, banking, conserva­ tion and reclamation, prosecution of trusts, prohibition, woman suffrage, and the tariff.

His discussion of these

subjects revealed his strict adherence to the Constitution and his respect for state rights.

The few speeches whioh

he gave on foreign affairs showed him to be an ardent nationalist.

Moreover he enhanced his reputation as a

skillful congressional debater and orator.

In 1915 his

Bepublican colleagues attesting to this reputation selected him to answer a challenging attack on the party made by Wilson in his Jackson Day address at Indianapolis,

66

January 8,

Therefor© when he entered the struggle in

^Borah replied January 13, 1915, Oem&. Rec., 63rd Cong,, 3rd sess,, Vol. 52, Pt. 2, pp, 1495-1503-.

opposition to the League, Borah had a good reputation and th© necessary experience to be a challenging and respected opponent. Infra, pp. 191-195,

D., Attitudes Toward Speech Preparation Avenues and Methods of Study Among his colleagues and the Washington corres­ pondents, Borah had the reputation of being a thorough student and a wide reader.

William Hard, author of several

articles concerning the Idaho Senator, called him wa great 3 bookworm" and added, wh© reads books almost excessively". 3 William Hard, "Friendly Enemies," Liberty Magazine. March 87, 1986, pp. 20*81. I William E. Hutchinson described him as an "omnivorous a

reader".

Moreover, persons who worked in the Idahoan's

\ l l l l a m K. Hutchinson, "Hobbies of th© Great: William E. Borah", Richmond (Va.) Times Dispatch, July 22, 1925, p. 6.

67

office confirmed these statements.^

Mr. Venable, Borah’s

^Interview of Miss Cora Rubin, Washington, B.C., June 4, 1941. Interview of Mr. Earl Venable, Washington, B.C., June 5, 1941. secretary from 1910 to 1920, relates how his employer kept him busy getting books and materials from th© Library of Congress.

One of the librarians, a personal friend, was

constantly on the alert for books the Idahoan could use and would enjoy.

In these ways materials from the Library © of Congress found their way to the senator’s office.

gIbid. A Reference Consultant who served Borah for thirty years summarized Borah’s use of the Library of Congress as follows: "Here let me say that in your dissertation it is not necessary to use my name: my service was for and by th© Library of Congress j it is the institution that should figure, not the individual. And it would be unfair to single out an individual when, again, it is the institution that figures. "Senator Borah, from the time he entered the Senate and throughout his successive terms, constantly made use of the Libraiy of Congress, turning to it for books con­ taining discussions or otherwise supplying information on public questions before the Senate or likely to become the subject of legislation. Many of his calls, of course, centered on the subjects of interest to him as a member and later as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on For­ eign Relations. But such subjects did not limit his read­ ing. Any important legislative subject whatsoever was likely to be the subject of a call from him forbooks. And in my statement I use the word "books” as acompre­ hensive term, for Senator Borah’s calls were for period­ icals, newspapers, and public documents as well - in short, for printed material of every form.

"If I have written at some length only to say little, that little covers much* Senator Borah made use of the Library of Congress; indeed, he made great us© of it# Beyond saying that, there is little that I find myself able to add at all dealing with your question-" Books, overflowing his book case, were usually piled on his desk, th© floor, his lounge, th© mantle of th© fire­ place and on tops of the filing cabinets*^

At his home

1 Christian Soleace Monitor. November 10, 1926, p. 1, "Senator Borah in Daily Chats Endears Himself to Reporters", he had a large library which contained separate shelves for the works of Webster, for those of Carlyle, for edi­ tions of the Old and New Testaments and for the Federalist and other works on the Constitution. Jessie Fant Evans, "East and West Blended in Apart­ ment of Borahs", The Washington (B.C.) Star, June 6, 1937, p. B4. However Mr. Hutchinson’s label, "an omnivorous reader", somewhat exaggerated the reading habits of the Idahoan because his literary tastes were limited.

The

source of many of these had their origin in his boyhood 3 home. Hence on© of his favorite books was the Bible. ^William Hard, "Borah the Individual", Review of Re­ views, 71:130, February, 1923. Frederic W. Wile, "The Intimate Sid© of Borah", The Spur, February 15, 1926, p. Scrapbook No. 5, October 1925 - March 9, 1927.

In reply to a question concerning his Biblical reading, Borah said that he had been

close student of the Bible,

particularly of the New Testament” all his life.

Further

he stated that he attempted every day, generally just be­ fore retiring, to read a chapter.3. Others of his literary •^Borah to H.W. Thompson, Caldwell, Idaho, June 15, 1918, Borah Papers* preferences had their beginnings in his school work at Southern Illinois Academy and at the University of Kansas, where he was especially interested in literature, history, Z and Latin. He told a reporter, ” . . . I still follow gg u p r a , pp. 25, 35-.38.

Carlyle’s example and each time a new book is published I 3 read an old one” . Accordingly among his favorite authors 3 So J. Woolf, ”Borah Looks to Emerson As a Guide” , The New fork Times, November 13, 1927, Sect. V, p. 3. were Emerson, Swift, Hawthorne, Balzac, Dickens, and Thackeray.

Particularly from Emerson’s essay ”Self Reli­

ance” he gained great ” inspirational comfort". ite novelist was Hawthorne.

His favor­

Explaining this £>referenc© he

stated, "Hawthorne’s morbidity appeals to mej but after all it is, if I may so call it, a healthy morbidity clothed in

7C

an almost poetic form” .

Swift’s criticism of government he

praised.

In the realm of poetry, he enjoyed Milton, Dante, 1 and Shakespeare, The sage of Stratford he had admired

^Ibld., p • 21. sine© boyhood, preferring most of all Macbeth and Hamlet.2 2

William K. Hutchinson, "Hobbies of the Great", Rich­ mond (Va.) Times Dispatch. June 22, 1925, p. 6. Seldom did Borah miss an opportunity to witness a Shakes** pearean production.

So frequently had he perused the works

of his favorites that he confessed he could quote whole pages from them.3

% o o l f , 0,£» iLiUSt* * P* 21. The Idaho Senator read extensively in history, politics, and constitutional law, as any review of his speeches will show.

One of his particular Interests was

the history of the Constitutional Convention, th© state ratifying conventions, and development of the Constitution.

4

^Cong. R ee., ©5th Gong., 3rd sess.. Vol. 57, Pt. 3, p. 2937, In this debate he quoted Elliot’s Debates. Ibid. , ©5th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 55, Pt. 1, p. 832. Ibid., ©1st Cong,, 1st sess., Vol. 44, Pt. 1, pp. 1697-1598. In a letter he recommended Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Conven­ tion, Borah to lustin McGrath, March 4, 1920, Borah Papers.

71

The Federalist papers were among his favorite sources.1 1Xbid,, Ibid., 61st Ibid., 62nd Ibid., 04th ibid'., 65th

He

01st Cong., 1st sees., Vol. 44, Pt. 2, p. 1697. Cong,, 2nd aess., Vol. 45, Pt. 2, p. 1095. Gong., 1st seas,, Vol. 47, Pt. 4, p. 3682. Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 53, Pt. 6, p. 5278 - 9. Cong., 1st sess,, Vol. 55, Pt. 1, p. 831 - 2.

was familiar with Thomas Paine’s "Age of Reason" and "Rights 2 of Man” . Washington’s Farewell Address was the basis of 2I ?id.. 60th Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 59, Pt. 1, pp. * 6l his thinking on the foreign policy.

3

For authorities on

Ibid., 65th Cong., 3rd seas., Vol. 87, Pt. 1, p. 195; Pt, 4, pp. 5911-3912; Borah,"Washington*s Foreign Policy” Daughters a L the American Revolution Magazine 53: 167-191, April, xyJ.9. “ constitutional questions he relied on Cooley’s Constitu­ tional Limitations.4 Pomeroy’s Constitutional La w .5 Kent’s 4fhomas Cooley, A Treatise on Constitutional Limita­ tions Which Rest upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union. Cited by Borah in the Congression­ al Record. 65th Cong., 1st sess,, Vol. 55, Pt. 1, p. 836. 5J.H. Pomeroy, An Introduction to Constitutional Law of the Uni ted States. Cited by Borah in Cong. Reo.. 51st (Jong,, 1st sess., Vol. 45, Pt. 1, p. 1684} Pt. 2, p. 1695; and pt, 6, p. 6075.

x z Commentaries, and Justice Story on the Constitution. James Kent, Commentaries on American Law. Cited by Borah in Ibid., 62nd Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 47, pt. 4, p. 3682.

2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Cited by Borah in I b l T .lIad Cong.. 1st sess., Vol. 47, Pt. 1, p. 3682; and 64th Cong. , 1st sess., Vol. 53, Pt. 6, p. 5281. In 1©12 to the embarrassment of some of his Democratic colleagues he demonstrated that he had read Y#oodrow Wilson’s Congressional Government.5

His constitutional arguments he

^Ibid., 62nd Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 48, Pt. 6, p. 9126; Pt. 11, pp. 11261-11262. substantiated by quoting rulings from the Supreme Court. 4

4

Ibid., 1st Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 44, Pt. 2, pp.

1694-1^6x1 He had Included in his study a consideration of English political and constitutional history.

5

He had considered

g

In debates he used the following authorities: Sir Spenser Walpole, A History of England from the Conclusion of the Great War In 1815; William N. Molesworth, The HislorTof"England"fronTlhe Year 1830-1874: Herbert W. Paul, A listor y of Modern England; Sir G.W. Prothero on British Agriculture. Cong. Rec., Vol. 50, Pt. 4, pp. 3343-3348; Sir Thomas E. May, Constitutional History of England Since the Accession of George III. 1760-1860; Cong. Rec.. 66th Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 59, Pt. 1, pp. 115-116,

the premises and techniques of some of the great speakers of the past, namely, Edmund Burke, William Pitt, Charles James fox, Daniel Webster, Wendell Phillips, Ibraham n Lincoln, and other great orators. In his opinion "the ^William Hard, "How Gladiators Heed, Walsh, and Borah Slew Mr. Warren,” The Washington (B.C.) Times, March 81, 1985, p. 3. His speech "Lincoln the Orator" shows some evidence of this study. American Problems, p. 36, greatest debate effort in the whole history" was the reply of Charles James Fox to William Pitt in the debate on the War with France, February 3, 1000,2

Often to add weight

p William Hard, "Borah the Individual", Review of Re­ views, 71s 150, February, 1985. to his evidence he resorted to quotations from these states­ men;

Edmund Burke and Charles James Fox on free speech and

free press; Pitt the Tounger on the importance of public a opinion in popular government; Daniel Webster on the 3Cong, Rec., 65th Cong., 3rd sess., Vol. 57, pt. 3, p. 8941; and 65th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 55, Pt. 1, p. 837; William Borah, "Public Opinion Outlaws War," The Independ­ ent, 113; 140, September 13, 1984. banking system;

a

Disraeli on the tariff;

5

Gladstone on the

^Oong. Rec. . 63rd Cong., 2nd sess., Vol. 51, Pt. 2, p* 1068, 5Ibid., 63rd Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 50, Pt. 4, p.3345.

1 1 budget of 1863; and Stephen A. Douglas on the Clayton^Ibifl., 63rd Cong., End sess., Vol. 51, Pt. 16, p. 16454. O

Bulwer treaty.

f2

To reiterate, as in the League debate.

2Ibid., 63rd Cong., End sess., Vol. 51, Pt. 10, p. 10218. 5C f . post. , pp. 429-435. history provided him with much evidence.

In addition his

study of the great speakers of the past may have aided him in developing his philosophy of speech. He expressed his dislike of modern novels and i3aodern poetry.41 Among contemporary works he apparently pre4D.Woolf, Q£. alt., p. 3. f.rred non-fiotioa, particularly biographies, history, ana

£ books on contemporary affairs.

Included among his favorite

^3is correspondence during the League debate reveals that aside from his reading on the League proposition, he probably interested himself in Lord Charnwoo&’s Abraham Lincoln. Borah to Henry Holt and Company, December 19,1917, Borah Papers: and he also read Albert J. Beveridge’s Life o f 'fflars'EallT Borah to Houghton Mifflin Co., March 21, 1919, iorah Papers; G.B. Hea’s The Breakdown of American Diplomacy in the Far feast, Borah to Seorge B . R ea, October 7, 1919, lorah Papers. For discussion of his reading on the League see Infra , pp. 312-319.

75

1 2 magazines were the Hatton. Current History. Railway ^Borah to Oswald Garrison Yillard, November 26, 1918, Borah Papers. % o r a h to George W. Oakes, editor of The Hew York Times, April 2, 1918, Borah Papers. Gazette,^ Atlantic Monthly. Mew Republic, and Harpers.^ ^Borah to Edward A. Simmons of Mew York City, December 14, 1917, Borah Papers. 4~ . Johnson, op. cit.. p. 328. Among his favorite newspapers were the Christian Science Monitor. The Mew York T i m e s and the Mew York Evening: PostJ 5 vBorah to Mrs. Danny Richards of Boise, Idaho, January 10, 1918; Borah to Christian Science Editorial Dept., July 11, 1918, Borah Papers. ■ah to Rollo Ogden, July 3, 1919, Borah Papers. During the League struggle this list was greatly expanded.

7

7 Infra,, pp. 315-519. Through the aid of a dipp i n g bureau h© kept well informed as to what the press throughout the nation was saying about his activity in the Senate.

8

Borah Scrapbooks, passim.

76

According to his secretary, aside from his reading, ■^Interview of Miss Cora Rubin, Washington, D.C., June 4, 1941* he employed a particular method in gathering material for his speeches.

When he became interested in a particular

topic, he placed in his file a large envelope or folder labeled with the appropriate title,2

Thereafter items that

© Among his private papers are several of these en­ velopes or folders. One for example is labeled "League Court Documents Read and Analyzed". This envelop© still contains the material which he collected in the ’twenties. he: considered pertinent, he filed for future reference. These envelopes contain letters, pamphlets, petitions, news­ paper clippings, articles torn from magazines, and notes taken on his reading.

If he found a'passage which he

particularly liked he would underline it, scribbling some­ times on the margin a note of identification or simply "reread".3

A particularly appealing paragraph he might

3See photostatic copy in Appendix. read aloud to test its oral quality. these passages.

Sometimes he memorized

If the paragraph was particularly appealing

he might call his stenographer and dictate it to her, add­ ing any ideas of his own that flashed into his mind.

Likewise these notes were fixed away for future reference.1 Based on Interviews with Mr. Earl Venable and Miss Cora Rubin, 0 £, cit. In some of his books he underlined valuable information and Z indexed it on the flyleaves. Nor did he hesitate to write ^Examples are found in some of the books from his lib­ rary, deposited at the University of Idaho. See the follow­ ing: Charles T. Thompson, The Peace Conference Day by Day (New York: Brentano, 1920), Edward A. Rose, The Russian Soviet Republic (New York: Century Co., 1925). his friends, individuals associated with the activity, or prominent authorities for information on some special phase of the topic.

If the first reply was not sufficiently clear

or definitive, he wrote a second time, asking more specific 5 questions. 5Infra,. pp. 320-326. When he had sufficient material and when the topic came up for discussion on the floor of the Senate, he pre­ pared a topical outline.^

In the event that the outline

% e e photostatic copy In

Appendix,

was not used, it was filed under the appropriate heading for future reference.

Another significant part of his preparation was the articles he wrote for magazines and newspapers.

On

almost every major topic he discussed, he wrote several 1 articles. Likewise he frequently spoke to popular audi^On the League issue see Infra., j.p.329. The writer has a list of over fifty articles which Borah wrote during his sojourn in the Senate, and which appeared in over twenty different magazines. Among the magazines ere Forum, Colliers, Scribners. Christian Century. Outlook. Independent, Current History. and the NorTK American Review.' ences.

During the League battle he used many of his argu2 ments on his spring and fall tours. Frequently as press 2Infra., pp. IIS- 1 2 2 , 154-156. releases he would dictate the introduction or conclusion or a brief summary of what he intended to say in his coming speech.

Both his speaking and his writing aided him in

crystallizing his thinking and fixing his language.

He

3Mueh of the above information was substantiated by the interview of Miss Cora Rubin, June 4, 1941, and an in­ terview of Mr. Earl Venable, June 5, 1941. Both of these persons worked in Borah’s office for a number of years. disliked to have a manuscript interfere with his delivery. Although earlier in his career he may have written some of his speeches, later he seldom, if ever, followed this

7S

practice, except for radio addresses.

1

He declared:

"Use

b e t t e r from Miss Cora Rubin, October 3, 1940. a manuscript and instead of thinking of your subject you p

are trying to recall your manuscript.

At another time he

2

James O ’Donnell Bennett, "Presidential Possibilities: Borah," Liberty, March 3, 1928, p. 32, said:

"The existence of a manuscript gives me a sense of 3 restriction and rigidity." In reply to a request from the ^Richard Washburn Child, "He Rides Alone," day Evening Post, 199: 187, May 21, 1927.

The Satur­

National Republican Chairman for a copy of a political add­ ress, he answered that it was "almost impossible to write a political speech."

Such efforts he complained, "generally

resulted in being stiff and inappropriate to the particular 4 spirit of the occasion," ^Borah to Will Hays, August 31, 1914, Borah Papers, Borah’s reading habits and methods of study sug­ gest that at least in part he conformed to the advice offered by Quintilian; that is, the orator should read widely and prepare carefully. knowledge of the cause."

He strove "to gain a thorough

§

^Quintilian, op. cit, , pp. 429-430.

jBk, XII, Chapter

80

9! 14-217

Speech Philosophy Busy ivith his legislative and political career, William I. Borah has left little testimony as to his speech philosophy*

In reply to questions concerning his technique

he stated that he had no contribution which would be "of 1 any practical benefit." Regardless of this modesty, 1 Borah to lean DeHaven, August 4, 1937. Borah to Harrison M. Karr, quoted in Your Sneaking Voice (Glendale, California: Griff in-PattersonPublishing Co., 1930), p.23. scattered here and there are statements which indicate that the Idaho orator had some very definite opinions con­ cerning oratory.

He firmly believed In its utilitarian

value and the part it plays in the democratic process. speaking on Lincoln as an orator he stated: "Oratory has always been a factor in great movements. Spoken thought has been controlling in more than one crisis of human rights. There has seldom been a time when men were not to be moved to great deeds through the power of elo­ quence. It has been at times a most potent in­ fluence in the cause of liberty. If the time ever comes when it shall no longer have that influence, as many are fond to prophesy, it will b© after selfishness and sensuality shall have imbruted or destroyed all the nobler faculties of the mind W i l l i a m I. Borah, "Lincoln the Orator," American Problems, pp. 32-33.

In

81

Persons who knew Borah and his work intimately lauded him for his careful preparation for each speech.^ 1

Interview of Miss Cora Rubin, Washington, D.C., June 4, 1941. Interview of Mr. Earl Venable, Washington, D.C., June 5, 1941. Beverly Smith, "Lone Rider of Idaho," The American Magazine, 113: 100, March, 1932. Charles H.Hrasty, "Borah Stands Out in World Politics," The New York Times. February 19, 1922, p. 3. Concerning this phase he stated, "The first qualification of an orator is that he be master of his subject. second that his subject be master of him."^

The

His prepara-

%orah, "Lincoln the Orator," American Problems, p. 34. tion for the League debate clearly shows that he "practiced what h© preached."3 —

O f . post.. pp. 312-332. Conciseness was another tenet in his philosophy. His secretary quotes him as jokingly saying that "a man 4 can tell all he knows in forty minutes. In the League de4

Interview of Miss Cora Rubin, Washington, D.C., June 4, 1941, bate,

although he did not limit himself quite that rigidly,

on most occasions he probably spoke an hour and a half or

less;

when he exceeded these limits, his hecklers were

This conclusion is based upon the following evidence: His speech of February El, which covers about ten columns (Pages contain two columns of print), took Borah less than an hour and a half to deliver. The New York Times, Febru­ ary EE, 1919, pp. 1, 3, The Washington Post, February £2, 1919, p. 1, gave the time as "more than 70 minutes.” His address of December 6 covers 15g columns; the one of Janu­ ary 14, 9; June 5, 11; June 21, 10; June 30, 11; July 17, 1919, 10|; July 25, 7; August 26, 12-^; September 5, 11|-; September 29, 9; October 15, 6; October 22, 12; November 10, 10; November 19, 6; February 10, 1920, 14; February 17, 11; March 5,1920, 15, It should be kept in mind that most of these speeches were subjected to severe heckling, C f . post, pp. The longest he held the floor was June 25, 1919, when his hecklers fired questions at him for over two hours. Cong. Rec., Vol. 58, Pt. 2, p. 1742, His entire speech and the interruptions of his interro­ gators, covering 22 columns in the Record, occupied at least three hours. The Washington Post, June 26, 1919, p. 2. Many of the senators during the debates occupied far more time than Borah. On February 19, 1919, Poindexter opened the attack on the newly published Covenant with a three hour address (The New York Times, February 20, 1919, p. 1), which occupies 20 columns in the Record. C f . post, Ip The following list is of speeches, by no means tive, that were subjected to almost no heckling. Lodge speech of Dec.21, 1918 (Vol.57, pp. 723-728)— Lodge speech of Feb.28, 1919 Vol. 57,pp.45S0-4528)— Knosi speech of March 1,1919 Vol.57,pp.4687-4694)— Knox speech of Aug.29, 1919 Vol.58, pp.4493-4500) — Read speech of Feb. 22,1919 Vol.57 ,ppi4026-4033)— Vol. 58 ,pp.5700-5716) — Read speech of Sept.22,1919 McCumber ” of June 18,1919 Vol. 58,p p .1264-1276) — Lewis speech of Jan.3-4,1919 Vol.57,pp. 980- 983)— Pomerene " of July 21,1919 Vol.58,pp.£927-2938)— Sherman ” • of Sept. 6,1919 Vol.58 ,pp.5491-5501) — Harrison " of July 21,1918 Vol.58,pp.2938-2946)— Lewis speech of Feb. 24,1819 Vol.57,pp.4125-4135)— usually responsible.

exhauslli 16 14 15 15 32 24 25 22| 18 16& 19

Many of his colleagues frequently

Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. C ol.

occupied twice that much time when confronted by few inter­ ruptions. Perhaps one reason the Idahoan so vigorously ob­ jected to the use of a manuscript was that he believed it interfered with his adjustment to the speaking situation. Fundamental in ids speaking theory and practice was the principle that a speaker should adjust his presentation to the audience and the occasion. "The effectiveness of a speech is determined largely by the assistance, or inspiration, which e speaker receives from his listeners. If he has his subject thoroughly in hand, he must depend in a very large measure upon the audience to deter­ mine what course he is to pursue in presenting It. Bo man was ever persuasive in his study room. If he is effective, it Is because his audience helps him."l 1 Borah to Miss lean DeHaven, August 4, 1937. Miss BeHaven granted writer permission to use this letter. In accepting an invitation to speak he oarefully Inquired if it was ”a popular meeting, not a banquet or not an invitation affair, but I will be speaking to the people at large.”

In explaining his concern he said, ”It makes a

2 difference you know in a man’s preparation.”

In September

^Borah to H.M. Daugherty, February 9, 1914, Borah Papers.

84

1919, when James Williams, Jr. of the Boston Evening Trans­ cript requested in advance copies of the speeches Borah intended to deliver on his follow-up tour of Wilson,1 Borah 1Infra», p. 154 replied:

"I am not preparing anything in advance hut ex­

pect so speak, as I find it always necessary to do in pub­ lic audiences, almost entirely from notes and very meager notes at that."

£

In a letter to a minister, desirous of

‘''Borah to James T. Williams, Jr., September 9, 1919, Borah Papers. knowing when he was going to address the Senate, he said, "So much depends upon what is taking place in the Senate and the turn the debate takes that I can seldom tell myself 3 beforehand. During the League debate the writer has been ^Borah to Reverend Boderlc I. O ’Callaghan, Baltimore, Maryland, July 19, 1922, Borah Papers. unable to discover a single instance on which he placed in the Record, as was customary for some of his colleagues, his intention to speak on a subsequent day.

Apparently the

"turn of debate" and the events outside of the Senate had much to do with his decision to speak. 4Cf. post, pp. 187-191.

A

Possibly this

85

adjustment to the audience and the occasion partially ex­ plains his directness.^ 1 Infra,, p.452. Hence the speech philosophy of Borah may be sum­ marized as follows:

first, oratory has an important place

in the democratic process; second, the orator should pre­ pare carefully and know his subject thoroughly; third, he should express his thoughts in a few well chosen words, but extemporaneously; fourth, he should adapt himself and his subject matter to the audience and the occasion. Summary In this chapter the writer has sought to disouss those factors end forces in the background of W.E, Borah which contributed to or limited his effectiveness when he entered the debate on the participation of the United States in the proposed League of Nations* Undoubtedly many of the speaker*s basic tenets had their origins during his early years.

Under the tutel­

age of his parents and the neighborhood Cumberland Presby­ terian Church he developed many of his religious and moral concepts.

The Bible, leading book in the Borah household,

remained a favorite throughout his life.

According to his

own testimony he learned religious tolerance from his father. Moreover, his father first stimulated and fostered his interest in politics and political questions.

His admira­

tion of Washington, Monroe, Jefferson, and the martyr Lincoln began during these formative years.

Perhaps in these

early surroundings were nurtured his independence, his sincerity, and his hatred of intrigue.

Perhaps also he

developed his admiration for traditional policies which he so unswervingly later refused to alter in spite of ohanged conditions.

Tears later he attempted to apply some of these

absolute moral standards to international problems, which probably should have been considered from the basis of 1 expediency. 1Cf. pos t ,, pp. 377-380. The formal education of the Idahoan, comparatively meager, was limited to elementary instruction at the Tom’s Prairie one-room country school, three years of seoondary training procured at Southern Illinois Academy of Enfield, Illinois, the Lyons, Kansas High School, and the University of Kansas as a sub-Freshman.

During these brief years he

developed an insatiable hunger for information especially in literature, history, government, and law.

Furthermore,

he had many opportunities to express himself both orally

87

and in written composition.

There is evidence to show that

from his days at Tom's Prairie School he manifested an un­ usual interest in debate and other types of public speaking. His formal training in speech-making was brief and limited.

Perhaps at the University of Kansas he may have

had some formal instruction.

But extra-curricular activity

provided him with many opportunities for practice and with competition to stimulate his interest, but unlike Beveridge he won no great intercollegiate honors.

Regardless of the

amount or the type of instruction during these years, his desire to excel in oratory was probably heightened and he commenced to develop standards of excellence, lofty enough to keep him busy many years in their attainment. Much of the education of Borah was:procured out­ side academic walls.

Before going to the University he pro­

cured a teacher's certificate and taught a year, during which he had additional opportunities to pursue his reading interests.

After leaving the University, he studied law a

short time under the supervision of his brother-in-law and soon passed the Kansas bar examination.

After a brief period

of practice in Lyons, where he acted as city attorney, he relocated in Boise, Idaho, where between 1890 and 1907 he built up a successful law practice, reputed to have earned during his last years of practice as much as #30,000 per

year.

His reputation was greatly enhanced by his connec­

tion with several sensational murder trials, the most famous involving the attempt to prosecute Bill Haywood, western labor leader, accused of plotting the murder of former Governor Steunenberg.

Borah's practice gave him

many opportunities to familiarize himself with legal methods, state and federal law, and to perfect his forensic speaking.

During these years he was dLso active in poli­

tics, playing a significant role in the Idaho Republican state organization and campaigning throughout the entire state.

After two unsuccessful attempts he was elected

to the Senate in 1907. Although it is largely a matter of conjecture, it seems plausible, if not easy to prove with concrete facts, that the communities in which Borah lived aided considerably in shaping his attitudes, especially in re­ gard to nationalism and isolationism.

The communities

were small towns, dominated by rural interests.

Lyons,

Kansas, and Boise, Idaho, comparatively speaking, were not far removed from the frontier stage.

As Allan

Kevins has so aptly put it, Borah and the other Irreconcilables represented "the Interior of the country, far removed from the seaboard and its Old World contacts. They had certain economic motives, such as a distrust of

international financier®, but they expressed still more the isolationist spirit of the pioneer, the self sufficiency of 1 the frontier.'* In other words attention in these sections 1 Allan Kevins, "Why America Rejected the League," Current History. 56: 22, April, 1932. was focused upon local interests, settling the vast lands of the West, tapping the nation's vast resources, developing industries, and not primarily upon the international scene. The senator from Idaho, the future Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was provincial also in the sense that he never had been outside of the United States.

His educa­

tion had not included foreign travel or study abroad. Previous to his participation in the League de­ bate he served two terms in the Senate.

During these

years he won a reputation as a successful congressional debater and as a forceful campaign speaker.

Furthermore

he had appeared before many of the leading Republican clubs.

Although from 1911 he was a member of the Foreign

Relations Committee, he confined his utterances largely to domestic issues.

However during his second term he

showed an increasing interest in foreign affairs. During these years he won also the reputation of being a wide reader and careful preparer of his speeches.

His reading tastes were limited largely to the classics, biography, history, and constitutional law.

He delighted

in the works of Shakespeare, Emerson, Milton, Dante, Hawthorne, Dickens* Thackeray, Swift, and Balzac.

His

speeches reveal that his study had included careful con­ sideration of many of the great orators of the past, namely, Burke, Pitt, Fox, Phillips, Webster, and Lincoln. Through his reading and his experience he developed fur­ ther a well grounded philosophy concerning oratory, al­ though he did not expound it extensively. To summarize, when Borah rose to speak in December, 1916, on the subject of the League of Nations, he had a well rounded and varied background of experience and information.

With much experience as a forensic, de­

liberative, and demonstrative speaker, he was well equip­ ped for the task ahead.

He was well respected for his

ideas and lauded for his speech making.

What was more

valuable was his vast amount of experience on the floor of the Senate.

Long before he had learned how to handle

parliamentary intrigue and vigorous heckling.

In other

words, one might say Borah had spent his entire life groom­ ing himself for the twenty-five speeches he was to deliver during the following three sessions.

91

Chapter II THE OCCASION:

THE LEAGUE CONTROVERSY, 1918-1920

A* The Rise of the Controversy When the enormity of the first World War became generally known, men began to ponder as to how to prevent the recurrence of such a catastrophe,

As a result, a

group of prominent Americans in 1915 founded an organiza­ tion called the League to Enforce Peace,

This group,

headed by ex-President William H* Taft, proposed that following the war an association of nations be created to deal with aggressors and to effect pacific settlement of international disputes*

Promoters of this plan became very

active in crusading for additional support,^

Several months

^Theodore Marburg, Development of the League of Nations Idea. edited by John H. Latane (New fork; The Ma omTllaa Company, 1932), Vol* II, pp. 703-717. Theodore Marburg, League of Nations {New York; The Macmillan Company, 1917), Vbl7 I , pp. 72-75* By June, 1916, the organization had collected $400,000 In subscriptions, and its expenses ave­ raged $10,500 per month. In the week ending December 7, 1916, the mailing department sent out 2,089 letters, 22,000 copies of publications, and 763 pieces of newspaper copy* Press copy was distributed by mail to 763 papers with a combined circulation of 19,135,000 or 19# of the daily cir­ culation. In November, 1916, ten field secretaries report­ ed only Minnesota, Nebraska, and Nevada were without state organizations. The vogue for organizations meeting in national conventions was to endorse the platform of the League to Enforce Peace* Ten state legislatures passed resolutions endorsing the league idea. The national office in November, 1917, announced that to date 857,450 pieces of league literature had been published, Hugh Chan, "American

92

Agitation for a League of Nations, 1 9 14-1922* (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, State University of Iowa, January, 1 9 3 4 ), pp . 3 2 -6 7 . passed before President Wilson publicly endorsed the prin­ ciples of the organization.1

During the campaign of 1916

1 Announced in a speech delivered at the closing ban­ quet of the second National Convention, May 27, 1916. Wood­ row Wilson, President Wilson *a State Papers and Addresses, edited by Albert Shaw (Wew York: George h. Doran Company, 1918), pp. 271-275. in support of the Democratic plank2 and in his early messages ^Theodore Mariburg, League of Nations. Vol. I, pp. © 5 -9 8 . of 1917,

3

he further enunciated his approval.

On the other

3 Before the Senate, January 28, 1917, and again in his war message of April 2, 1917, ne made the League a plank in the peace settlement hd visualized. Woodrow Wilson, op. cit•, pp. 343-356, 372-303. hand, William E. Borah was one of the first senators to de­ clare his opposition, for, as early as January 5, 1917, he took the stand he was to defend consistently throughout the debate.^ 40on«, Rec.. 64th Gong., 2nd sess., Vol. 54, Pt, 1, pp. 892-896'; With the entrance of the United States into the

93

first World War, the American people forgot their petty quarrels and united to achieve the goal that they had set for themselves,

tinder the spell of patriotic fervor, great

personal sacrifices were made, and politics were forgotten. Although the President refused to yield to the demand for a bipartisan war cabinet, in other appointments he disregard­ ed politics; consequently many prominent Republicans oc­ cupied responsible positions and served faithfully in the War Administration.^ % a r k Sullivan, Our Times (New York: ner® Sons, 1940), Vol. V, pp. 286-492.

Charles Scrib­

In October, 1918, came the first signs of peace; Austria and Germany appealed to Wilson to make peace on the bases he had laid down in his speech of January 8, 1918, and tthis subsequent addresses on the foundation of e perp msnent peace of justice*’. Almost immediately Theodore % h e New York Times, October 7, 1918, pp. 1-2; October 13, 1 9 « T p. 1. Roosevelt, extremely critical of the Administration through­ out the war, announced his disapproval of Wilson’s peace negotiations and suggested to his fellow Republicans that

94

nor.-parti sans hip should end.1

Due to fear of defeat on the

On October 23, uniting with William H. Taft, he ap­ pealed to the voters of Michigan to support Truman E. New­ berry in preference to Henry Ford, who had declared himself in favor of the peace policy of Wilson, The following day by means of a public telegram to Senators Lodge, Johnson, and Poindexter, Roosevelt advised senatorial opposition to the Wilson peace program. Ibid., October 25, 1918, p. 2. part of some and to a desire on the part of others to capitalize on the popularity of the President, many Demo-: crats urged the President to issue a call for the return of a Democratic Congress.

With reluctance, on October 24,

1919, Wilson complied and immediately a listless campaign took on new life and vigor.

2

In the heat of the struggle

©■ Ibid.. October 26, 1918, p. 1. Joseph P. Tumulty, Woodrow Wilson As I Know Him (Garden City, New York! Doubleday and Page~Co., 1921), pp. 322-334. Taft and Roosevelt rallied to match Wilson with a joint appeal for the return of a Republican Congress.

With

Hughes they gave speeches setting forth their objections and complaints.

3

% e n n a Frank Fleming, The United States and the League of Nations (New York: G.P. Putnam*s Sons, 1932), pp. 35-51. The election gave the Republicans control of the Senate and strengthened their hold on the House.* ^Infra, pp. 193-197.

But this

SEOT

reversal did not deter President Wilson, for during the last of November he revealed that he mould attend the Peaoe l Conference and that the other delegates would be Secretary kphe New York Times, November 19, 1918, p. 1. Robert A. Lansing, Colonel Edward House, Henry White, and o General Tasker H. Bliss. £

Ibid., November 28, 1918, p. 1; November 30, 1918,

P • I*. All these events served to Intensify the partisan spirit,

so much in evidence when the new session convened.

First, the appeal of Wilson for the return of a Democratic Congress had caused the Republicans to complain that in the light of their cooperation during the war they had been mis­ treated.

Many sincerely felt this; even Wilson had been 3 hesitant about the move. The election was, they believed, ®Ray Stannard Baker, Woodrow W i l s o n s Life and Letters {New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1939), Vol. Q, p. 510/ a popular endorsement of their complaint.

Second, after

the Armistice, no longer was there a need for cooperation; thus partisanship replaced patriotic fervor.

Third, the

announcement that the President would attend the Peaoe Conference further irritated many who believed that his



leadership had been repudiated.

Fourth, the failure of the

President to include a prominent Republican or a senator on the peace commission provided another source of dis­ satisfaction.^ X

'

'









The New York Times, December 1, 1918, Sec. X, p. l; December 2, 1918, p. 1.

B.

The Pre-Covenant Debate

The Republican assault was imminent with the open­ ing of Congress, December 2,

Senator Cummins, Republican

of Iowa, had, before the President’s address, opened the attack on the Administration by offering a resolution pro­ viding for the appointment of a bi-partisan committee of eight senators to attend and to scrutinize the Peace Conference.

2

On the following day, Senator Sherman, Republican

2Cong. Reo., 65th Cong., 3rd sess., Vol. 57, Pt. 1, p. 3. of Illinois, through a concurrent resolution, charged that * when the President left the country his office was vacant. 3Ibld.. p. 23. Senator Knox, Republican from Pennsylvania, following a different line of attack, offered a resolution which suggested

that a league of nations "should be postponed for separate consideration not alone by the victorious belligerents, but by all the nations, if and when at some future time general conferences on those subjects might be deemed useful."1 1Ibid. . p. 23. Quite obviously these were designed to embarrass the Presi­ dent and the Administration. On December 4, Senator Frelinghuysen, Republican of New Jersey, introduced a resolution asking the President © to make known his interpretations of the Fourteen Points. 2ISld. ■ p. 69. Borah submitted another recommending that when the Treaty came before the Senate, it be considered in open session.

3

3Ibid., p. 71. Thereafter followed

a three hour debate over the Fourteen

Points, open diplomacy, and the Peace Conference.

4

In the

4The New York Times. December 5,1918, p. 2. most significant address of the day, Senator Kellogg asked for additional information concerning what the Democrats advocated under the League proposition.

Although he expressed

98

himself opposed to a world police force he favored the ex­ tension of conciliation and arbitration along the lines of the Hague Tribunal.

Before the Senate adjourned James

^Cong. R ec., 65th Gong., 3rd sees., Yol. 57, pt. 1, p p . 7 3-77. Reed, Democrat of Missouri, bitterly denounced an internaZ tional organization. The day after, Borah introduced a Slbld.t pp. 86-88. resolution ashing the Senate to "reaffirm its faith and confidence” in the doctrines of George Washington, James Monroe, and Thomas Jefferson, warning against entangling alliances with foreign nations.

3

Herein he proclaimed the

SI M a .. p. 124. underlying philosophy of his opposition to a league of nations. Hamilton Lewis, Democrat from m i n d s ,

reopened

the discussion, December 6, with a "prepared speech" in defense of the Administration.4

Immediately thereafter

4Ibid., pp. 178-189.

Borah gave his first speech of the session.

At this time

it: should be remembered that specific plans bad been advanced by officials of the League to Enforce Peace, Theodore Marburg,1 and others, but not by Wilson.

The President’s

^Theodore Marburg, League of Nations, Vol. 1, pp. 189-138. suggestions had intentionally been general in nature al­ though secretly as early as July, 1918, he had considered a tentative covenant.

8

At the outset, therefore, Borah was

2 Hay S. Baker, Woodrow Wilson and the World Settlement (New York; Doubleday, Page Co., 1922), Vol. I, pp. 21Q224. handicapped by not having a specific proposal to attack. Apparently because of this obscurity Borah hoped to force his opposition to be more specific as to what constituted a league of nations.

In his introduction he stated that he

did not "rise to reply, nor even to engage in a debate with the very able Senator from Illinois ^ e w i g 7 • • «"

A

moment later he confessed that his apprehension for the wel­ fare of his country, however, had been inoreased by the re­ marks of the Illinois senator.

Furthermore he revealed

that he was not interested in attacking the President. he been consulted, he stated, he would have advised the President against attending the Conference, but, said he,

Had

"we would have him achieve all that may be to the honor and security of his country.* His thesis, he announced, was to prove that proponent® of the League were not willing to follow their arguments to their logical conclusions, namely, that a league to b© effective must encompass a "superinternational tribunal" with an army to enforce its decisions.

Such an

organization, he maintained, would be undesirable because it would require the abandonment of Washington*s policy of avoiding entangling alliances and the annulment of the 1 Monroe Doctrine. ^Cong. Rec♦, 65th Cong., 3rd ses®., Vol. 57, Ft, 1, pp. 189-197. During the interim between Borah’s first and his second speech,

the attention of Americans was attracted by

the activities of the President, who had embarked for Europe £

two days after he had personally addressed Congress.

Upon

Wilson departed from New York December 4, and landed December 13, at Brest, Prance, where he was given a tremen­ dous welcome. The New York Times, December 14, 1918, pp. 1, 2. In Paris the President was afforded numerous recep­ tions and was interviewed by prominent diplomats. Ibid., December 15, 1918, p. 1. A week later he visited England, being received with great enthusiasm. The Current History, 9: Pt. 2, pp. 198-209, "President Wilson in Europe". In his speeches he further emphasized his determination to bring about the formation of a league. See his Guildhall address and his Manchester address published in The New York Times,

101

December 29, 1918, p. 1, and December 31, 1918, p. 1, respectively* After five days in England be departed for France and subsequently travelled to Italy, where be visited Rome, Genoa, Milan, and Turin, giving numerous short speech­ es along the way and including one to the Italian Parlia­ ment. On this trip he left Paris January 1, 1919, and returned January 7, 1919. The Current History. 9: Pt. 2, pp. 2Q9-215, "President Wilson *s Visit to Italy", his arrival he left no doubt as to the program he advocated, for publicly and privately he stressed that the first and foremost task of the approaching conference was the cre­ ation of a league of nations,*" but in none of his utterIn his private conferences with British leaders, al­ though he stressed the prime importance of a league, he was unwilling to advance any specific proposals, Lloyd George reports that Wilson expressed few desires except those con­ cerning the league. David Lloyd George, The Truth About the Peace Treaties (Londons Victor Ga1lanez, 1938), fo1. 1, pp7 185-188: ances did he specifically define what.he visualized in a world union.

His supporters and his foes alike were left

to speculate as to what he advocated. The numerous receptions, the popular ovations, the President’s preliminary conferences with leading fig­ ures, and his inspirational addresses were given tremendous publicity in the United States.

He was heralded as the

true representative of democratic liberalism and the one who could "rise above the tumult of passion."

As a result

the President’s ethical appeal was greatly enhanced with millions of his countrymen.

In the face of this enthusiasm

102

criticism of him and his ideas was hazardous and difficult. Nor did Wilson's efforts go unsupported in the United States, for prominent persons, led by ex-Preaident Taft, were busy speaking and writing on the nature and the desirability of International organization.1

Before the

1 On December 6 Taft addressed a group of editors and publishers in New York City on the subjeot, "Why a league of nations is necessary” , Taft Papers on the League of Nations. edited by Theodore Marburg end Horace iT Flack (New York; The Macmillan Company, 1920), pp. 156-168. Three days later h® appeared on a program of the Southern Commercial Congress, Baltimore, Maryland, with Oscar S. Straus, former ambassador to Turkey; Dr. Nicholas M. Butler, president of Columbia University; Edward Filene of the United States Chamber of Commerce. The New York Times. December 10, 1918, p. 12. The day following his address at Brooklyn, he addressed the College Women's Club, Mont­ clair, New Jersey, on the subject, "The League: Why and How” . Taft Papers on the League of Nations, op. oit., pp. 177-194. Beside his speeches, he wrote a series of articles for the Philadelphia Public Ledger in refutation of arguments of anti-league forces. Ibid.. pp. 160-177, 194-204. A large mass meeting, indicative of the pro­ league efforts, was held at Carnegia Hall, New York City, under the joint auspices of the League to Enforce Peace, the League of Free Nations Association, and the Associ­ ation of Neighborhood Workers, Among the speakers were Oscar Straus, Norman Hepgood, Dr. Lawrence Lowell, Frank P. Walsh, Professor Samuel MoClune Lindsay of Columbia University, The New York Times, January 11, 1919, p. 2. Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, perhaps in re­ sponse to Borah's charge of indefiniteness#

the ex-

President suggested that a league, as he conceived it, would have four parts:

an international court, a commission

of conciliation, an international police, and a congress of

103

nations to codify international law,1

Likewise the cabinet

1

Ibid., December 30, 1918, p. 2.

o members joined in sapport of their absent c h i e f . T h i s ao2 ^Josephus Daniels, Secretary of Navy, at the Southern Commercial Congress, December 11, announced that the United States would "ask nothing in the way of territory or in­ demnity" but would insist that the smaller nations receive equal treatment. Ibid. . December 12, 1918, p. 1. Newton Baker, Secretary of War, in an address to the Buffalo Chamber of Commerce insisted that the .American people would demand a league of nations. Ibid. , January 5, 1919, p. 12. Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of Interior, on January 16, out­ lined the principles of the League in an address before the Merchants Association, New Tork City. Ibid., January 17, 1919, p. 2. tivity caused alarm among the anti-league faction.

Although

they too were commencing to take their appeal to the voters, they were no match for the already well organized League to Enforce Peace.

&

For at least three months this disparity

a On December 6, 1918, Albert H. Beveridge in an ad­ dress to the Massachusetts Bar Association argued violently against the League. Cong. Rec.. 65th Cong., 3rd sess., Vol. 57, Pt. 3, p. 2115. Col. George Harvey, editor of North American Review, on December 23 opposed the League in a speech before the annual dinner of the New England Society, Hotel Waldorf, New York City. The New York Sun, December 24, 1918, p. 2. On December 30, James Reed, Democratic senator from Missouri, in an address to the Society of Arts and Sciences, Hotel Biltmore, New York City, argued that a league of nations would be dangerous because the United States would b® outvoted. Ibid., December 30, 1918, p. 2. In an article in the Metropolitan Magazine, Theodore Roose­ velt, long an enemy of Wilson, criticized the Fourteen Points and the Wilson Procedure. The New York Times, December 14, 1918, p. 4.

continued.

But upon their aid© they had the post war slump

which, when given more time, made many of the people lethar­ gic toward internationalism. In his address of December 18, Knox proposed to substitute for the Wilson scheme an understanding for ’’con­ certed action” by the United States and European Powers, i when their mutual interests were menaoed. A few days later ^Cong. Be e ., 65th Cong., 3rd sess., Vol. 57, Pt. 1, pp. 603^609. Henry Cabot Lodge, an equally prominent Republican, warned that since the Senate had the right to amend or to reject a treaty submitted to it, the proposed treaty might be sub­ jected to alterations.

Peace negotiations, he thought were

endangered by five of the Fourteen Points, namely, those referring to open diplomacy, to freedom of the seaB, to lowering economic barriers, to reduction of armaments, and 2 to the formation of a league of nations. Like many of his sIbid,, pp. 723-728. Lodge had probably been care­ fully advised in this effort by Theodore Roosevelt. Corine Roosevelt Robinson, My Brother, Theodore Roosevelt (New Yorks Charles Scribners Sons, 1921), p p • 361-2. colleagues, the Massachusetts senator was eager to make his

105

voice heard in Paris.

An answer to Lodge and Knox came

1 — — In a letter to Theodore Roosevelt he said: "I am sending you a copy of the speech which I made on Saturday /December ££/ which was intended chiefly for the benefit of the Allies.” Selections from Correspondence of Theo­ dore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot hod^e T&ew York: Charles Scribner1s Sons, 1925), Vol. II, p. 550. from Senator Lewis, Democratic whip from Illinois2

'

on

2

Cong. Rep., S5th Cong., 3rd sess., Vol. 57, pt. 1, pp. 980-993. January 2 and 3, and from Senator McCumber, Republican of g North Dakota, on January 7, 1919. 3Ibid. . Pt. 2, pp. 10Q3-1088. Beside

James Reed, other Democrats asserted their

skepticism concerning the President's scheme.

Hoke Smith of

Georgia opposed a league which established "any internation­ al tribunal in the shape of a constitutional form of govern­ ment, court, or police to interfere with governmental power of the United States.”

Senator Thomas of Colorado0 and

^Speech delivered December 26, 1918, Ibid., Pt. 1, p • @59•

106

i

Senator Myers of Montana

had expressed similar sentiments.

I£bid., Pt. 2, pp. 1310-1331. Motivated by an announcement of the officials of the League to Info roe Peace to the effect that they were planning a series of regional conferences to gain popular support,

2

Borah chose to attach the proposals of that

S"I call attention to these facts at this particular time for the reason that it is a program advocated by men of vast Influence and of great standing in this country who have announced that they propose to hold conventions in all the large cities of the country in order that the people may understand precisely what their program is and to secure an endorsement at the hands of the people." Ibid. . Vol. 57, pt. 2, p. 1384. organisation in his second address of the session, delivered January 14, 1919.

In his introduction he carefully dis­

tinguished between the proposal of the League to Inforce Peace and the organization vaguely suggested by President Wilson in his speeches in France and Italy.

Hurriedly he

passed over the Presidents suggestion, which he charac­ terized as an organization of the "moral forces" of the world, by saying, "We shall watch with interest the develop­ ment of the machinery by which it is to be made effective for the settlement of concrete questions and particularly difficulties in international affairs."

The proposal of the League to Enforce Peace he characterized as a league of repression and war.

He

showed that adoption of such a plan would mean peace-time conscription, a large navy, high taxes, the sending of troops abroad, and the abandonment of the policies of Washington and of Monroe.

Furthermore he proved that the

United States was actually preparing for such an organiza­ tion by enlarging the navy and the peace-time army, the implication being, though not stated specifically, that the Administration was suggesting through Wilson a league based on moral force, but in reality it was preparing for one based upon military and naval strength.

Notwith­

standing, he made no direct attack upon Wilson or any Democratic senator, because he probably desired not to antagonize or alienate his Democratic colleagues who might be persuaded to oppose th© proposition.

Perhaps

h© was equally cognizant of the fact that in the light of popular sentiment, due in part to favorable reports 1 from abroad, such an approach would be unwise and futile. 1Ibid., pp. 1383-1387. During the last half of January discussion of the peace settlement continued almost daily In the Senate.

108

Nevertheless major efforts were withheld until the proposed Covenant, under discussion at the Paris Conference, was made public,

Frequent reports of the progress of the

delegates appeared in American newspapers*

The news that

the proceedings of the Conference would not be open to publicity caused the Idaho senator in a brief speech to denounce secret diplomacy and the President’s decision not to insist upon "open covenant, openly arrived at,"* h b d . , pp. 1582-1584.

Williams, Lewis, and Johnson of California expressed similar displeasure. Again on January 30 in a short speech Borah pro­ tested the settlement of a world’s problems behind closed doors.

2

Aroused by the reports of a coming campaign of the

gIbid.. Vol. 57, Pt. 3, pp. 2353-2356. League to Inforce Peace and of Bolshevik! propaganda, the Idahoan delivered, February 4, a second minor speech in whioh he denounced both the League to Enforce Peace and subversive groups for attempts to undermine Americanism.

”008,” said

Borah, "would destroy it /the United States/ by demobiliz­ ing its moral forces, the other by sterilizing the national

i rsq

spirit.”

Concluding, lie made a fervent* plea that every

senator during the coming recess go forth and preach Americanism.1 Ibid., pp. 2654-2656; for his adjustment to the audience. Infra. pp. 204-208. Mot until January 25 did the Conference, after a stirring appeal by Wilson, adopt a resolution declaring that the League of Mations was to be an integral part of the treaty.

2

*fhe following three weeks were devoted to draft-

gfhe Mew York Times. January 26, 1919, Sect. I, p. 1. ing the Covenant.

Among the frequent dispatches reporting

the activity in Paris came the news February 14 that the employment of an international police force had been defeat­ ed and that the first draft of the Covenant had been oom3 plated. fhe following day simultaneously with Wilson's

^ibia , February 14, 1919, p. 1. presentation of it to the Conference, the Covenant was published in American newspapers.4 4Ibld., February 15, 1919, pp. 1, 2. After his presentation, the President set sail for

110

home in order to be here for the adjournment of Congress. By telegram he proffered an invitation to members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to meet with him, at the White Bouse, February £4, to discuss the proposed Covenant.

He requested, further, that they refrain from

discussing the proposal until after their conference ^Xbid. , February 16, 1919, p. 1. In a letter to the President*s private secretary Borah immediately refused the invitation on the grounds that he did not wish to be bound to secrecy by any confidence the ©

Chief Executive might impose. sIbld.■ February 19, 1919, pp. 1, S. During February the officials of the league to Enforce Peace resolved to show the Peace Conference that the people of the Bnited States desired a "strong" League of Rations. In pursuance of their objective they conducted a 3 series of nine regional conferences. The efforts of the 3

Infra, pp. 262-264,

anti -league forces were comparatively meager.

Senator

Poindexter, Republican of Washington, had made a few speeches

1 throughout the East.

James M. .Beck, attorney; of Hew Tork

1

On January 31 he addressed the Republican Club of New York City. The New York Times. February 1, 1919, p. 2. On February 12, he addressed at Portland, Maine, the Lincoln C3mb, composed of members of the state legislature* Ibid., February 13, 1919, p. 5. On February 23, he engaged in a debate with George H. Putnam before the People’s Forum, last Orange, New Jersey. Ibid., February 24, 1919, p. 2. City, who became a prominent campaigner of the anti-league faction, announced his opposition upon his return from Europe.

2

Henry A. Wise Wood issued a call for assistance

2 He spoke to the New York Bar on the League January 18, 1919. Ibid. . January 19, 1919, p. 10. He gave a similar talk to the Republican Club of New York City, February 12, 1919. Xbld. . February 13, 1919, p. S. in drafting plans for an anti-league organization which later became known as the League for the Preservation of 3 American Independence. However as yet the pro-league ad3 Ibid., February 24, 1919, p. 2; Infra, pp, 285-289. vocates completely over shadowed these scant beginnings. The speeches and correspondence of Borah show that he was well aware of this fact. W^th the publication of the Covenant, February 15, 1919, the first phase of the Senate debate drew to a close. In the past two and a half months the discussion had centered around what the Covenant might embrace.

Hollonger

112

was such speculation necessary*

C. Tli© Initial Attack on the Covenant, February 15, to July,

1919.

The Close of the Session The request of the Chief Executive that discussion of the Covenant be postponed was a sufficient stimulus to cause his opponents to take immediate action.

Borah argued

that the President’s determination to speak at Boston upon his arrival released his foes from any obligation to remain 1 silent* Before crowded galleries Senator Miles Poindexter X The Mew York Times. February 17, 1919, pp. 1, 2. opened the debate on the League constitution published four days before*

2

On February 21 Borah resumed the attack with

2

Cong* gee. . @5th Cong., 3rd sess., Vol. 57, Pt. 4, pp. 3746-3755. 3 his third major effort of the session. 3 Ibid.. pp. 3911-3915. Of course, the League debate had entered its second phase.

Now that the first draft of the Covenant was

available, little doubt was entertained concerning the nature of the proposal.

The publication of the Covenant, the

President’s return, and M s request for silence undoubtedly inspired Borah to speak.^

In his introduction he first

^Borah, in a published interview on the White House Conference, had argued that the senators should not be bound to silence while Taft was touring the country discussing the Covenant. The Hew York Times, February 17, 1919, p. 2. justified his speaking by saying that the people have a right to act on "radical and important departures from our established national policy."

He further asserted that his

remarks might have been postponed if it had not been for a statement issued by Taft "some two or three days ago" to the effect that participation in the League would not de­ stroy "the policy announced by Washington in his Farewell Address and does not renounce • • . the Monroe Doctrine". Hot the President, but ex-President Taft, therefore, was made the object of the Idahoan’s attack. Accordingly, he turned to an analysis of the Covenant to show wherein the ex-Fresident had erred. Borah’s arguments were that the Council would be under European domination, that the United States would be forced to protect the territorial integrity of the British Empire, and that, since the Covenant applied to the Western Hemi­ sphere as well as to other portions of the world, the Monroe Doctrine would be nullified.

His attack on the

114

British Empire, a line of argument he had not previously used, was perhaps directed toward those who were parti­ cularly sympathetic with Ireland in its struggle for self-determination.

Re-echoing a sentiment which he had

expressed February 4, he asserted that joining the League meant the sterilization of nationalism, an aim, he thought, not confined solely to Trotzky and company but one also of the pro-leaguers.

He concluded with a tribute to Theodore

Roosevelt, "the supreme nationalist,"1 who had recently ^Qong. Reo., 65th Cong., 3rd sess., Vol. 57, Ft. 4, pp. 3911-3915. For adjustment to the audience see Infra. pp. 2 0 6 -2 0 8 . "* died. Upon his arrival In Boston, February 24, Presi­ dent Wilson answered his opponents in a stirring address delivered not solely to his immediate audience of seven thousand crowded into Mechanic Hall, but to the nation as a whole.

As scheduled, two days later he met with the

SThe Hew York Times, February £5, 1919, p. 1. members of the Foreign Relations Committee at the White House to discuss controversial points and to answer the 3 senator's queries. Inasmuch as the Republican attack 3Ibla., February 27, 1919, p. 1.

on th© Covenant did not abate, on the night before his re­ turn to Paris th© President, joined by William H. Taft, spoke to a large mass meeting in Hew York City, once more 1 appealing to the American people for support. 1Ibld ., March 8, 1919, p. 1. During the last few days of the session, Heed, Cummins, Lodge, Knox and Frelinghuysen, in rapid succession, bombarded the proposed Covenant and the policy of the Demo* 2 crats» One of the few answers came from McCumber who Cong, R e o .. 65th Gong,, 3rd seas., Vol. 57, Pt. 4, . 4026^45iTT* supported the Administration more faithfully than some of his Democratic colleagues,

3

3Ibld.. pp. 4872-4882. The most serious blow to the Administration was the presentation by Lodge in the closing hours of th© sess4 ion of a resolution signed by thirty-seven Republicans, *Two others signed later. enough to defeat or withhold acceptance of the treaty.

The

resolution recommended "that negotiations on the part of

116

the United States immediately be directed to , . . negoti­ ating peace terms with Germany . . . and that the proposal for a league of nations * . . should be then taken up for careful consideration.”1

Although the resolution was out

XCong. Reo., 65th Cong., 3rd sess., Vol. 57, Pt. 5, p. 4974. of order, it served the purpose of notifying the Administra­ tion of the difficulty it faced if Republican demands were not respected.

It appeared that if Wilson hoped to get the

support of the Republican senators he must alter some por­ tions of th© Covenant to meet their demands.

The coming

recess provided all factions with an opportunity to test their strength before the voters and to map out future strategy. Attempts of the Anti-League Forces to Win Popular Support The powerful pro-league propaganda, the lack of anti-league newspaper support, and the recent speeches of the President convinced Borah and other Irreconcilables of the necessity of a popular campaign in order to get their Z arguments before the people. Consequently during the 2Borah to Edward A. Whittier, February 8, 1919; Borah to W.D. Guthrie, January 1, 1919, Borah Papers.

recess they redoubled their efforts.

1

Largely on his own

% e e d was busy in Missouri, The Chisago Daily Tribune. March 26, 1919, p. 3; McCormick was vaulting a series of articles for the Chicago Daily Tribune. Ibid., March 3, 1919, p. 10; March 29, p. 5; Poindexter made an extended tour, The Mew York Times. May 3, 1919, p. 2; George Harvey deliv­ ered addresses to prominent olubs in Chicago, Indianapolis, and Boston. Ibid. . March 16, p. 11, March 18, 1919, p. 2, and Th® Hew York Sun, March 21, 1919, p. 4. initiative but with some outside financial help, the Idahoan

2

made an extensive tour through the East and Middle

2

The Hew York Times, February 81, 1919, p. 1.

lest. Joined by Senators Thomas and Heed, he opened, March 6, by addressing the Society of Arts and Sciences in 3 Hew York City, Then followed two addresses to pro-Irish 3 The Mew York Sun. March 7, 1919, p. 8, groups.

Two days later, with Albert I. Beveridge and Senator

Thomas, he addressed in Boston a crowd of over 3,000 who hissed freely when the Presidents name was mentioned.^

This

Boston Post. March 9, pp. 1, 15-16. To the writer’s knowledge th1s is the first time the President’s name was booed.

meeting was a fitting prelude for the Lowell-Lodge debate,

i±S

held in Boston March 19.

X

On his return trip to Washington,

^Because of the President's earlier speech in Lodge's home state, this debate received wide attention. At least 40,000 persons applied for admission and 3,500 were accom­ modated in an auditorium built for a capacity of one thous­ and less, The Chicago Daily Tribune, March 20,1919, p. 1; The New York Times, March 20, p. 1. A similar debate was held between Hitchcock and Lenroot before the Economic Club of New York City, The Chicago Daily Tribune. April 8, 1919, p. 4. the Idahoan stopped at Brooklyn to address the Clan-na-Gael, a patriotic Irish organization, commemorating the birthday £ of Robert Emmet, Irish martyr.

£ Date of speech March 9* 1919. March 10, 1919, p. 5.

The New York Sun.

He opened the second phase of hi3 campaign at Troy, New York, March 14, speaking under the auspices of the Currrn

rent Topic Club of the Central Y.M.C.A.

The following even-

sThe Albany Evening Journal, March 14,1919, p. 11. The New York Sun, March 15, 1919, p. 3. ing he was in Albany, speaking to a rally sponsored by the 4 City Club, a women's organization. A pro-Irish audience 4The Albany Evening Journal, March 15, 1919, p. 1; March 17, 1919, p. £. of 5,000 at Rochester, New York, heard him, on the subject

of "Self—Determinetion for Ireland and Its Relation to a League of Nations."

Two days later found him in Cleve-

*4)at@ of Speech March 16. The New York Sun. March 17, 1919, p. 2, The Rochester (N.Y. j Democrat and Chronicle, March 17, 1919, p. 17. land, Ohio, speaking to what he described later as one of £ best meetings . At Fort Wayne, he concluded this part 8

Borah to Frank Munsey, March 84, 1919. Borah Papers, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 19, 1919, p. 5. of his campaign.

3

Bis original plans to continue westward

3

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, March £0, 1919, p. 8,

from Indiana

were upset by a throat affliction

Chicago Daily Tribune, March 12, 1919, p. 5 % o r a h to Frank Munsey, March 22, 1919, and Maroh 24, 1919, Borah Papers. He opened the third phase of his spring activity, ft April 1, at Huntington, West Virginia. Next followed two % h e local paper reported that persons came from Bluefield, Williamson, and other points along the Norfolk and Western railroad and from Callettsburg and Arland, Kentucky to hear him. The Huntington (West Virginia) Advertiser, April 2, 1919, rallies ineOhio:

on© at Columbus,7 and another at Lancaster.

7Date of speech, April 13.

The Ohio State Journal,

120

April 4, 1919, pp. 1, 9. The Columbus (Ohio) Evening Dispatch, April 4, 1919, p. 14*1 ------

■8 Date of speech, April 4. The Lancaster (Ohio) Gazette, April 5, 1919, p. 1.

Mily

On April S he addressed another large pro-Irish meeting at the Auditorium Theatre, Chicago, Illinois.

The meeting had

been widely advertised; it was reported that an announce­ ment of it had been read in many of the Catholic churches of the city.

Afterward it was commented upon by the Irish

1 The Chicago Evenln& American, April 3, 1919, p. 5. The Chicago Daily News. April 5, 1919, p. 3. press throughout the country.

8

Enroute to Kansas the Idaho

£ J.A. McGarry to Borah, April 21, 1919, Borah Papers. senator stopped at St. Joseph to assist James A. Reed with a rally attended by over 4,000.

3

Before returning to Wash-

gThe St. Joseph (Mo.) News Press. April 8, 1919, p. 1. The St. Joseph Gazette, April 8, 1919, p. 1. 4 iagton, he delivered addresses at Topeka, Date of speech, April 8. Capital. April 9, 1919, p. 1. Kansas,

5

and Tulsa, Oklahoma.

and VUchita,

The Topeka (Kansas) Daily

6

Ft

Date of speech, April 10.

The Wichita Eagle, April

121

12, 1919, p. 2 j The ftlehlta Beacon, April 11, 1919, p. 2. “Date of speech, April IS. April 13, 1919, pp. 1, 2 .

The Tulsa Daily World. -------------- -------

A review of the seventeen meetings mentioned above shows that Borah used the same arguments before popular groups that he had used before the Senate,

Joining the

League, he argued,would mean the destruction of the tradi­ tional foreign policy, the involvement in entangling alli­ ances and unnecessary wars, and the control of the American foreign policy by "foreigners” .

He pointed to the great

injustice in the voting provisions which gave the British Empire six times as many votes as the United States and placed this nation on an equal basis with Siam.

He lamented

the failure to recognize the principle of self-determina­ tion, especially in the case of Ireland (for Irish-American audience) and to bring about disarmament which would light­ en the tax burden.

Constructively, he advocated a popular

referendum and a rejuvenation of Americanism, He seemed to care little about the group that sponsored him, for he spoke under the auspices of Republican clubs, Irish organizations, a Y.M.C.A,, and a women's group. Because, as he stated, he was eager to reach as many people as possible, he requested of the committees on arrangements that all meetings be open, non-partisan and, with no

admission charge.

He asked no honorarium, but lie did not

object if an organization shared the cost of his traveling 1 expenses. He planned his own speaking tours and made his Borah to Dayton Chamber of Commerce, March £5, 1919; Borah to Elmer J . Kneale, Springfield, 111., March 24, 1919; Borah to George Relf, Salt Lake, March 13, 1919, Borah Papers. own engagements.

Many times final arrangements were worked

out while he was on tour. The Opening of the Special Session of Congress. The Round Robin resolution, the White House Con­ ference, and the Republican speeches during the closing day of the last session were warnings to Wilson of the serious­ ness of his opposition. Gilbert Hitchcock, Democratic 2 floor leader, ©x-Senator Elihu Root, and William H. Taft o David Hunter Miller, The Drafting of the Covenant (New York: Putnams Sons, 1928), Vol. I, pp. 276-277. were all urging him to accede tc, at least Republican demands.

part of the

They urged four, amendments:

the right

3 Allan Kevins, Henry White, Thirty Years of American Diplomacy (New York: Harpers and Brothers, 1930), pp. 394400. fhe Taft-Tumulty-Wilson correspondence is found in the Taft Papers on the League of Nations, op. eit., pp321-3$1.

12S

to refuse mandates, insurance that the League would not rule o n domestic problems such as tariff and immigration, a clause providing a method for withdrawal, and recognition of the Monroe Doctrine.

Although the President had little

difficulty gaining recognition of the first three, he met stiff opposition especially from the French in securing a clause in the Covenant to protect the last.

The other

Powers immediately offered counter demands which necessi1 tated concessions by all. After careful revision the 1 Fleming, 0 £. oit., pp. 184-190. amended draft was published, April 28.2 2The Hew York Times, April 28, 1919, p. 1. In the interest of party harmony Lodge and Curtis sent a telegram to each Republican senator requesting him to "reserve final expression of opinion respecting the amended League Covenant until the latest draft has been carefully studied and until there has been an opportunity 3 for conference.” On May 2, Curtis announced compliance ^Xbid♦. April 30, 1919, p. 1. by all but six senators, one of whom was Borah. ^Ibid., May 3,1919, p. 2.

4

Further

Borah and Lodge, leaders of the Irreconcilables and Strict Reservationists respectively, agreed before the session convened that any attempt to defeat the League nby s straight vote in the Senate, if taken immediately would be hopeless * • ." Consequently they conspired "to proceed in the discussion of the treaty by the way of amendment and reservations ^Lodge, 0£. cit. , pp. 147-148. When Congress convened May 19, the Republicans with their majority of two resumed control of the Senate for the first time since 1912. essitated party unity.

The narrow majority nec­

Aware of the disparity among the

members over the League issue, party leaders recognized that the loss of the LaFollette, Borah, Johnson, Colt, or McCumber vote might throw control to the Democrats. ready party solidarity was threatened.

Al­

By means of a

public letter to the Boston Evening Transcript, Borah had 2 announced that b& would bolt if the party did not take ^quoted in full in The New York Times, May 10, 1919, p. 2. a stand satisfactory to him.^

furthermore, the regulars

3John Hart to Borah, May 13, 1919; Borah to John Hart,

125

Rigby* Idaho, May 19, 1919. (Hart was National Republican Committeeman from Idaho). Borah to J. Dunn, Wallace, Idaho, May 17, 1919, Borah Papers. and progressives were quarreling over the appointment of Senator Penrose to the chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee.^

As a result of the precarious majority, the

1 Th© New York Time3, May 13, p. 16; May 14, p. 10; May 15, 1919, p. 6. Irreconcilables could make the party leaders listen to their demands.

This influence may have explained the new appoint- ( '

ments to the Foreign Relations Committee, for Sherman, New, and Moses, prominent foes of the Covenant, were appointed g instead of some of the Mild Reservationists• 2 Ibid., May 23, 1919, p. 5. These appointments have been cited by Fleming, page 217, as an eyidenoe of Lodgefs strategy to defeat the League. An equally plausible ex­ planation is that these appoihtmentswere appeasements to the Irreconcilables, The day following the opening of Congress, Hiram Johnson, of California opened the discussion of the Treaty bf offering a resolution asking that the Secretary of State *rbe and he Is hereby requested . . .

to transmit to the

Senate the full text of the treaty of peace completed at the Paris Conference and delivered to the representatives

1 of Germany.*

After severe! days of bitter debate on the

XCong. Rec., 65th Cong., 1st sess,, Vol. 50, Pt. 1, p. 63. advisability of the measure, on June 2, Johnson demanded a 2 vote upon his resolution. The following day 3orah intensi* 2Ibld.. on. 501-509. fied the situation by declaring that the Peace Treaty had been published and circulated among "particularly those with whom w© were lately engaged in war* and furtherinore that it was in the possession of certain interests in New York who were using it in a *3emi-public* fashion. he had actually seen such a copy.

3

Lodge added that

Immediately the Demo-

3Ibid., p. 558. crats were thrown into confusion. On June 5, Hitchcock ©;.ll®d the bluff of Borah and Lodge by introducing a resolution to the effect that the Foreign Relations Committee be "authorized and direc­ ted to Investigate the matter with a view to ascertain the facts . .

Although this was what Borah desired,it

1ST

was probably contrary to the wishes of Lodge because the copy he had seen had been in the possession of Elihu Root, a friend and fellow party member*

During the debate that

followed, John Sharp 'Williams charged that those who were sponsoring the Johnson resolution were motivated by personal dislike for President Wilson.

Following Senator Freling-

huysen's address for the resolution, Senator Thomas also accused the Republicans of injecting party politics into 1 th© discussion* Senator Kellogg, Republican of Minnesota, 1Ibid., pp. 684-686. expressed the opinion that the Senate was entitled to a copy of the Treaty before the enemy and the public.

Borah

now arose to deliver his first speech of the session. The speech may be divided into three parts.

The

first was an answer to the numerous attacks on the charac­ ters of the Irreconcilables.

Once more he quoted and ans­

wered charges appearing in recent speeches of ex-President Taft.

He urged his opponents to debate issues, not person­

alities.

In a counter attack, he reaffirmed his belief

that the treaty was in the hands of certain New York busi­ ness men.

Inasmuch as the Treaty had been published abroad,

he could see no reason for not releasing it in the United States.

Because the Administration feared opposition they

had not published it, he concluded. The second part of his speech was a bitter de­ nunciation of the British Empire.

In the last part, he

argued that the League should be a party issue.

He

pointed to recent press reports and to his own personal observations made on his recent western tour, that al­ ready Homer Cummings, Chairman of the Democratic Committee, hod made support of the League a test of party loyalty. In addition, he showed that regardless of the outcome of the genate debate, the controversy would be involved in party politics,1 1 Ibid., pp. 690-695; For a discussion of his audience adjustment see Infra, pp. 215-219. The climax of the debate on the Johnson resolu­ tion came, June 9, when Borah announced that he had in his possession a copy of the Treaty.

A few days before, Wilson,

because of an agreement with the other allied leaders, re­ fused to subiait the laris agreement to the Senate.

Not

surprising, therefore, was the consternation among the Democrats, eager to protect the Administration.

When his

request for unanimous consent to i;rint the Treaty in the Senate Documents was denied by a vote of 47 to 24, I3orah exercised his privilege of reading."' SIbid., pp. 781-802.

After he had held the

floor thirty-five minutes

the Democratic leaders yielded,

Xfhe Hew York Times. June 10, 1919, p. 1; Cong. Roc., 66th Cong,, 1st sess., Vol. 58, Ft. 1, p. 80S. and the Treaty was printed in the Record. cided victory for the Irreconcilables.

This was a de­

Incidentally, the

truth of Borah*s assertion that Hew York banking interests possessed a copy was affirmed by the Senate investigating committee; the use to which these interests put it was not 2 established. % p o n investigation, the Senate Committee found that the treaty which Lodge had seen had passed from the hands of Mr. Thomas Lamont, financial advisor at Paris to Mr. H.P. Davidson of J.P. Morgan and Co., head of the League of Red Cross Societies. In turn, Mr. Davidson had passed it cm to Elihu Root, who had shown it to Lodge. The New York Times, June 12, 1919, p. 1, 2. Borah won a second parliamentary battle by putting through a resolution, to the effect that the Peace Conference be requested to grant a hearing to the representatives of Ireland.

On June 6, it passed sixty to one with thirty-

five not voting.3

Thereby Borah further entrenched himself

3 Cong. Rec., 66th Cong., 1st sess., Yol. 58, Pt. 1, p. 733. with the Irish-Americans, especially at a moment when they

±30

had failed to gain a hearing at the Peace Conference.3, As a part of their campaign, the Irish organization in April had sent Edward F. Dunne, former governor of Illinois; Frank F. Walsh of New York, former joint chair­ man of the War Labor Board; Michael J. Ryan of Philadelphia to Peris wto obtain for the delegates selected by the people of Ireland a hearing at the peace conference and t o place before the conference, if that hearing be not given, the case of Ireland. • The/ Chicago Daily Tribune, March £9, 1919, p. 3. Although the committee was enthusiastic­ ally received in Ireland and although Colonel E*M. House arranged a meeting between Edward F. Dunne, the chairman of the committee, and Lloyd George, there was little that the American Peace delegates could do in forcing England to grant Irish Independence. Ibid. , April £2, 1919, p. 1. The attempt to split the treaty of peace from the Covenant, a third effort of the foes of the League, failed.

On June 10, Senator Knox offered a resolution ©

similar to the one he had introduced the previous session. £

Cong. R e c ., 66th Cong,, 1st sess., Vol. 58, Pt. 1, p. 894. The Foreign Relations Committee, responding lmmedlately, reported it back to the Senate the following day, and debate started with Senator Knox on the affirmative^ and 3Jbld., pp. 121,-1222. Thomas on the negative. 4

The measure provided the first

Ibid.. pp. 1264-1276, 1372-1379.

test of strength of the various factions.

The anti-league

group, dune 20, according to its own admission, could muster only thirty-five or thirty-six votes; therefore,the 1 measure was abandoned. *The New York Times, dune 21, 1919, p. 1; dun© 23, 1919, p. 1. Many Republican leaders, both in and outside of the Senate, eager to avoid a recurrence of 1912, urged 2 compromise among the factions. Will Hays, Republican 2_ „ Infra, pp. 212-215. National Chairman, hopeful of disposing of the issue be­ fore the approaching presidential campaign, commenced to toward the Taft point of view,

3

much to the disgust

3Henrv F. Pringle. The Life and Times of William Howard Taft (New York! Farra^ S3T H n e h S r t . " I S o T . T a H r r W l T l f r

of Borah.

Ex-Senator Ellhu Root oame forward with the

4 Borah to Will Hays, dune 17, 1919, Borah Papers suggestion that "the Senate ought to include in its re­ solution of consent to ratification an expression of such reservations and understandings as wilieure so far as possible the defect . . . "

Such reservations, he stated,

1353

were win accordance with long established precedent in mak­ ing treaties and would not'lnCiud© in its resolution of consent to ratification an expression of such reserva­ tions and understandings as will cur© so far as possible the defect . . .*

Such reservations, he stated, were win

accordance with long established precedent in making of treaties and would not include reopening of negotiations* 1 if none of the signatories objected. ^Elihu Hoot to Henry Gabot Lodge, quoted in full in The Hew York Times. June 22, 1919, Sect. I, p. 3. Twenty-eight prominent Republican lawyers, bankers, and businessmen of Hew Tork, headed by George Wickersham, attorney general during the Taft administra­ tion, sent a public letter to Senators Galder end Wads-

2

worth requesting immediate ratification. This petition 6_____________________________________________________________ 2 Ibid. , June 21, 1919, p. 3. aroused Borah, speaking extemporaneously, June 21, to de­ nounce Wickersham for forsaking the Washington philosophy. The numerous attempts at compromise must have alarmed the Idahoan, for once more he made a fervent appeal for the g Republicans openly to oppose the League. 3Gong. Rec., 66th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 58, Pt. 2, pp. 1502-1506. For additional information concerning the

audience and Borah1s adjustment see Infra. pp. 216-219.

On June 25, the debate over the army appropri­ ation provided Borah with another opportunity for an attack on the treaty and Covenant.

"Mr. President, I am frank to

say,* he said, "that I am led to make these remarks to­ day by reason of a statement which was made a few days ago at Wichita, Kansas . . .

by the ex-President . . . "

He

then quoted a portion of a speech in which the ©x-President argued that the League would bring disarmament.

In answer,

the Idahoan pointed out that the Covenant failed to provide for disarmament, freedom of the seas, or the elimination of conscription.

Second, he argued that .Articles X and XI

necessitated naval support and a military program.

There­

fore, he concluded that joining the League would insure an Increase in armament.

In many respects, this speech shows

marked similarities to his speech of January 14.^ 1 Cona. Rec.. 66th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 58, Pt. 2, pp. 1737-1749. See chapter on audience for discussion of Borah’s adjustment to the audienoe. Infra. pp. 218-219. In his last speech of the month, delivered June 30, he attempted to discredit the League to Inforce Peace by showing that it was financed by "big business" and

"Wall Street", Interested in the League for selfish reasons. Of course, his intention was to disparage the reports .showing millions favoring participation in the League, 1 issued by this pro-league agency. 1

Cong. Rec., 66th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 68, Ft. 2, pp. 2062-206^7 2075-2080• See chapter on audience for additional information concerning audience. Infra, d p . 215-219. The last of June brought to a close the second phase of the Senate debate.

Activities in Farls indicated

that the President would soon be on his way home to present the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Since the publication of the first draft of the Covenant, all factions had been maneuvering for posi­ tion and for additional support.

During the recess Borah

and other Irreconcilables had addressed numerous rallies in the Bast and Middle West.

The League to Enforce Peace had

attempted counter campaigns.

2

In hopes of appeasing the

2Infr®, pp. 265-270. Republicans President Wilson, upon his return to the Peace Conference, had prevailed upon the delegates to make certain changes in the Covenant. The new session

had witnessed the return of

Republican control of the Senate and the important Foreign

Relations Committee.

While pro-leaguers had ardently tried

to establish that the voter® desired ratification of the Treaty! th© anti-leaguers had striven to embarrass the Administration and refute charges impugning their motives* Once th© Treaty was before the Senate the final ratifica­ tion was possible. B. Th© Treaty Before the Senate Activities During July and August On June £9, the day following the signing of th© official text of the Treaty by th© German delegation,* 1 The Mew York Times. June 29, 1919, Sect. I, p. 1; June 30, i S W , p. l. President Wilson embarked for Bew York, where upon his arrival, July ©, he was afforded a tremendous reception. Immediately following a brief address at Garaegie Hall, he hastened to the Capital, where two days later he personally presented the Treaty of Versailles to the Senate, which, 2 contrary to custom, met in open session. Without delay, 2 Ibid., July 9, 1919, p. 1; July 11, 1919, p. 1. the great document was referred to the Foreign Relations

136

l Committee for consideration.

The determination of the

^Cong, Rec. , 66th Cong,, 1st sess., Vol* 58, Pt. 3, pp* 2336^2339. Republicans to amend or at least to qualify acceptance by reservations was revealed after Republican leaders had discussed strategy for the coming fight.

2

On the other hand,

2The Hew York Times, July 13, 1919, p. 1. for com­ position of factions, see chapter on audiences, Infra. p . 219. President Wilson opposed reservations from the first on the ground that "every nation joining the league would have to consent to them, and while this slow process was going on fZ

the United States would be at war with Germany.”

In an

3 The Mew York Tribune. July 11, 1919, quoted in Fleming, QP * cit., p. 237. effort to forestall opposition, the Chief Executive soon started Interviewing individually fifteen Republicans, hop­ ing to gain enough support for outright ratification.4 ^The Mew York Times, July 17, 1919, p. 1. see Infra. p. 221.

For list

Losing no time, Senator Swanson, Democrat of Virginia, opened the debate, July 14, with a three hour address in which he attempted to answer the objections of

th© League's opponents*

While the senators on hoth sides

1Cong. Rec.. 66th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 58, pt. 3, pp. 2531^2542. were getting set for th© coming battle they engaged in what on© writer has aptly called a "documentary debate” , that is, reading into the Record numerous articles from outside sources* g O f * post, p. 159. On July 1?, the day the President started his interviews, Senator Colt, Republican from Rhode Island, not sharing the aspirations of his Republican colleagues, spoke for the League, and suggested that a majority of th© Amer3 lean people favored participation in a world union. Im3 Cong. Rec., 66th Cong., 1st sess,, Vol. 58, Pt, 3, pp. 2721-87117 mediately after a lengthy denunciation of the Shantung settlement by Senator Sherman, Borah once more attempted to combat the pro-league surge.

4

4Xbid*. pp. 272 2-2730. Three trends 'which stirred up serious premoni­ tions motivated Borah to speak:

first, the President's

4

attempt to persuade Republicans to vote for outright ac­ ceptance ; second, the pressure to hasten ratification; and third, the continued endeavors of his foes to show that the people favored the participation.

The speech of

Senator Golt was a painful reminder of the last.

To meet

these threats Borah again questioned the reliability of 1 the reports of the League to Enforce peace. Because of 1Cf. post, pp. 268-270. the Importance of the decision and the uncertainty concern­ ing what the voters wished, he recommended a popular refer­ endum.

Moreover he warned that dispatches from

abroad re­

porting that the masses favored world government could not be relied on because of censorship.

In answer to the Presi­

dent's statement that rejection of the League would "break the heart of the world", he showed that the people of China, Russia, Central Europe, India, Egypt, and Ireland would rejoioe if they were released from the new organization.

2

© Cong. Rec., 66th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 58, Pt. 3, pp. 2730-2736. Between July 17 and July 25 when the Idahoan de­ livered his second speech of th© month, the debate that had been listless earlier took on new vigor with many senators on both sides engaging.

The antagonists of the Treaty were

subjected to new assaults,

Wilson apparently was having

some influence on the Mild Reservationists because they were expressing conciliatory attitudes as exemplified by the speeches of Senators Colt %

1

and McNary.

2

During the

1Ibid., pp. 2721-8. 2Ibid., pp. 8985-5; Gf. £QSt, P- 222. debate the anti-leaguers had been further castigated for partisanship and unworthy motives.

After quoting commend­

atory utterances made by Republican leaders in January, 1918, following Wilson’s issuance of the Fourteen Points, Senator Harrison on July 21 charged:

"Your opposition

arose simply and merely because he happened to be the spokes­ man and leader of another political party.

I had never be­

lieved that partisanship could become so acute that jealous leaders would rather see the star of the country dimmed than to witness the ascendancy of an individual because he was of e different political faith."

In a public letter,

**Qong. Rec., 66th Cong,, 1st sess., Vol. 58, Pt. 3, pp. 2930—29A 6 . ex-President Taft issued a similar charge but also con­ demned President Wilson.

As a means of gaining the necess­

ary Republican votes, he recommended six interpretative

140

reservations,

soon to be endorsed by the League to Enforce

^William Howard Taft to Will Hays, July 20, 1919, published in The Hew York Times, July 24, 1919, pp. 1, 2. peace.

The ex-President*s efforts were even more unwelcome

when it became known that he had been,in correspondence with Hitchcock and various Republicans, attesting to negotiate a compromise. On July 25, Senator Key Pittman, continuing the debate, showed that reservations would be unsatisfactory because they would necessitate reopening the treaty nego­ tiations.

To the Republicans, he said:

"If you are against

the League of Motions, then say so and vote against it, kill it openly and quickly, but do not give a slow poison Z that must result in its death," A more fitting prelude g

Cong. Rec. , 66th Cong., 1st sess,, Vol. 50, Pt. 3, pp. 3155^31317" Borah could not ask; Pittman concisely phrased his sentiment on the matter. Once more Borah assailed the ex-President.

After

reading a portion of T a f V s letter, he pronounced it as "a very unfair, unjust, and unfounded statement" and a "chall­ enge to the intellectual integrity and personal honor of every man who has voiced opposition to this program.”

In

defense of himself and his associates, he reminded his auditors that many adversaries of the League had opposed it long before the President went to Paris and that on numerous other occasions they had supported the Administra­ tion.

During the rest of his speech, he denounced any type

of reservation and amendment as ineffective in protecting the traditional foreign policy of the United States.

Once

this country was a member, such limitations, he thought, 1 would be forgotten or disregarded. Therefore, he pleaded 1Cf. post. pp. 222-225. that the Senate reject participation outright.

2

In many

SCong. Rec., 66th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 58, Pt. 3, pp. 3141-3145. respects, this address served as an introduction to the speeches which he was to deliver during the remainder of the session.

3

5C f . post, p. 171. Efforts to find a basis of a compromise continued. Charles Evans Hughes made public, July 28, what he con4 sidered necessary reservations. The Mild Reservetionists ^

-"rT- ~ Charles £. Hughes to Frederick Hale, July 24, 1919, published in full in The Hew York Times, July 29, 1919, p.3.

were busy attempting to draft a set of mild reservations which would win the support of sixteen to twenty-one Re­ publicans.

Th© executive Committee of the League to En­

force Peace added its weight to compromise by endorsing the Taft proposals.* ^Ibid.. August 1, 1919, pp. 1, 2; Infra, pp. 221-222. During the first few days of August, the atten­ tion of the Senate, as well as the country at large,, was focused upon the strikes, race riots, end the high cost of living; consequently the League question was pushed aside. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, nevertheless, im­ mediately after the completion of the reading of the 87,000 word document on July 28, started hearings which were to continue until the middle of September. Fresh from these hearings, Senator Lodge deliver­ ed August 12 his first prepared address since the President had submitted the UTreaty to the Senate. he saw the following dangers:

In the Covenant

first, it provided for inter­

ference in the internal affairs of a nation; second, Arti­ cles

X and XI would involve the United States in diffi­

culties which were none of its concern; third, the Monroe Doctrine would be abrogated; and fourth, other nations might order American soldiers and ships to remote parts of

148

l the earth without American consent. Cong. Rec., 66th Cong,, 1st sess., Vol. 58, Pt. 4, pp. 3784-3788. An answer came from John Sharp Williams, Democrat 2 from Mississippi, who, during the course of his extemporan2Ibid., pp. 3784-3788. eous remarks, challenged Borah to show that American soldiers could be sent to other parts of the world without congressional consent.

3

Before closing, Williams further insisted that

"I defy even the Senator from Idaho /Borsh7» term­ agant on this question as he is . . . to find a*”single sentence, phrase, or word that compels us anywhere at any time to send any soldier© to Arabia . . . I want to appeal especially to the Senator from Idaho because however mistaken he may be, however radical he may be, I pick on him as a man on the other side of the Senate who is honest, at any rate , who has intellectual Integrity . . . But the Senator from Massachusetts speaks on the right of all powers to fcall out American soldiers and sailors’. I wish the Senator from Idaho would tell me when he gets the floor— or no**, if he chooses— where this treaty at any plaoe gives any right to the league to ’call out American soldiers and sailors’ . . ." Ibid., p. 3736. there was no return "to George Washington and the stage coach and horaeriding habit” because the United States had already entangled herself in European affairs by entering the war.4 4m

, p. 3786.

Obviously, the demand of Williams could not go unanswered.

Borah gave an impromptu reply, making no at­

tempt at a direct defense of Lodge’s statement but answer­ ing the general position assumed by Williams,

The United

States, he argued, could not enter the League without "compromising” the policy of Washington and Monroe.

He

thought that the League would be a threat to the independ1 ence of the United States. 1Ibid., pp. 3789-3791; of. post, p. 225. On August 18, he delivered a second short speech. In his introduction, he stated that the previous day "in going through the Sunday paper" he had concluded that "one half the population of the world outside of the Central Powers are protesting against the settlements and adjust­ ments made by the Treaty."

He mentioned the Chinese,

Koreans, Egyptians, Indians, and Irish. he made three points:

During this attack,

first, news agencies were keeping

the facts of unrest from the American people; second, while the facts were concealed, the Senate was being asked to rush through ratification; and third, when the United States joined the League, by Articles X and XI, the United States would be obligated to keep these dissatisfied powers

145

subjected*

1

1S 2 M * £§£•» Cong,, 1st sess., Vol. 58* Pt. 4, pp. 3934-3938; Of. post, p. 226.

The Shantung Controversy One of the most unpopular sections of the Treaty of Versailles with senators and citizens alike, was that which placed the Shantung peninsula, a Chinese province, under Japanese control

This area, previously held by Ger­

many, had been seized by the Japanese during the war. England and France, eager to gain Japanese aid, had recogn ized this seizure by secret treaties.

Unaware of these

agreements, the United States* State Department had negoti­ ated the Lansing-Ishii agreement recognizing the Japanese sphere of influence in Asia.

2

At the Peace Conference, in

2

la the hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Com­ mittee, Lansing contended that he had recognized that which existed because of the propinquity of Japan to China. spite of the resistance of President Wilson, the Japanese had pressed and won their claims to this much sought province.3 .3 Only after a hard fight did Wilson agree reluctantly to this, April 30. Ray S. Baker, Woodrow Wilson and the ' World Settlement (Nsw Yorks Doubleday, 1922), Vol. I I , pp.1 223-SdV "TSn excellent discussion of this whole affair • is found in A. Whitney Griswold, The Far Eastern Policy of

146

United States (New York: ppTTJerfas;.

Harcourt Brace and Co.. 1938].

In the press and in the Senate,1 this settlement, ^Gn July 15, Senator Norris, showed how cruelly Japan had ruled Korea. Cong. R ec.. 66th Cong., 1st sess., Vol. 58, Ft, 3,pp. 2592-2602. On July 17, Senator McCormick further substantiated Norris's arguments by inserting in tiie Record a report of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, which related a number of Japanese atro­ cities in that province. Ibid.. pp. 2697-2721. On July 25, Senator Robinson answered that Japanese claims were suf­ ficiently strong that the Peace Conference could not refuse them but that Japan was unalterably committed to restore the leased territory. Besides, China would eventually profit from this settlement. Ibid.. pp. 3084-90. A few days later, Senator Walsh of Montana contended that Article X offered China protection from further aggression and that if the treaty were rejected no power would consider forcing Japan to forsake her war gains. Ibid.. ^p. 3228. Senator Knute Nelson, on July 29, and Senator Watson, on August 5, thought that the Shantung settlement would lead to further aggres­ sion in China. Ibid., Pt. 4, pp. 3320