^ mm. .^' ss ^f ; ' L. 'Hlii^' :>^-;*^*v4ir^ - ,3 ' c/S , Sttjaca, Stem ^atk THE GIFT OF ^ociet y CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 1924 100 648 462 The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924100648462 '( FEB 24 1311)) \ ADDRESSES DEUVERBD BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SOCIETY Sons of the American Revolution MEMOKIAL SKETCHES BY THOMAS A. PERKINS 1 "The first body in inception, institution and organiza- tion, to unite the descendants of Revolutionary patriots and perpetuate the memory of all those who took part in the American Revolution and maintained the Inde- pendence of the United States of America." "The objects of this Society shall be to unite and pro- mote fellowship among the descendants, and perpetuate the memory of the men who by their services or sacrifices during the War of the American Revolution achieved the Independence of the American people ; to inspire arriong the members of the Society and the community at large a more profound reverence for the principles of the Gov- ernment founded by our forefathers; to encourage his- torical research in relation to the American Revolution ; to acquire and preserve the records of the individual services of Revolutionary patriots; * * * jq main- tain and extend the institutions of American freedom ; and to carry out the injunctions of Washington in his farewell address to the American people." — From Con- stitution California Society S. A. R. OFFICERS CALIFORNIA SOCIETY S. A. OFFICERS CALIFORNIA SOCIETY S. A. R. OFFICERS CALIFOEXIA SOCIETY S. A. R. ADDRESSES DELIVERED BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF THE Sons of the American Revolution MEMORIAL SKETCHES BY THOMAS A. PERKINS Historian SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Published by the Society March, 1909 /3F A. S?|o51 /•> .. THE MURDOCK PRESS PREFACE All the books and records of this society were destroyed in the San Francisco fire of April, 1906. From time to time prior to 1906 this society published the addresses delivered before it. Last year the Board of Managers elected an historian for the first time. He has collected and compiled all of the unpublished addresses delivered before this society which he has been able to obtain, and he has prepared memorial sketches of all members who have died since our records were destroyed. Thos. a. Perkins. March 31, 1909. TABLE OF CONTENTS Frontispieces i> "i> v Adams, Edwaed M. Eeply by ^^ Ames, Pelham W. Poem 24 Bakee, Benest E. Progressive Patriotism 123 Blinn, Chas. H. The Eevolutionary Soldier 28 Cab-waUjADER, E. Reply by 70 Capwell, H. C. Spirit of '76 131 Coffey, J. V. Address 31 Cutler, A. D. Man Works in a Mysterious Way His Blunders to Perform — Reply to Walter Macarthur 54 Eells, Alex. G. Reply by 66 HOLMAN, Alfred. Reply to Address by Walter Macarthur 51 Jordan, David Staer. The United States as a Center of Peace 138 Kahn, Julius. Address 25 Macarthur, Walter. The Spirit of Seventy-Six and Its Relation to Modern Strikes and Boycotts 37 Miller, Frank. Address 7 Moss, J. Mora. Eeply by 62 MuNSELL, J. E. Eeply by 71 Officers — National xii Local xlii, xiv Perkins, Geo. C. — Peace Day 34 The Navy in Time of Peace 114 Perkins, Thos. A. Memorial Sketches 154 Eader, William. The British and American Treaty 107 Sargent, Geo. C. — The American Navy 1 Causes that Made Us a Eepublie ]^2 Reply to Address by Walter Macarthur 73 Stephens, Henry Morse. Washington as a Man of Peace gy INDEX TO MEMORIAL SKETCHES Andros, Milton 154 Armistead, Cecil M 154 Ayer, Leonard B 154 Booth, Lucius A 155 Buckingham, A. E 155 Catlin, a. D 155 Dennis, John H 155 Friend, Roger B 156 HiNDES, Geo. W 156 HosMER, John A 156 Hume, Eobebt D 157 Hush, Valentine G 358 Litchfield, Joseph M 158 Loop, Sidney J 158 Manlet, James M 1 59 Maewick, David B 159 Mead, Wm. H 160 Olney, Edward 160 Paul, Almaein B 1 60 Eees, Samuel 1 160 eutherford, john c. b 160 Shafter, William E 161 Spear, Jos. S., Jr 161 Spencer, Geo. W 16'2 Stafford, Wm. G 163 Upham, Isaac 164 Waite, Henry De H 165 Warfield, Eichaed H 165 (xi) NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE Sons of the American Revolution Instituted October 22, 1875 San Francisco, Cal. PAST PRESIDENTS *DE. PETEB WILKINS EANDLE . . San Francisco, Cal. *GEN. AliBEET M. WINN . . Sonoma, Cal. *HON. CALEB T. FAY . . San Francisco, Cal. *CAPT. AUGUSTUS C. TAYLOR . . San Francisco, Cal. *LOEING PICKERING . . San Francisco, CaL COL. A. S. HUBBARD, San Francisco, Cal.; elected Vice-President Made President General at First National Congress by unanimous vote, April 30, 1890 Organized as a NATIONAL SOCIETY in New York City April 30, May 1 and 2, 1889 PAST PRESIDENTS GENERAL HON. LUCIUS p. DEMING, LL. D. . . New Haven, Conn. DR. WM. SEWARD WEBB . . Shelburn, Vermont COL. A. S. HUBBARD . . San Francisco, Cal. Made President General at First National Congress, April 30, 1890 GEN. HOEACE PORTER, LL. D. . . Washington, D. C. *GEN. ALBERT M. WINN . . San Francisco, Cal. Made President General at the Third National Congress, April 30, 1892. *HON. EDWARD SHEPAED BAERETT . . Concord, Mass. HON. FRANKLIN MURPHY . . Newark, N. J. GEN. JOSEPH C. BRECKENEIDGE, U. S. A. . . Washington, D. C. »HON. WALTER SETH LOGAN . . New York City, N. Y. HON. EDWIN WAEFIELD . . Baltimore, Md. GEN. EDWIN S. GREELEY . . New Haven, Conn. HON. JOHN DENTON HANCOCK . . FrankUn, Penn. GEN. FEANCIS H. APPLETON . . Boston, Mass. HON. COENELIUS A. PUGSLEY . . Poughkeepsie, N. Y. NELSON A. McCLARY, A. B. . . Chicago, 111. * Deceased. (xii) PAST PRESIDENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA SOCIETY PROVISIONAL PRESIDENT *DB. PETER WILKINS BANDLE . . October 22, 1875, to July 4, 1876 PAST PRESIDENTS *GEN. ALBERT M. WINN . . July 4, 1876, to October 19, 1881 *HON. CALEB T. EAT . . October 19, 1881, to July 5, 1882 *CAPT. AUGUSTUS C. TAYLOR . . July 5, 1882, to July 9, 1884 *LOBING PICKERING . . July 9, 1884, to July 5, 1886 COL. A. S. HUBBABD . . July 5, 1886, to February 22, 1892 ADMIBAL JOHN W. MOORE, U. S. N., February 22, 1892, to February 22, 1893 LIEUT.-COL. J. ESTCOURT SAWYER, U. S. A., Feb. 22, 1893, to Feb. 22, 1894 CHARLES J. KING . . February 22, 1894, to February 22, 1895 LIEUT.-COL. EDWARD HUNTER, U. S. A., Feb. 22, 1895, to Feb. 22, 1896 *HON. ELISHA W. McKINSTBY . . February 22, 1896, to January 12, 1897 •SIDNEY MASON SMITH . . January 12, 1897, to January 11, 1898 COL. JOHN C. CURRIER . . January 11, 1898, to January 10, 1899 HON. HORACE DAVIS . . January 10, 1899, to January 9, 1900 Elected Vice-President General May 1, 1901 WM. MITCHELL BUNKER . . January 9, 1900, to January 8, 1901 WM. H. JORDAN . . January 8, 1901, to January 14, 1902 WM. J. DUTTON . . January 14, 1902, to January 13, 1903 GILES H. GBAY . . January 13, 1903, to January 12, 1904 COL. ALFRED D. CUTLER . . January 12, 1904, to January 10, 1905 Elected Vice-President General May 1, 1904 ALEXANDER G. EELLS . . January 10, 1905, to January 9, 1906 EDWARD MILLS ADAMS . . January 9, 1906, to January 8, 1907 *HON. JOHN A. HOSMER . . January 8, 1907, to May 1, 1907 (Died in oflSce) PELHAM W. AMES . . May 1, 1907, to January 14, 1908 Elected Vice-President General June 4, 1907 ' Deceased. (xiii) Ofl&cers and Board of Managers of the California Society 1908 - 1909 GEORGE C. SARGENT, President . . Crocker Building, San Eranciseo R. M. SIMS, Senior Vice-President . . Crocker Building, San Francisco THOS. A. PERKINS, Junior Vice-President . . MiUs Building, San Francisco DR. J. MORA MOSS, Secretary . . 930 Green Street, San Francisco EDWIN BONNELL, Treasurer . . 101 Montgomery Street, San Francisco COL A. S. HUBBARD, Registrar . . 2135 Sutter Street, San Francisco THOS. A. PERKINS, Historian . . Mills Building, San Francisco EDWARD MILLS ADAMS, Marshal . . 2777 Pine Street, San Francisco O. D. BALDWIN . . 1000 Green Street, San Francisco ROBERT BRAGG . . 215 Castro Street, San Francisco ROBERT COLLIER . . 1019 Vallejo Street, San Francisco F. W. GUSHING . . U. S. Custom House, Oakland COL. A. D. CUTLER . . Kohl Building, San Francisco JOHN McHENRY . . 3343 Twenty-second Street, San Francisco (xiy) t^DDRESSES Delivered before the California Society Sons of the American Revolution BANQUET OP SEPTEMBER 23, 1905. "The American Navy." President Alexander G. Eells: Compatriots, the next on our program is an address on "The American Navy," and for this address we have one who has taken particular interest in that subject and has made a study of it. One whose interest has been so great that he has been trying for all that is in him to awaken the interest of all our fellow citizens in the subject, and to show that in these modern times preparation is necessary. He is one of the leading members of a society called "The Navy League," whose object is to crj'stalize American sentiment in favor of such preparation by the building of a great Navy, and building it on the right lines. I take great pleasure in introducing to you Mr. George C. Sargent, who will speak upon this subject. (Applause.) Response by Mr. George G. Sargent. Mr. President and Gentlemen: In speaking upon this theme it would be very congenial to recount the victories that have graced our arms at sea. But, in doing so, I should probably be relating things with which you are as familiar as I, and as to which Mr. Treat would probably be mentally correcting my mistakes and be able to tell me things I do not know. In a general way, these victories of old are familiar to us all. They quicken the pulse, flush the cheeks and make us extremely happy and full of emula- tion. But, lest I betray my ignorance to those who are better posted than myself, I have considered it better to select a different, though very interesting, line of thought to-night. Interesting from a philosophical point of view, interesting because it reveals the great moral forces — the great currents that bear the nation on toward its destiny. History has its currents as the air has its trade-winds, and the sea its gulf stream and Japan current. They arise from small beginnings, gather force, attain a maximum, alter the world's map and wreck dynasties; then wane, their currents turn awry and lose the name of action. 2 California Society I have long had a theory that history runs in cycles. An in- stance of this is the history of our own country, which, from a time shortly preceding the Revolution down to about the time of the Spanish War, is the record of the vortex produced by the mighty contending currents of slavery and anti-slavery. It culminated in the Civil War, and since then has continually lost momentum, and has now died away and ceased to be a current at all. For this, we are all truly happy. Commencing with the year 1898 another cur- rent has taken us and is bearing us out into the open sea of world power, whither, we know not. Another instance of this cyclonic action is the French Revolution, whose terrific force uprooted the oldest monarchy in the world, tore up an ancient aristocracy which had struck its roots into the very sub-soil of French society and scattered it to the four corners of the earth. In a similar way the American Navy has been the resultant of two contending and diametrically opposed currents of thought. One party was represented by Washington and those who be- lieved with him, whose great wisdom was crystallized in the saying : "In time of peace prepare for war." The other party, which, for lack of a better name, I call the Anti-Naval Party, was represented by persons equally pure in patriotism, but more faulty in reasoning, who feared a navy. England was a monarchy. She had a great navy. It was the royal navy. Ergo, if we had a great navy it would be the President's navy and would be a step toward monarchy. These two forces have contended with each other from the very foundation of the Government. Ideas which were matters of con- viction, founded upon what was believed to be a sufficient reason, were held by the fathers, but these have become only matters of sentiment with the sons ; and they now hold these views, not know- ing why they hold them, but simply because their ancestors held them. Tradition is stronger than law and more durable than monu- ments of brass and stone. Obviously, in times of war, the ideas of Washington and his followers would predominate and the navy would be put in order. But, with the advent of peace, the Anti-Naval party would prevail, and the navy would languish. The result was that at one time it actually became extinct, and upon at least two occasions since has almost come to the point of extinction. During the Revolutionary War a number of ships were gotten together. They were useful in preying upon the enemy's commerce and particularly in capturing ships laden with ammunition for the British, which was sorely needed by the Continental Army. But after the War of the Revolution, in spite of the victories of John Sons op the American Eevolution 3 Paul Jones, all ships belonging to the United States were sold, their erews paid off and turned adrift upon the beach. We were, at that time, absolutely without a navy. There was no vessel in the world belonging to the United States Government flying the American flag. For this, we speedily paid the penalty. The Barbary Pirates dominated the Mediterranean. For a time we arranged to supply our lack of a navy by a treaty with Portugal, by which her navy was used to protect our commerce in the Mediterranean. But, through an intrigue, that protection was withdrawn, and the pirates at once pounced upon our commerce. We were flouted and in- sulted, our ships taken and our men held as prisoners. The United States was driven to the disgraceful expedient of ransoming the persons of its citizens from the dungeons of the Barbary Coast. In that way we paid nearly a million dollars to those pirates — more than enough to have built a navy adequate to have commanded their respect. They went so far and became so impudent that the Pasha of Tripoli actually wrote an insulting letter to the President, who was then George Washington. I cannot remember the exact terms of the letter, but the effect was a warning to be in a hurry to make him a present, or else the commerce of the United States would hear from him. This was a little too much, and in 1794 Congress authorized the building of six ships — the "Constitution," the "President" and the "United States," of forty-four guns; the ill-fated "Chesapeake," the "Congress" and the "Constellation," of thirty-six guns. These vessels, as you all know, served through the war of 1812, some with brilliant success, one of them with marked ill fortune. After the war of 1812, we find the opposing current again coming into play. As a result the navy languished. We had to maintain a few vessels to check piracy in the West Indies and the slave trade, but the advent of the Civil War found us with little or no navy, or, at any rate, a navy very inadequate to our needs. That great conflict forced upon us the necessity of building a navy as best we could. But, even then, it is interesting to note the reluct- ance of Congress to build anything more than what was called for by the immediate necessities of the moment. The Anti-Naval senti- ment was still able to control the situation to a very great extent. President LincoLu, in one of his messages in 1863, called the atten- tion of Congress to the fact that while we had some seventy-five iron-clads and a great many slow vessels, we had no cruisers that could east their guns loose and fight in a seaway. He recommended the building of a number of cruisers. His recommendation was dis- regarded and no cruisers were built. 4 Califoenia Society After the war the Anti-Naval sentiment again dominated, and for years and years Congress could not be induced to build a single ship. The navy, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist; the lowest point being in 1881. At that time the United States had not a single sea-going iron-clad in its navy — nothing but old monitors of the time of the Civil War, some old side-wheeled steamers which were better fitted for ferry-boats than anything else and some sail- ing ships. Even as late as 1884 the United States had no modern rifled guns to speak of, and no gun factories in which they could be built. The great Washington gvn foundry, which we owe to Admiral Sampson, was not then in existence. Nor had we any armor plate, nor was there any place in the country at which it could be made. To this pass were we reduced by the Anti-Naval sentiment. Then began the upbuilding of the navy, which has given us the navy which we now have, but which is by no means adequate to the situation. Now comes the most interesting fact of all. In 1885, when we had no guns, no ships, no armor plate — nothing to fight with — ^we were ready to go to war with Germany about Samoa. A little later we were ready to go to war with England over the Venezuelan boundary. With England, the greatest naval power on earth ! Now, it seems strange that the people of the United States were so willing to go to war, when we were in such an insufficient state of preparation. It can only be accoimted for by the ignorance of the people of the country in general, of the change in the methods of preparing for war and creating a navy, which has taken place since Revolutionary times. The United States has never, as a matter of fact, had a modem war. The Spanish War amounted to nothing. We have never come in contact with any first-class foreign power. In the old days the only thing that was necessary was to take almost any sort of a ship, mount runs upon her, build a magazine in her hold, cut port-holes in her side, and she was ready to fight anything that came along. Spear, in his "History of the American Navy," speaks of the "Bonhomme Richard," the very ship of which Mr. Treat has spoken, and says: "A most remarkable vessel was this that was transferred to the use of the American commander. On reaching "L'Orient," where she was lying, he found her a huge, wall-sided merchantman that had ended her usefulness as an India trader, and was now to be transferred to another use, just as worn- out ships in these days become coal barges in the Atlantic coasting trade. She had an enormously high poop and an enormously high forecastle. Her masts were short, her sails were squat, and her bow and stern were as blunt as those of an Erie Canal boat. But, Sons of the American Revolution 5 worst of all, she was so old that the life was out of all her timbers, and some of them were wholly rotten." And yet, with this vessel, John Paul Jones whipped a vessel of the English navy that had been built expressly for war. It would be as if we should arm the coal barge "Melrose," now in our harbor, to fight the "Charleston." Another instance of the adaptability of common merchant vessels in those days to the needs of war, is that of the ship "Black Prince," which was bought during the Revolution, converted and named the "Alfred." Another one was the "Sally," which was christened the "Columbus." That adaptability — and I give you these facts to show the futile line of reasoning to which Mr. Adams has re- ferred in his opening address — is shown by another and a more modern instance. At the opening of the Civil War, Commodore Vanderbilt pre- sented to the Government a new merchant steamer for war pur- poses. She was armed, put in service, and not only did blockading work, but actually participated in the bombardment of fortified places. Still another instance of this kind is the celebrated one hundred day gun-boats built by Captain Eads, the Civil Engineer, under contract with the Government. He undertook to deliver eight gun-boats in one hundred days; and he lived up to his con- tract and delivered his gun-boats on time, although the timber of which they were built was growing in the forest when he signed the contract. Similarly, the guns in the olden times were small and quickly made. They were twelve, twenty-four and thirty-two pounders, and later, at the time of the war of 1812, forty-two and sixty-eight pounders. The celebrated "Constitution" was armed with twenty- four pounders. In those days the building of ships also was a matter of only a few months. Now, mark the change. The building of a ship at the present time is a matter of not less than three to three and a half or four years under the best circumstances. And that this is not due to culpable neglect or unwarrantable delay is shown by the fact that there has been a race between the Newport News Ship Building Yards, which is constructing the "Louisiana," and the Brooklyn Navy Yard, which is building the "Connecticut." It is not only a race between the private concern and the Government yard, but is also a race between union labor and the open shop, each intent upon showing that it can do better and quicker work. Yet, it was twenty-seven months after the appropriation for the vessels was made before they were launched. And that was only the hull, without machinery, armor, guns or fittings of any kind. 6 California Society Again, an advantage that they had over us in the olden days was that the armor of a ship vs^as oak, which had only to be hewn out of the forest and fitted to the side of the ship. Now, the armor is iron-steel-Krupp steel, hardened by a slow and tedious process which takes months to complete. When the product is finished it is eight months from the time it goes into the furnace. In other words, it is eight months after we commence before we can get a single plate. Another thing which must not be lost sight of is the fact that this armor plate cannot be made and kept in stock like wire nails or screw drivers. It must be accuratelj^ made and fitted to the ship. "When the plates are done they are so hard and tough that they cannot be chipped or cut by any known tool. Therefore, before a single armor plate can be made the ship must be designed and her lines decided upon. It is necessary to determine the exact curvature and the exact part of the ship upon which the plate is to go. When we reflect that nearly every part of a modern war-ship would sink if thrown overboard, we realize that the ship must be carefully planned, that every piece must be weighed by computa- tion, and that the builders must know that there are so many pounds of material on the starboard, and a corresponding number of pounds upon the port side. All this must be adjusted before the details as to shape and size of the plates can be given. In fact, a ship is a gigantic pendulum, the exact vibration of which, in a seaway, must be computed before they can even lay the keel. Similarly, the guns which could be cast in one day in revolu- tionary times must now be made bj^ tedioiis processes of building up. It takes at least nine months to make a great gun, during which time it passes under the manipulation of at least two hun- dred different machines. All these things show that times have changed; and that while it was safe in the old days to wait vmtil the war came, that it is now suicide — voluntary defeat to do so. In the old times the sea was wide and transportation slow. No country made any great prepara- tion for war. In the time of the Revolution the King of England had to go to Germany to raise his troops. It took months to do this; and, in the meantime the Colonists were preparing. Now they raise and drill their troops before hand and build their ships before the war comes. The result is that the status of a nation during the war is determined by its state of preparation ivhen the war hegiiis. Now, why did not Russia rebuild her navy after her crushing defeat? Why did she not prepare for the war after the war came? Because a modern war does not last as long as it Sons op the American Revolution 7 takes to build a battleship. The battleship, when built, would simply grace the triumph of the victor, and serve no other purpose. It therefore stands us in hand — as Mr. Adams has said in his opening address — as patriots to see that our country is prepared for war. It is the kind of patriotism which does not content itself with hurrahing, but the kind that is up and doing that we want. Just as sure as we are prepared, we shall have peace. If we are not prepared, we just as surely shall not have peace. The President whom we have toasted has said: "To be aggres- sive and opulent and unprepared is to invite war." We are and always have been aggressive We are also opulent. Unfortunately, we are not prepared. Now, gentlemen, I have always had a theory that the middle speaker at a banquet should be witty. The only kind of wit at my command is the soul of wit, namely, brevity. So thanking you for you attention, I will now give place to Judge Maguire, whom I am very anxious to hear. (Applause.) BANQUET OF DECEMBER, 1905. Address by Frank Miller. It has been said by an eminent authority upon the subject of psychology and the rational way of living that it is not good for a man to be in a railway car among strangers and to be compelled to eat a solitary sandvach ; far better for the process of digestion is it to eat with friends at a well appointed table ; the mind is elevated and cheered by pleasant surroundings and the juices of the stomach respond gladly. We meet this evening under circum- stances which would please the eminent psychologist. A good table, the best of company and all agreed upon one thing, that our ancestors were the greatest men of their day and that we are their most worthy descendants; surely we are in a most complacent mood and may object to any hint that our Society of Sons of the American Revolution has some serious liabilities resting upon it. However, it is my duty to remind you that the eighty million people of the United States, most of them descended from sires who took no part in the Revolution, are now asking what was the intent of the founders of this Republic. My information is gathered from the newspapers and I am not qualified to go into the historical and legal questions to which I shall refer ; in fact, each of them is so important that days, months and years will be con- sumed in their discussion by the Courts and Legislatures. First, let me call your attention to the celebrated Dartmouth College case, which is now being attacked ; the principle was settled 8 California Society many years ago that a grant to that college by the King of England was a contract which could not be cancelled by the successor to the King, namely, the United States of America. This principle is opposed to the argument that government is an association of indi- viduals and a grant to a party for the benefit of all is not a contract, for government cannot contract with itself. This case is said to have been decided erroneously and must be overturned in order that the control of certain corporations may remain subject to the inspection of the Courts. Another line of argument shows that the colonies as colonies, and later as States, were never independent sovereigns. They were subject to the King at first and later to the Federal Government. Notwithstanding certain words in the Constitution which mean that certain rights were reserved to the States and to the people, yet the States and the people have recognized the sovereignty of the Federal Government in many ways as supreme. The written, and especially the unwritten rights of a sovereign are so vast and comprehensive that no limitation can be placed upon them except by the extinction of the sovereign. The Legal Tender decisions will illustrate this question ; in short, State rights are doomed. Another item in the newspapers reminds us that our organiza- tion is less modern than the English ; our Constitution has changed but little since it was written, and the status for which it was written has changed absolutely. It can be amended only with the greatest difficulty, and this rigidness was one reason why our Civil War began with such terrible results. The English Constitution is unwritten; the latest Act of Parlia- ment is the Constitution. That body can repeal aU the laws of England, remove all their officials from office and adjourn any day with a resolution to never meet again, thus leaving England with- out a government or a constitution. The system of the English is flexible, while ours is rigid. There is no court in England to declare an Act of Parliament to be unconstitutional. Our forefathers were English and knew all these things very well, and probably did not intend to change to a totally different and untried system. It is said that the debates upon forming the Constitution show no opinions or words, which would imply a knowledge that the Supreme Court of the United States would some day overrule an Act of Congress as unconstitutional. In fact, the Constitution itself does not give that power but the power was granted by Congress in 1816, against great opposition. This privilege can be revoked and thus leave Congress free to pass Acts which shall clearly traverse the words of the Constitution Sons of the Amekican Revolution 9 What will be the result? Congress will always represent the majority of the people and its authority must prevail; and the Constitution will, like the Ten Commandments, be broken into fragments and re-written solely as a moral law or Bill of Rights. As England is succeeding very well under that state of affairs, we shall probably do well also. The tendency of the day is toward centralization of power and the breaking down of the iron-clad restrictions of the Constitution, because of the necessities of the time. The income tax will be enforced, not by amending the Constitution, but by repealing the Judiciary Act so that a "Federal Question" cannot be carried from a State Court into the United States Supreme Court. , As one of the seventy-nine million common people of this country, who all admit the sovereignty of "Uncle Sam," let me say that we are very ignorant upon these questions; but we do read the newspapers and we know that such questions are "im- pending crises." To whom shall we look for instruction and guid- ance except to the sons of those who laid the foundations of this Republic? Is it not important to keep alive the traditions of our ancestors? Some of you are blessed in possessing books and relics which are illustrations of the history and monuments of the heroism of our predecessors. Unfortunately, I have no me- mentoes of the colonial days. That my grandfather was a prisoner on the prison ship "Jersey" is an established fact, but how much more real that fact would seem to me if I had his uniform or gun, or sword ! they were con- fiscated by the British provost-marshal or left in Connecticut when the family acted upon the motto: "Westward the Star of Empire takes its way!" Gone, too, is grandfather's clock; perhaps it is in some Fifth Avenue curiosity shop for sale at a great price. If it is there, do not buy it, for there are many counterfeits quite equal to the original. Gone, too, is the family warming pan; that was sold to Dexter, who bought great numbers of them, ripped off the covers and sold them to the sugar boilers in the West Indies; the long handle and the copper pan at the end of it made a good skimmer for the boiling molasses. The family Bible was preserved ; the births and deaths are all recorded upon the fly leaves, for it is a modem idea to put blank leaves for that purpose between the Old and the New Testaments. By this time, you will have seen how illy fitted I am to be a member of your Society; but I am young yet and hope to sit at your feet for many years and to learn from you that which will increase the great pride which I already have in becoming associated with you. As yet, I may make mis- 10 California Society takes; perhaps I shall get dates mixed like the old bookkeeper in New York in January of the year 1760, when he prepared his annual balance to show the earnings of the year 1759. He laid in a stock of carefully cut quill pens, filled his sand box with sand to sprinkle upon the wet ink and ruled the hand made sheets of blue paper with three columns wherein to put the pounds, shillings and pence. He finally presented the paper to his employer with a footing which showed that the shop had made nearly eighteen hundred pounds more than any other year before, which statement was rejected by the chief because no reason for this increase of gain was known and therefore he thought the conclu- sion was in error. After repeated tests by both employer and bookkeeper, no error was found, so the merchant resolved to put the £1800 into a new house. The merchant, however, could not sleep nights because of his doubts, so one rainy night ia March he got up, lit the candle in his iron lantern, put the big store key in his pocket, fastened some pattens or clogs under his shoes and went to the shop determined to look over the books and settle his doubts for- ever. About two o'clock in the morning, the old bookkeeper heard a furious battering iipon his front door; he raised a window and said, "Who's there?" Said the merchant, "It's me. Ye dom fule! Ye have added the j^ear of our Laird among the pounds!" BANQUET OP SEPTEMBER 1, 1906. Opening Address by the President, Edward Mills Adams. Compatriots and Guests: I, for one, have been looking for- ward to this dinner to-night with a great deal of interest. It is the first dinner of the Society since the late unpleasantness. It serves to demonstrate that we are still alive and in evidence as a Society, and at the same time we have enjoyed shaking one another by the hand. The fire is somewhat a matter of ancient history now, and so we do not care to swap stories concerning it. But it is a matter of congratulation that not a member of our Society was physically injured in that trying time. Before I go any further, I want to pay a deserved tribute to the Dinner Committee, and particularly to its Chairman, who took off his coat and set to work here, putting up the flags and deco- rations that you see about you, and did so much toward making the surroundings as we have them. I allude to our worthy compatriot and member of the Board of Managers, Mr. A. J. Vining. The event that we celebrate to-night is one that has often been the occasion of our meeting around the banquet board before the Sons of the American" Revolution 11 day which really marks our beginning as a nation — the day upon which M'as signed the Treaty of Peace, September 3, 1783. We are celebrating on the 1st, that is so that you can all recover from the effects in the Sunday intervening, though there is not so much reason for it as if we had been partaking of that New England rum punch that a former President of ours used to prepare. I see you recognize the allusion. There is one thing I want to say about the beloved city in which we live, and that is that it seems to me as if she were ten times more interesting since the late unpleasantness than ever before in her history. San Francisco is a far more picturesque city than in days gone by — there is no doubt about that. Talk about ruins, why, we can show the best and greatest in the world. It is really a wonderful city. When you look at that part of it which was burned, it is like a miners' camp, and the people in it are swarm- ing around it just like miners. We treat one another like pioneers, the old days come back again, the rough and ready style that existed then, the good fellowship of those days, if we except the disagreement of the moment involved in the car strike. In the days just following the unpleasantness, when we were out in the streets gathering our food, or getting it in the bread line, or per- haps stealing it somewhere, and getting it cooked, we got acquainted with our neighbors, in many cases for the first time, though we had been living next door to them for years. And when you had to go and borrow a baby cart or a boy's coaster to get away from the ravages of the fire, you felt as if you were pretty well acquainted. I hoped then that it would result in San Franciscans pulling together, and that this knocking business that has gone on in the past would stop, and for once we would get together and accom- plish something. Everybody noticed the way in which men and women greeted each other. It was so much more hearty. And I believe that that will be the result, notwithstanding that for a few days it has not been so lovely. I believe we shall work together and build this city up, and make it one of the grand cities of the world. The people who get in the way of San Francisco's progress are public enemies. We have got to grow, and people that get in our way have got to go. We shall vary somewhat the order of things as it appears upon the programme, and defer for a little the poem, with its lighter vein, and hear first something a bit more serious. We will listen to an address entitled, "Causes that Made us a Republic," by our compatriot, George C. Sargent. 12 California Society THE CAUSES WHICH MADE US A REPUBLIC. Address by Mr. Geo. C. Sargent. In olden times, our fathers thought each ailment showed the will divine, with reference to each special case. When pestilence stalked through the land, they felt the scourge with which He smote them to obedience. In each event, a separate act of power was seen, which had no antecedents, and no consequents. Then, too, and down to very recent times, it was believed all plants and animals were iadependent, special creations; — that all the wondrous forms, buried deep in the rocks, had been first cre- ated, then swept away to make room for others more perfect ; and that these in turn were so displaced, by others more perfect still, and so on through the ages. Between each change there came a cataclysm. As it approached, a darkness fell upon the earth, like the tempest's gloom; — the pall of death to teeming populations of the globe. Then came a throe of nature, that heaved still higher the germinal ridges of the continent, robbed the ocean of another strip of his domain, and sealed up the record of the life of the age gone by. Thus, the geologic ages into which the history of the earth is divided, were thought to be separated by terrific convulsions; by long ages, during which Nature broke loose and destroyed all life upon the globe. The lines which part the stratified rocks were, to them, but the tallies which marked the passing of countless forms of life, which moved and bred and died upon the earth. History, too, was a disconnected series of facts. Providence was constantly supervising and shaping events, now interfering upon behalf of a nation, now leaving retribution to its enemies. All these ideas have passed away. They have gone with the generations which held them. Researches with the microscope, and the labors of the sanitary engineer, have shown that disease and pestilence are due to natural laws, in which cause and effect are as plain to instructed vision, as are the links of a chain to com- mon sight. The paleontologist has shown that the world of old was no more subject to sudden convulsion, and wholesale destruction of life, than now; that from the primeval protoplasm of the azoic age, to the highest type of manhood known to us, is but a slow, painful, hesitating process of evolution. Most remarkable of all, the philosophic historian has discovered that even though man be possessed of free will and volition, he Sons of the American Revolution 13 nevertheless, both as an individual and in the aggregate as a community, or nation, moves with the same unerring obedience to law, as do the planets which whirl around the sun. In brief, that from the smallest act, up to the grandest manifestation of force, whether natural or of human will, all is regulated by laws as in- flexible as those of gravitation. It is not then in order to ask, "How happened we to be a Re- public?" but to seek out, and set forth the causes which brought the republic into being ;— which made it quite inevitable. Among other causes tending to make this country a republic, was one which operated from the earliest times. It was the neglect of the colonies by the Mother Country. At first, they were too insignificant to merit much attention, being but a few small com- munities, scattered here and there along the Atlantic seaboard. It is true, they grew rapidly, but the King and Parliament in England soon became so occupied with their own differences, that they had little leisure to supervise the affairs of the colonies; and the English Commonwealth, which issued as the solution of these troubles, had enough to do with its war with Scotland, and the plots of royalists, to keep it occupied at home. The result was, that until the restoration of Charles II, the King had no time to devote to his empire across the sea. By that time, half a century had passed since the foundation of the older colonies; and that which was at first unintentional, became a traditional policy. As that which is at first accorded as a favor, comes by long con- tinuance to be claimed as a right; just so, that which arises from sufferance, comes to be considered the natural order of things. The interference of Charles 11, and his attacks upon Colonial Charters were only spasmodic, and these ceased with the expul- sion of the Stuarts, so that it was not until the reign of George III, under the financial pressure following the French War, that any serious effort was made to govern the colonies by England. There was, therefore, an almost unbroken line of policy extending over a hundred and fifty years (longer than the period which has elapsed since our revolution), during which the colonies governed themselves in all local affairs, which, to them, were the only affairs. During this long non-interference, the Colonists had freely availed themselves of the provisions of their charters, which were purposely made liberal, to induce migration to America, and legis- lated, amended, repealed and generally governed themselves in all matters of domestic concern, without regard to the Mother Coun- try. While the veto power was vested in the royal governors, the policy of non-interference was, for a long time, carried out by them, so that the colonies were left to their own devices, in all 14 California Society matters which did not affect the trade or sovereignty of England. After the overthrow of James II, two causes contributed to the freedom given the colonies. First, the government of the English arose out of a liberal movement, and liberals would not be likely to trespass upon the rights of their brethren across the water. Then, too, the government of the revolution, and that fol- lowing it, were kept busy with Jacobite plots at home, and in check- ing the ambition of Louis XIV, of France, abroad. We thus see that the preoccupation of the Mother Country was, throughout, a potent cause in bringing about a sturdj', self-de- pendent frame of mind in the colonists. Another cause which tended to carry the Americans, as they came to be called, away from royalty, was the antagonism between them and the royal governors. The latter had the veto power, and, toward the last, used it under instructions from home, with increasing frequency. It often happened that the measures which the people wanted most, were those which the governors thwarted ; and as the veto was final, they felt a power which hedged them round and impeded their cherished plans, but which was beyond their power to reach. The evil, which was remedied in England, after the revolution, by the practical disuse of the veto, went unchecked in the colonies; and the power was exercised often and ruthlessly, and caused a hatred of the governors, and distaste for absolute power, — for the royal principle they represented. It tegat a sturdy, critical, independence of character, which many writers of the ante-revolutionary period noticed, which made the Americans tend strongly to republicanism, while they still retained a strong love for the Mother Country, as such. Another potent factor was the spirit of the age. At this time, and until the revulsion of feeling following the atrocities of the French Revolution, the tendency all over the Caucasian world, was strongly toward liberalism in government. A great change had taken place since the seventeenth century. Charles I of England, who reigned in the first half of that period, had so high a notion of his rights as King, that he would never admit that he was under any obligation to keep any of the promises wrung from him by the military successes of the Parliament. His doctrine was that his prerogatives came to him from God, by divine right, — were inalienable. He could not divest himself of them if he would. Hence, no concession forced from him by stress of circumstances, was thought binding when an opportunity to repudiate it was presented. To him it was simply void — had no existence — was a promise writ in water. This accounts, to some extent, for the duplicity of his dealings. SONS OP THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 15 Looking back to the reign of King John, the progress of the kingly idea is very marked. That monarch was so furious at being compelled to grant Magna Charta, that after he had signed it, he threw himself upon the ground in a paroxysm of rage, and cursed and bit at straws and everything within his reach. But while he tried in every way to evade and nullify the great instru- ment, it was as one who had lost something which he sought to regain rather than as one who has been forced to go through the form of renouncing that which could not be taken from him by any human power. Charles' idea, upon the other hand, was that he sat on his throne by the divine will, and that the only duty of the subject was to obey. His creed was, "Submit yourselves to the powers that be, for they are ordained of God." This was also the doctrine of the high church party in England, and the duty of implicit obedience was preached even after the English revolution, and down to the end of the reign of Queen Anne; in fact, until the advent of the Georges, under a purely parliamentary title, made the inconsistency of the fact, with the theory, so manifest that it became obsolete. The dogma of the divinity of the kingly office, was strictly main- tained by Louis XIV of France. Bossonet did not greatly exag- gerate the ideas of that time, when he said, "Kings are divine, and do partake of the divine nature." "The state?" said Louis, "I am the state!" and he spoke the literal truth. The people were for him, created that he might have subjects, — his chattels, his own. To wait upon him was the greatest honor, and even the functions which are generally considered menial, were, when per- formed for the king, a service of distinction, — posts contended for by all who would rise at court. One great dignitary held the basin in which he washed; another handed him the napkin upon which he dried his royal face, and so on through the list. As Macaulay puts it, he took his emetics in public, and vomited in state. In Louis XIV the kingly idea attained its highest point. At the middle of his reign he was supreme in state, revered at home, feared abroad. Single handed, he fought his way to all desired ends, and so imposed upon the imagination of men, that he was thought great in intellect, great in statecraft, great in stature, and invincible in war. But the tide turned. A coalition drove him back into France, and extorted from him humiliating offers of peace. His reputation for statesmanship was well nigh lost, and he died an old man, without a friend, and alone when the last moment came. After death, when any one who would, durst approach and touch him, he was measured and it was found to the 16 Calipoenia society surprise of all, that he was not only not a large man, but actual y undersized. In short, he turned out to be an inordinately vam, arbi- trary little man,— in some respects a veritable sham, who had bank- rupted France and reduced his subjects to living upon anything they could get, — some even eating grass. To such a pass had the "Grand Monarch" brought his people. Matters became worse under the regency, and subsequent reign of Louis XV. The people were ill governed at home, and the country was discredited and its armies defeated abroad. There was but little improvement during the reign of Louis XVI. As a result, the kingly power fell into a disrepute, that amounted almost to contempt. The old reverence for the kingship was gone, and the people had begun to murmur dangerously. Public opinion at last reaches all rulers. Prom the despot on his divan, surrounded by slaves and obsequious courtiers, to the head of the most advanced republic, this subtile force is felt. It is only a question how long it shall take, and to what degree of intensity it must attain, before the efEect be produced. This state of affairs, in Prance and elsewhere in Europe, caused a general, public opinion that the people were not made entirely for their kings, but that the latter owed some duties as the result of their station; that if they were placed upon their thrones by God, He had put them there to work out His wiU, for the better- ment of His children on earth. As usual, this growing feeling found spokesmen. Great thinkers and writers arose. They were not the creators of the sentiment, but its exponents. To think otherwise, would be to leave the progress of the world to the hazard of the measles, croup and all the other ailments of childhood, so that if any one of these many juvenile diseases had carried off this or that great man, the progress of the world would have stopped. The truth is, that that which is a mere murmur becomes articu- late; that which is amorphous, crystallizes into definite shape, in the mind of genius. Such was Voltaire, the champion of humani- tarianism. Born in 1694, and living until 1778, a life of eighty- five years, he waged a continuous warfare for the suffering and oppressed. He was the champion of the people, and his life was one long, relentless war upon tyranny, and the cruel laws of the time. By 1755 he had become famous, and as French was then the language of the learned all over the civilized world, his writings found their way into the hands of thinkers in every land, and produced a powerful effect in awakening Christendom to the fact that the people had rights which should be considered. Another writer who produced a great effect was Rousseau. In 1762 he published his famous essay, in which, for the first time Sons of the American Revolution 17 there was advanced the proposition, that the relation between the ruler and his people is that of contract; that each owes duties to the other. This work, too, was widely read, and increasingly so, as time went on. The result of the writings of these men, and others of lesser fame, was, that toward the middle of the eighteenth century, a change had taken place, even in the idea of the kings themselves. They had reacted to public opinion, and instead of considering themselves the state, had grown to call themselves the servants of the people. Frederick the Great of Prussia, Gustavus of Sweden, the Emperor Joseph of Austria, Catherine of Russia, all labored diligently, not for themselves or for their own aggrandizement, as Louis XIV had, but for their subjects; and the ministers who found most favor in their eyes, were those who were most diligent for, and most successful, in the improvement of the condition of their people. I am the first servant of my people, was their maxim. They had ceased to be the state, and had become the heads of the state, with grave responsibilities and arduous duties to perform. We who have read and re-read the Declaration of Independ- ence, consider it as much a foregone conclusion that the people shall rule, as that the sun shall rise ; but, it is a fact, that until the time of Rousseau, no one had dreamt of such a thing as the subjects having any inherent rights, or any rights at all. He literally dis- covered the people. When the Netherlands revolted against the inquisition, and attendant tyranny and spoliation of Phillip II of Spain, such a thing as the formation of a government of the people was not thought of. The sovereignty wrested from Phillip was hawked about Europe, and offered sucessively to Elizabeth of England and Henry of Prance, as well as others; and it was only when Phillip of Anjou, who had accepted the throne, commenced his reign by an armed assault upon the liberties of the corporations forming the govern- ing bodies of the united provinces, that all foreign denomination was thrown off and a local government established. But it is inter- esting to note, that the government thus formed was an aggregation of the various bodies corporate of the country, which were them- selves composed of privileged persons. The people, as such, were at no time in evidence. The next great rebellion, was that of the Puritans against the crown of England. They rose because of religious persecution, and fought for freedom of worship, as well as the immemorial rights of Englishmen; but these rights were privileges, which had been ex- torted from the crown, from time to time,— not deemed held by any inalienable right of the people themselves. They were possessed by right of conquest, as it were. 18 California Society Even the English Revolution, which forever banished the from the throne, and firmly established parliamentary governmen , was a combination of the Puritans, who had been temporari y suppressed at the time of the restoration, and the Episcopal ig Church party, which feared its ascendancy would be lost, by t e conversion of the King to Catholicism. It was not a movement avowedly for the benefit of the people, although it ultimately turned out to be very beneficial to them. Soon after these events, by which the good of the people was blindly worked out, came Voltaire and Rousseau, who spoke for the rights of the people. Their doctrines soon became not only widely spread, but fashionable, and great nobles and church digni- taries, especially in France, openly discussed and approved them. Count Mirabeau, father of the great man of that name, announced himself the friend of all mankind. Some, perhaps most of these great ones of the land, who dis- cussed the rights of the people, did so in purely platonie spirit, very much as a fad, little dreaming that the people were taking them in earnest, — that they were playing with fire. Such doctrines naturally fell in with the trend of the English mind, and especially with the line of thought of the colonists, so that, as the revolution approached, we find loyalty to the Mother Country announced by men, who, at the same time, openly upheld the rights of the people, as a people, to govern themselves. In fact, the actual practice of the Americans foreshadowed and carried out what Rousseau had put into words. It is obvious that in such a state of affairs, nothing but the strong bond of affection then existing, held the two countries together, and that, when the rupture should come, these doctrines would be put into operation; that the people would rule, and that there would be no king on this side of the Atlantic. And the rupture came. The enormous debt rolled up by the French and Indian War, made necessary the exploitation of new sources of revenue. Parliament, with marvelous lack of tact, announced in advance its intention of brushing away all the privi- leges granted in the colonial charters, of repealing all the implied privileges which had grown up under them by tacitly ignoring and transcending the powers expressly granted. Instead of ask- ing for contributions, which would have been liberally granted it rode rough-shod over the sensibilities of the colonists, and levied a direct tax in the shape of the stamp duty of 1763. The result was an excitement, compared with which, the agitation against shin money, was insignificant ; and which became so threatening that Parliament found it necessary to repeal the law forthwith. Sons of the American Revolution 19 The King, however, remained obdurate; and, though overborne for the time, waited until he could obtain a new set of ministers, some ten years later, who were more to his liking. With a sub- servient majority in Parliament, he returned to the charge, smart- ing under the previous defeat. The result, we all know. Our peti- tions were humble, but the utterances at public meetings grew more and more threatening, until the King ordered the occupation of Boston by a British garrison. Then came Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill and — the Declaration of Independence. Then, for the first time in history, a people rose as a people, and announced a doctrine until then unheard. The barons at Runnymede, the Parliament in the reign of Charles I, and at the revolution of 1688, had demanded the rights of Englishmen, — had demanded privileges, things deemed to belong to Englishmen, be- cause they were Englishmen and not foreigners. Now, the colonies made a declaration of inalienable rights, — not of privileges of a particular and fortunate section of mankind, but of rights which belong to all men, because they are men, — a declaration that was a statement of fundamental law, an arraignment and a sentence passed upon the King. The sentence was deposition, and it was executed by the bullets and bayonets of the Continental troops. Another cause tending to republicanism, was what might be called the centrifugal tendencies of the colonies themselves. They were all extremely tenacious of their separate governments. This is shown by the limited powers they conferred upon the national government (if such it could be called), by the articles of eon- federation. So jealous were they of any central power, that they would not even give it right to levy the taxes which were neces- sary to its very existence, or allow it any executive head, or national courts. The continental congress was no more than a body com- posed of the ambassadors of the several commonwealths, and all of its votes were required to be by states. To such semi-independent sovereigns monarchy meant the ob- literation of all boundary lines, and the reduction of the whole country to one ; for such a thing as a government, federal in form, had not been dreamt of by anyone at that time. This jealousy of any central power lasted even down to a time later than the adop- tion of the constitution, and made its adoption a question of grave doubt. Had it not been for the great influence of "Washington, the able articles of Madison, Hamilton and others in the Federalist, and the wretched financial and business condition of the country it would probably have been rejected. As it was, Rhode Island stayed out for nearly a year, after the other states had ac- cepted it. 20 California Societt This tenacious clinging to the individual sovereignty of the states, which made the formation of a really strong national govern- ment so difficult, and which produced a reaction that brought forth the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions after its adoption, was perhaps one of the strongest forces which drew the country away from kingship. The last of the causes which will be mentioned as tending to republicanism, was the absence, for one hundred and fifty years from the sight of the colonists, of any scion or representative of royalty. No prince of the blood had ever visited America, and royalty was a mere tradition. It was looked upon with unquestion- ing, loyal eyes, until the exasperating policy of the royal governors, and the tyranny of George III, made it hateful to them. After such an experience it was not likely, when they came to found their own government, that they would select a form which had brought them such sorrow and loss. This innate feeling that the highest good of the country required a republic, is shown by an incident in the life of Washington. Toward the end of the war, the continental congress had sunk into the most contemptible insignificance. It had no power to raise money, could not pay its debts, even to the soldiers who had fought through the war, and its calls upon the state legislatures for funds were disregarded. The result was, a large body of armed men, having a just grievance and clamoring for satisfaction. A convention of these was held, at which an old and respectable officer was commissioned to offer the crown to Washington. The reply was full of dignity, a sense of righteous offense, — almost pathos. He says : — "I am at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which, to me, seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable. . . . Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your mind and never communicate from yourself or any one else, a sentiment of the like nature." The convention, much abashed, broke up; nothing more was heard of monarchy in this country, and the incident was closed. It is no disparagement of the patriotism of Washington to say, that with all the causes, of which I have spoken, in operation it would have been impossible for him to have made himself king. It is a foregone conclusion that, if Washington could n6t have done it, no one else could. Sons op the American Eevolution 21 One hundred and nineteen years have passed since the Consti- tution was adopted. So well was it suited to the genius of the people that, with the exception of the Bill of Rights included in the first ten amendments, it has only been necessary to amend it in order to secure the results of the great Civil War. The influences which caused its adoption, and molded the nation into a republic, have proved so powerful that they have affected the very character of the people themselves ; and we see a great and successful general, a veritable military genius, at the end of the Civil War, with a vast and highly efficient army at his command, whose only anxiety was to disband that army and cut down the enormous expense, — a million dollars a day, which its maintenance cost. Opportunity and military ambition were subordinated to a sense of civic duty. It is a never ending theme of admiration and comment, by histori- ans and foreigners, — entirely incomprehensible to the latter. Such things are indeed incomprehensible and seem wonderful, unlooked for things to the unreflecting. In truth they are not. I remember once reading Irving 's tale of the Arabian Astrolo- ger. The story goes on to tell how, in his younger days, when a mere Arab of the desert, the astrologer tended his father's camels. In traversing the desert of Aden, searching for one that was lost, wearied and faint he laid himself down at noontide and slept beneath a palm tree, beside a scanty well. When he awoke, he found himself at the gate of a city. He entered and beheld noble streets, and squares, and market places; but all was silent and without an inhabitant. He wandered on imtil he came to a sumptu- ous palace, with a garden adorned with fountains and fish ponds, and groves and flowers, and orchards laden with delicious fruits; but still no one was to be seen. Upon which, appalled at this lone- liness, he hastened to depart. After going forth from the gate of the city, he turned to look at the place, but it was no longer to be seen; nothing but the silent desert extended before his eyes. In the neighborhood he met an aged dervish, who told him that what he had seen was the far famed Garden of Irem; that it ap- peared at times to some wanderer, then vanished, leaving nothing but the lonely desert. And this is the story of it : In olden times, when the country was inhabited by the Addites, King Sheddad, the son of Ad, the great grandson of Noah, founded here a splendid city. When it was finished, and he saw its grandeur, his heart was puffed up with pride and arrogance, and he deter- mined to build a royal palace, with gardens which should rival all related in the Koran of the celestial paradise. But the curse of heaven fell upon him for his presumption. He and his subjects were swept from the earth, and his splendid city, and palace, and 22 California Society gardens, were laid under a perpetual spell, which hides them rom human sight, excepting that they are seen at intervals, by way of keeping his sin in perpetual remembrance. This story dwelt ever in the astrologer's mind, and later, when a man, he followed the army of the conquering Amru into Egypt, and remained there among the priests of the land, seeking to make himself master of the hidden knowledge for which they are renowned. He was one day seated upon the banks of the Nile, conversing with an ancient priest, when he pointed to the mighty pyramids, which rose like mountains out of the neighboring desert. "All that we can teach thee" said he, "is nothing to the knowl- edge locked up in those mighty piles. In the center of the central pyramid is a sepulchral chamber, in which is enclosed the mummy of the high priest, who aided in rearing that stupendous pile; and with him is buried a wondrous book of knowledge, containing all the secrets of magic art. This book was given to Adam after his fall, and was handed down from generation to generation, to King Solomon the Wise, and by its aid he built the Temple of Jerusalem." When the astrologer heard these words, he burned to possess the book. He secured the services of some soldiers and native Egyptians, and with them set to work and pierced the solid mass of the pyramid, until after great toil he came upon one of its interior and hidden passages. Following this up, and threading a fearful labyrinth, he penetrated into the very heart of the pyra- mid, even to the sepulchral chamber, where the mummy of the high priest had lain for ages. The solitude, the gloom, the silence which had been unbroken for centuries; the mystery; a supersti- tious fear, now that he was alone in the presence of the great dead, held him spell-bound. He looked with awe into the brown depths of the serene, unwinking eyes of the face, wrought upon the case in which the mummy lay and, shuddering, felt himself a mummy, too. In thought, he laid him down with the embalmed and waiting dead, and felt within his dust the expectation of another life, mingled with cold and suffocating doubts — the children born of long delay. How long he was enthralled he could not tell, but, waking with a start, he set about the object of his quest. He broke through the outer cases of the mummy, unfolded its many wrappings and bandages, until at length he found the precious volume upon its bosom. Seizing it with trembling hand, he groped his way out of the pyramid, leaving the mummy in its dark and silent sepulchre, there to await the final day of resurrection and judgment. Being possessed of the book of knowledge of Solomon the Wise one of his first thoughts was the Garden of Irem. He returned Sons of the Amekican Revolution 23 and found it revealed to his instructed sight. He took possession of the palace of Sheddad, and passed several days in his mock paradise. The genii who watched over the place were obedient to his magic power, and revealed to him the spells by which the whole garden had been, as it were, conjured into existence, and by which it was rendered invisible. What other wondrous things he did, is told in Irving 's tale. Modem science has found a book of knowledge, more wonderful than that of the astrologer in the fable. It shows us how to make the falling waters of a mountain stream give light and heat and power to dwellers of a far-off city; to talk with ease to friends, though hills and seas and forests intervene; to make the phono- graph, that marvelous demonstration of a scientific theory, that speaks all tongues with faultless accent, plays all tunes, sings all songs, gives back the lost chord, the voice of the prima donna ; plays for us the plaintive violin, the full orchestra, the crashing band, and portrays all emotions that lie between the morn of laughter and the night of tears. It teaches us to heal the sick and well nigh raise the dead; to scan the farthest heavens, and know by gravitation's law the place and size of worlds unseen. To its instructed sight also the spells and laws that bind the moral world together, and give it motion, are plain as a, b, c. Once found, the rule is so plain that all may see. So that to those who study well the causes leading to our present state ; who understand that every act is but the father to another act, and that the line cannot be broken, changed or halted by the might of any man, or group of men; the truth shines out as clear as day that from the first exile who trod the Plymouth Rock, through years of silent, sturdy growth, these causes acted on until the very nature of the soldier was changed, and wrought to true allegiance to a high ideal, and that these causes were the same, the steady force that bore us on, and still will bear us on, without our power to check, — on until our destiny is reached, and won, and made secure. The President: In accordance with the announcement I made to you before we listened to Compatriot Sargent, we will now listen to something in lighter vein, from one who has favored us before in the same general direction. I remember when we had our ban- quet on the anniversary of the memorable conflict between the "Bon Homme Richard" and the "Serapis," the banquet that we had many ages ago, though really only last September, we had a special telephone message from the fight which we all enjoyed very much. I don't know what the poem is about this evening, but it is going to be good, because it is the work of Compatriot Pelham W. Ames. 24 California Society Mr. Ames. Mr. President and Compatriots: I feel very much like apologizing for my frivolous verse. It reminds me of a dentist when he pulls a child's tooth and says, "It won't hurt very much, and it will be all over in a minute." POEM. By Pelham W. Ames. This is a song of Peace. The Dogs of War to-night Are slumbering in their kennels, and wiU not growl or fight. Now War may be heroic, but Peace, I'm sure's divine; But Peace or War — no matter — we don't forget to dine. Our Orators may speak of Peace or teU us of a fight, Their speeches and orations won't spoil our appetite. They don't begin, — good luck — till we have finished dinner, And filled that part of man that's always called the inner; ^ : Then we are all good-natured, and Usten with a smile. Imbibe their words of wisdom, and smoke cigars meanwhile; For ladies are not present, — no Misses here, nor Madams, Nor are there any Eves, — though we could furnish Adams. Cold facts are showered upon us, but dinner keeps us warm. And when retreat is sounded, our ranks are in good form. We leave the banquet full, — full, I mean, of knowledge. As if we'd had a new and special course at College. Just think of College courses while at the table, dining, Especially if provided by our Compatriot Vining. Why, Frenzied Education would surely be its name, ' And 'twould bring its founders fortune and everlasting fame; So in our dinner's courses, this is the best of all, When on our listening ears the words of wisdom fall. And as we celebrate to-night the glory of the Peace, We hope and pray That Earthquakes may, As well as Battles, cease. (Laughter and Applause.) The President: I have a great deal of pleasure in announcing to you the next number on the programme. We are to hear from one of whom all of us are fond. Everybody pronounces him a royal good fellow. And I want to say of him before he rises to address you, that we owe him many thanks for having introduced the bill into Congress which has become a law incorporating our Society as a national corporation. (Applause.) That is only one among many piiblic services which he has performed, but it is one that commends him particularly to us. I have now the pleasure of presenting to you the Honorable Julius Kahn. (Applause.) Sons of the American Revolution 25 ADDRESS BY HON. JULIUS KAHN. Mr. President and Friends: A few days ago, the Chairman of your Dinner Committee, Mr. Vining, called upon me and invited me to attend your gathering this evening, to vfhich I cheerfully assented. I asked him what he wanted me to talk about. "Oh," he said, "talk about ten minutes." So I will have to try to curb my enthusiasm and confine it to ten minutes. I want to say at the outset, however, that I don't want to sail under false colors, — I did not introduce the bill of which Mr. Adams speaks. I had the bill amended a little in conformity with the desires of some of your members, and was very glad indeed to have it pass. There is a growing disposition in Congress not to grant national charters to associations. But when this bill came before the House — and I knew, of course, that Senator Perkins would have no difiSculty in getting a measure of that kind through the Senate — no one had any desire to east a negative vote against a measure fathered by the descendants of those sturdy Americans who had fought, bled, and died at Quebec and at Saratoga, on the Plains of Harlem, on Long Island, at Trenton, at Princeton, at Monmouth, on the Brandywine, at the Cowpens, at Utah Springs, and at Yorktown. Every member of Congress felt that the des- cendants of those men were worthy of receiving anything that Congress had to give. So there was little difficulty in getting your bill through, and we who performed a humble part in having it passed, were only too glad to have the opportunity to do what we could for you. I have read of that memorable epoch in our country's history, from the time that I was a boy, and even unto manhood's estate, and I never read it without feeling prouder and prouder of my country. I have wept when I have read of that terrible winter at Valley Forge, when the barefooted American soldiers dyed the snow red with the blood that came from their unstoekinged feet. There is nothing in American history, or in the history of any country in the world, more beautiful than the sentiments that were uttered by those patriots. What is there more beautiful than those words of Nathan Hale, just before he was to give up his life : "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." What is more beautiful than the sentiment which our immortal Washington uttered, when the crown was offered to him? And what is more direct and more inspiring than the homely phrase of the great Ethan Allen, when he called upon the British to sur- 26 Calipoenia Society render at Ticonderoga, "In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!" (Applause.) We all know, history has told us, how those battles were fought and won, and how peace was ultimately achieved. It was only recently, however, that I came upon the true cause. We have had something of a shake out here, and in looking over the history of our country, I discovered that way back on the 18th of No- vember, 1755, twenty years before the Revolutionary War, there was a terrific shake, that shook up things from Chesapeake Bay to Nova Scotia. About 1,500 houses in the city of Boston were more or less shattered. Hundreds of chimneys were brought to the ground, and there was great destruction. And I thought a condition prevailed not unlike that which prevailed in this section, that probably a great many children were born before their time, and just about the time that they got to be twenty years of age, they were all good fighting stock; they came into the world in a flurry, and they were ready to do anything. And we hope that when the occasion calls, these children who were brought into the world during our trying times will render even as good an account of themselves as did the Revolutionary sires way back in 1776. And we know they will, for they were born in California. (Applause.) It is a great debt that our generation owes to the men of 1776, and not only our generation, not only the people of the United States, but the entire world, owes them a great debt of gratitude. They were idealists, and they were inspired by the highest and the most beautiful motives that ever actuated the deeds of men. The world can never realize fully the hardships that they suffered and the many sacrifices that they made. They were ready to lay down their lives, if need be. And so long as the world shall endure, the descendants of those men are justified, and will be justified, in commemorating the splendid deeds of that epoch which is gradu- ally growing more and more distant from the present day. From that little country which they dominated, with its three ' millions of inhabitants, we have grown to be a mighty nation of probably eighty-five millions of people to-day. But the seeds which they planted have borne the fruit which all Americans enjoy. And the narrow stretch of land along the Atlantic Ocean which they inhabited, has gradually widened and widened until it takes in not only the entire territory between the Atlantic and Pacific on the continent itself, but it has reached out clear across the Pacific and brought under our flag a people, who for three centuries had known nothing, or practically nothing, of civilization or edu- cation, and by the grace of God, we are helping them to become a self-governing people. Sons op the American Revolution 27 There is much that I could say to-night, but I want to keep within the time limit. I can only eouclude by saying this, that to me the poet Scott has given us as beautiful a sentiment as I have ever read, when he says: "Breathes there the man with soul so dead. Who never to himself hath said This is my own, my native land ! Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned As home his footsteps he hath turned From wandering on a foreign strand? If such there breathe, go, mark him well; For him no minstrel raptures swell! High though his titles, proud his name, Boundless his wealth as wish can claim: ' Despite those titles, power, and pelf, The wretch, concentrated all in self. Living, shall forfeit fair renown, And doubly dying, shall go down To the vile dust, from whence he sprung, Unwept, unhonored, and unsung." We who live in the United States have every reason to feel proud of our country. She has grown in a little over a hundred years from a stripling to a giant. May she always grow ; may she always be the greatest country under the canopj^ of heaven. And we, as citizens, will always be proud of her, and we will all do our level best to keep her foremost in the ranks of the nations of the earth. (Applause.) The President : Compatriots, I was very much interested in the idea suggested by the last speaker of the mighty prowess that the Revolutionary soldier received by that little disturbance of the earth some twenty years before, and his prognostication that the little affair of the same kind that we here have had may result similarly in about twenty years. Just as we have had a Society of Pioneers, possibly we shall then have a Society of Sons of the Earthquake, or a Society of Shakers, and if then they have to meet any foe, woe be unto that foe. "We shall now hear about "The Revolutionary Soldier," from our Compatriot, Charles H. Blinn. Mr. Blinn. Mr. President: A few days ago my old friend and comrade. Compatriot Vining, called upon me to prepare something to be read at this dinner upon "The Revolutionary Soldier." He did not even intimate to me at that time that we were to be honored with the number of distinguished guests whom I see before me, or I should have hesitated, as he knows I did, to prepare a paper of any kind. I did not then anticipate seing our senior Senator, 28 California Society whom I have held in truest friendship for a quarter of a century, nor his distinguished eo-worker in the Lower House. However, my effort is not to be measured by theirs, and you will not judge its shortcomings by comparison with what they say to us. THE SOLDIERS OF THE REVOLUTION. By Charles H. Blinn. In every war since the dawn of history, there has been more or less distress from lack of proper food, from lack of proper clothing, from lack of proper medical and surgical attendance, and from various other causes. Each succeeding war in which our country has borne a part has shown an increased amelioration in all these deficiencies, while in the late war between Russia and Japan the medical and surgical branches of the Japanese army showed such advancement as to make it the marvel of the world. Looking back over a period of 130 years in our country's history, noting the advancement in arms, munitions, medical science, etc., we are easily led to believe that the soldier of the Revolution was a poorly paid, poorly clothed, poorly equipped, poorly fed fighting machine. It is a well estab- lished fact that, under such conditions, a man is not at his best, and yet a careful reader of history is forced to the conclusion that the world shows no instance of better fighting material than in those to whom we are privileged — with a pardonable pride — to trace our own lineage in a direct line. They were a unique personality, they were simple countrymen changed into heroes; they were honest farmers that had become rovers; they were ill disciplined and familiar with their officers; they were strangely proud, not of themselves individually, but of the Continental Army collectively, for they knew perfectly well that they were the best fighters in the known world. They had a quiet, attentive, earnest way of fighting, that made them terrific in battle; each man knew that his neighbor in the ranks was not going to run away, also that he himself intended to remain where he was, like the man who fought under Cromwell ; they hated oppression with an abiding hate; they were animated by the purest and holiest motives that ever were born and cradled in the human heart, their memories will live in perpetual story as long as the love of liberty survives in the breast of man, and their deeds of heroism will sparkle on the pages of history so long as the stars glitter in the vault of Heaven. The record of the achievements of the soldier of the Revolution is one of the most fascinating ever woven into the warp and woof of history or of romance. The question is sometimes asked, why Sons of the American Revolution 29 these men fought so well and endured so much? They endured all for the single word "liberty." They fought so well because they were commanded by the bravest leaders in all history, at the head of whom stood the immortal, invincible Washington, who never wavered in his faith in the cause, though his heart was often sad. And there was old Israel Putnam, and Nathaniel Greene, Francis Marion, Philip Schuyler, Charles Lee, Henry Knox, and a score of others. Then take the list of those who from foreign shores east their fate among those who had placed their feet on the first rung of the ladder whose cap-sheaf was Liberty; their names make an arch which is bounded by immortality : LaFayette, Baron Steuben, Baron DeKalb, Count Pulaski, Kosciusco, Rocham- beau, D'Estaing and others. What memories these names suggest! — patriots all. Do you wonder the soldiers of the Revolution fought so well? Throughout the vast domain of our Country are scattered monu- ments to these heroes, where all Americans should go, ever and again, to catch the echo of their name as it speaks from the tablet, and gather new inspiration from their sleeping dust. A few years ago, I stood in a little cemetery at Burlington, Vermont, where amidst a clump of pine trees, through whose tops a summer breeze sang a monody, I noted a graceful shaft, and read thereon this simple inscription: "Sacred to the memory of Ethan Allen, the hero of Ticonderoga." Who would not have followed the man who at dead of night woke the British Commander of the old Fort and demanded its surrender "In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!" Then I went to the Southern part of the State to view that magnificent obelisk, 300 feet high, a mute but eloquent reminder of what happened on the battle- field of Bennington, on the 16th of August, 1777, where old John Stark, pointing to the British and Hessians said: "There they are, boys, we beat them to-day, or Molly Stark's a widow!" Every Vermonter has a proprietary interest in John Stark and Ethan Allen. Then, me thinks in vision I saw that handful of grizzled patriots, a spectacle that must have been a feast to the eyes that beheld them, seated on the platform listening to Webster's im- mortal address at the dedication of the Bunker Hill monument. Who can read Weem's life of Marion with dry eyes, or recall the sad story of suffering at Valley Forge, when the men of the Con- tinental Army could be tracked in the snow by the scarlet stains from their bleeding feet? And is not our indignation aroused when reading the story of horror and misery indescribable, endured by captives cooped up for long months or years in British prison ships? Is it strange that, treading down the hill of life, looking 30 California Society toward the lengthening shadows in the West, where ever a soldier of the Revolution was seen, children of the public schools stood with uncovered heads as the grand old man passed along the street? What good American is there who does not revere the memory of old Israel Putnam? When the British forces marched out of Boston to destroy the American stores at Concord, they were not long in learning they had stirred up a hornet's nest and old Putnam was there. As often as old Ichabod Buker, one of their pursuers, hove in sight mounted on his white mare with his old flint-lock musket resting across the pommel of his saddle, the Britishers likened him to "Death on a pale horse," for they knew that one of their number must die. And the leader of the British forces. Major Piteairn, who ordered the slaughter of unoffending Amer- icans assembled on Lexington Green, was by the same flint-lock musket made to bite the dust at Breed's Hill, a few weeks later. The story of the gathering of the forces in Maine and the mem- orable march of 1100 men through unbroken forests and down rushing rivers in improvised canoes, for months, in an endeavor to take part in the battle before Quebec, is one of the most thrill- ing of all history, may we not endeavor to stretch the mantle of charity over its brave commander? And may we not believe that, had the Government shown a better appreciation of his heroic services, Benedict Arnold would not, at the last, have gone wrong? His wonderful exploits stand out in bold lines, on the pages of our Country's history, and the battle of Bemis Heights, where, with Morgan, he made so gallant a fight, will ever stand on the credit side of his ledger. Morgan, who said of the British General Fraser: "He is a brave man, but he must die." Arnold rushed into that battle without orders and fought like a fiend incarnate while the glory went to Gates who remained behind in his tent. All through that long and bitter struggle, flash before us deeds of valor unparalleled in history. The half starved soldiers of Marion covered themselves with glory, when emerging from swamps and hiding places they routed and put to flight the trained soldiers of Europe. Greene and Morgan gained one of the greatest victories of the war, when the British under Tarleton were defeated at the battle of the Cowpens, while at King's mountain the gallant Colonel Ferguson, of the British forces, with his 1100 Tories armed for the first time with repeating rifles, were no match for the hardy mountaineers of North Carolina and Tennessee, who stormed the summit of the mountain, killing or capturing the entire force opposed to them. My Compatriots, when we read the story of the Revolution, it seems almost a miracle that the brave men from whom we are Sons op the American Revolution 31 descended, gained the independence of this nation, poorly supported by the Continental Congress, poorly equipped, poorly clothed, poorly paid, poorly fed, outmatched in numbers by the British and the paid mercenaries of Hesse, Cassel and Darmstadt, assisted by the merciless savages. They marched through snow and ice, through heat and pelting rain, through summer and winter till seven years had rolled by. With their visions turned toward Liberty, with the immortal name of Washington blazoned on the tablets of their daily lives, they carved a place of immortality and rest beyond the stars. Let us remember them; let us keep their memories green. We can never honor them beyond their rich deserving. "On Fame's Eternal Camping Ground Their silent tents are spread, While Glory guards with solemn round The bivouac of the dead." .Applause.) The President : We have with us this evening distinguished guests from the national Congress, from the Army, and last, but not least, from the Judiciary. Possibly I may regret it the next time I come before him, but I am going to call upon one who has long been an ornament to the bench in California, Judge J. V. Coffey. Address by Hon. J. V. Coffey. Mr. President and Gentlemen : I have been very greatly privi- leged in being invited to attend this evening, and greatly delighted in listening to the addresses, as well as in enjoying the dinner that you have provided, with the accompanying features of excellent vocal and instrumental music ; but I don 't know what I will do to you, Mr. President, when the opportunity offers, by way of retaliation for this last step of yours. I am unused to speaking. My business is to listen — to Mr. Adams and to Mr. Sargent. And I do not like to be placed in contrast with Mr. Sargent, and his excellently prepared discourse of this evening, and with my friend Mr. Kahn and his fine oration, and with the remarkably interesting paper of Mr. Blinn. Someone has remarked here, sub rosa I think they call it, about the number of lawyers and judges around this table who are Sons of the American Revolution. But in the addresses I have not dis- covered anything about lawyers or judges being connected with that event. But there were lawyers and judges who made good 32 California Society soldiers, and some of them were good lawyers before they became good soldiers, though they were not necessarily good soldiers because they were good lawyers, nor were they afterwards good lawyers because they had been worse soldiers. Those who contributed to the success of the American Revolu- tion were, of course, necessarily those who fought and bled in the seven years' war. And no doubt some of them were the product of the extraordinary convulsion to which Mr. Kahn alluded, in November, 1755. Some lawyers, no doubt, came as those soldiers came; being born in a flurry, they were ready to handle a flurry, and to engage in it. There were some of them probably primarily lawyers and statesmen. The soldiers won the victories on the battle-field. Through their heroic fighting and their great priva- tions and their sacrifices, they laid the foundations and they thereby made the country possible. But there were those who produced the Declaration of Independence, which was the beginning of the war, you might say, and those who afterwards brought about the Articles of Confederation which, though imperfect, were the pre- cursors of the Constitution, for their very imperfections made per- fect that immortal instrument, and they were finally the Constitu- tion makers — that was all the work of statesmen and of lawyers and of judges. John Marshall, who was, perhaps, all things considered, the greatest Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, had been a great soldier. He won his spurs in the Revolutionary Army, and fought throughout the Revolutionary War. That was also true of some of his colleagues. And many of those who signed the Declaration of Independence were of the legal fraternity. I do not mean to say that all were lawyers, because some other pro- fessional people had a great deal to do with the bringing about of the conditions that produced the great structure under which we now live. But the work of members of the bench and bar was no inconsiderable factor in those times of construction, and to their sturdiness, their large caliber, and their lofty purposes, we certainly owe a great deal. Perhaps if I had been made aware that I was to be called upon, I might have worked up something to say to you upon this sub- ject. But I will give way to others whom you will find more entertaining. I thank you gentlemen for giving me the privilege of being here, and I shall endeavor at some time to say something in private to Mr. Adams for having brought upon you the inflic- tion that he has. (Applause.) The President: If there has been any infliction whatever in Judge Coffey's case, I am sure you will agree with me that it has Sons op the American Revolution 33 been upon the Judge and not upon us. The Committee has cer- tainly displayed a long head in not informing Judge Coffey in advance that he might be called upon to address you, as other- wise he might not have given us the pleasure of his company and his address. Along with the rest of all good San Franciscans, our Society was burned out in the great fire. Two things, however, we saved from the wreck. One of them is the address to which we all listened with so much interest at our last Washington's Birthday dinner, by Professor Henry Morse Stephens, of the University of California, and which was saved by a course of masterly inac- tivity on his part. Our reporter, Mr. Mott, wrote out his address, and it was sent over to him to be revised before printing, as is our custom. By a stroke of strategy, he held the matter off until after the fire and it was saved. He has not yet gotten over his inactivity, but we hope to have his address and to print it and send it to our members. One more thing was saved, and that is the gavel that was pre- sented to this Society in 1904, made from the old ship "Consti- tution." Colonel Cutler, as President, was its recipient. It bears upon the copper, which was taken from the Constitution by Paul Revere, an inscription telling of its origin. The story of its saving may interest you. After the banquet on the night in question, which was held at the Occidental Hotel, Colonel Cutler gave it to the hotel clerk to put in his safe, and said he would call for it in a few days. By another stroke of masterly inactivity, he forgot to call for it, and it stayed in the safe. After the fire, the clerk of the hotel stopped me on the street one day and said he had some- thing belonging to the Society of Sons of the American Revolution, and he believed I was connected with it. I told him he was correct, and he said if I would send around for it, I could have it. And here it is. The copper is changed in color, and the wood is dis- colored, and the case is charred, as you can see. But I doubt not you will agree with me that it now has tenfold more value than it had before. Before the fire, it was a relic of the good ship "Constitution," which did magnificent service, as you all know. Now it is still all of that, and it has additional value as the sole relic left from our great conflagration, and with an exceedingly narrow escape, as is evident. We are now to have the pleasure of listening to another gentleman whom we all know well, a man who has rendered good service in the Senate of the United States, and service that is of peculiar interest to many of us in that he has served on the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs. I remember that in traveling about V^AijlD'UKJN lA OUUlJiX I the cities of Europe some years ago I did not see an American flag on any of the shipping in their seaports, surely on none of the vessels of war. Indeed, our country seemed to cut very little figure in those days. We were what the diplomatists call a negligible quantity, owing very largely to the fact that we did not have any Navy. We were not yet discovered. When the Spanish-American War broke out we had been building up a Navy by slow degrees. From the time in 1884 when we had no fighting ships we had come to have something of a Navy, which did magnificent service, and introduced us, you may say, to the world at large. More than that, it introduced us to ourselves. We did not know how great a country we were until the war disclosed it to us. We had made Fourth of July speeches, and all that sort of thing, but we really did not know we were a power in the world and a power for good, until that time. " I have now the honor of presenting to you Senator Perkins. (Ap- plause.) Address by Hon. George C. Perkins. Mr. President and Friends: My name is not upon the program, and, like my friend. Judge Coffey, I was not supposed to speak. But I am here, first because I am a member of this Society and I always like to meet my friends, and certainly there are many of them to be found around this festive board this evening. And in the second place, we have an unwritten law in Congress that when any member from the delegation from California is to speak, no matter where, it is our duty to go and hear him. So when I saw in the paper this morning that my friend. Congressman Kahn, was going to speak this evening, I crossed the ferry, walked up Tele- graph Hill and then down on this side, and here I am. And I have had a decided treat in listening to the addresses, and likewise in hearing the poem, though Judge Coffey did not refer to it at all, it has certainly been one of the gems of the evening, the seasoning, the tabasco sauce, giving flavor to the occasion. (Applause.) On this one hundred and twenty-third anniversary of Peace Day it seems to me most appropriate that we should assemble, whether we are the descendants of Revolutionary fathers who took part in the memorable struggle that gave us this Government, or not. In- deed, on the Fourth of July and other national days we should assemble and do homage to the heroes of '76. And yet I heard some of our Society friends speaking in Wash- ington not long since, and one of the ladies at the levee said: "Well we are a cosmopolitan people. Perhaps I have come to this country Sons of the American Revolution 35 since you have. ' ' And the other of the two ladies said : ' ' My ances- tors came over in the Mayflower." "Indeed," was the reply. "I didn't know that that ship brought any steerage passengers." (Laughter.) Each day is a memorable one that marked the making of his- tory in that time. If it had not been for Rochambeau and Lafay- ette perhaps Cornwallis would never have surrendered at Torktown, and perhaps we never would have had the first great Peace Day of this Nation. In later years again, that great Captain General of the War, Ulysses S. Grant, said at the close of the conflict: "Let us have peace. " Since then we have had other great peace conferences. Some of us here at the table participated in ratifying the great peace treaty with Spain in France at the close of the Spanish American War. Still later, the President of the United States, Theo- dore Roosevelt, convened at Kittery Maine the representatives of the great Russian Government and the Japanese Government, and said : "Let us meet together, and see if, out of this conference, peace shall not come." And peace came. And so at the Hague, that American citizen, not by birth — and many of us were not consulted as to whether we would be American born, or not, but came here because our ancestors chanced to be born Americans; but those who come here of their own voli- tion and become American citizens are entitled to as much respect, and indeed, to very much more if they live up to the principles and teachings of our Government than those of us who were not con- sulted. (Applause.) So at the Hague, I say, that American citizen by choice, Carnegie, said : "I will give towards building this great building, that we may have a peace conference for the whole world, and out of it will come good. ' ' And so I believe this Peace Day above all others should be cele- brated, for what is there better when differences exist, whether be- tween individuals or between nations, than that we may arbitrate those differences? There is not a law on our statute books that is not a law of arbitration; each is a compromise measure. Mr. Jones introduces a bill, and Mr. Smith offers an amendment, and they consult and one concedes to the other, and finally out of it there comes a law, the object of which we all have in view — a compromise measure. But we go to Congress and look wise and talk a great deal, and send back our literature to our friends, and then in the end it doesn't amount to very much, because it comes before Judge Coffey or Judge Hosmer, and they say it is unconsti- tutional, and therefore, being a violation of the Constitution, all our work has gone for nothing. 36 California Society But that is the right spirit. While we claim to be descendants of Eevolutionary sires, we should bear in mind the great legacy they have bequeathed to us. "We have read that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." The price of liberty is the duty every citizen owes to his State and his country to do his duty in every particular, and he should commence at the primary election, taking part in that — that is the first duty of every American citizen. But the inception of it all is in the home, where the mother teaches at the family altar the son and daughter, and inculcates the principles of American citizenship and its duties. And where is there a greater legacy to be bequeathed one's children or chil- dren's children than that of being American citizens? So that duty devolves upon us, I think, my friends, and it is on occasions like this that the lesson comes home to us most forcibly. Many of us have been negligent at times. I remember reading some lines something like this, an epitaph in a country church- yard: "Here lies the bodj of Jimmy Hughes, Oh, Lord, his many faults excuse. As he would do if he were Lord God f And you were Jimmy Hughes." So we will some of us have to ask that our faults be excused, upon the promise that we will endeavor to do better in the future in the way of doing our duty as citizens of this great republic. Only two years since, in Washington, opposite the White House, in Lafayette Square, the French Government sent over to our country a statue of General Eochambeau, who took part with Washington in the surrender of Cornwallis, after the siege of York- town, without whom and the Marquis Lafayette, I question very much whether the result of the struggle would have been what it was and peace have come to this country. That statue was placed at one end of the square, and at the other end of the square is a statue of Lafayette, clustered around which are the symbols of our nation, the Indian and other characters, in bronze. Lafayette sits on a bronze horse. And as we look at the statue, it symbolizes the bond of friendship between France and this country. For we are a cosmopolitan people, and we owe much to those French patriots who came to us in our hour of trial and helped us at so critical a moment in our country's history. When we go from here, though there are not many of us, it is our duty to go out and make our influence felt wherever we may be, by building up American institutions, and developing and un- folding the great principles of our Government, inscribing upon our banners: "Show us the truth and the pathway of duty. Sons op the American Revolution 37 Make us determined, undaunted, and strong, armed with the sword of right, so that we may level the bulwarks of wrong." We are going on developing and evoluting. Great resources are being developed, new issues are arising; but the American people are equal to them, keeping our civil institutions separate from our religious institutions, so that we may have both civil and religious liberty. Let us, then, renew our fealty to this govern- ment of the people, by the people, and for the people, and then shall it prevail until time shall be no more. (Applause.) The President: We will close this evening, by singing our national song, "America." BANQUET OF OCTOBER 19, 1907. Vice-President G. C. Sargent: The Society of the Sons of the American Revolution was organized, as we all know, to commem- orate the events of the American Revolution. Those great events have, from time to time, been celebrated by the Society, and their history is now recorded in many interesting and instructive volumes. For the subject of discussion this evening, it has been thought best to draw the attention of our members to the changed conditions between Revolutionary days and our own. To that end the special topic selected is "The Spirit of Seventy-six, and its Relation to Modern Strikes and Boycotts." It is a question that is interesting at all times. We have been fortunate enough to obtain as one of our speakers upon the subject, a gentleman who is himself well acquainted with the thought and feeling of those who labor with their hands, and particularly those who go down to the sea in ships. I think it would probably be more appropriate for the speaker who will now address you, to introduce me, than for me to intro- duce him. But there is always a fiction at banquets that the speaker is not known. Therefore, in compliance with the rule, I shall introduce to you, and it is a real pleasure, Mr. Walter MacArthur. (Applause.) Address by Walter Macarthur. Mr. Toastmaster, and Gentlemen: It occurs to me that it may not be amiss, upon this, my first appearance before you, to say a word or two of personal appreciation, not only of the honor con- ferred upon me by the invitation to address you, but of the signi- ficance of the institution known as the California Society, Sons of the American Revolution. I am not a member of the Society, I 38 Califoknia Society need hardly remind you. I lacked the necessary foresight to qualify for membership in this body. If I had foreseen events, I would have advised my great grandfather to emigrate to the Colonies, and I would be here to-night claiming lineal descent from the Fathers of the American Revolution. (Applause.) As it is, gentlemen, I am denied that high privilege. But I claim a still higher privilege, that of the voluntary selec- tion of the United States as a place of permanent residence. (Ap- plause.) Although I can not claim membership in this body, by reason of the accident of birth, I do say, that if the American Revo- lution stands for human liberty, as I believe it does, you may count me a Son of the American Revolution. (Applause.) If the spirit of 76 is the spirit of larger liberty, of greater equality, of higher aspirations, and of larger social and political life, then I claim to be imbued with that spirit, to admire it, and to stand ready to defend it and further it at all times. (Applause.) As our worthy Toastmaster has said, the subject now before us is an important one, important at all times and under all cir- cumstances, but probably more so to the people of San Francisco in this year of 1907, than to the people of any other city or of any other time. Some of the institutions of our nation, some of the things that mankind has cherished, made much of, and hoped to make more of, are now on trial here in this city, and much of the hope of the future depends upon the verdict which the people of San Francisco shall render in the case. I do not know any question that affects more fundamentally the liberties of the people of this or any other community, that goes deeper into the question of social relationship, than the question of the individual liberty of the citizen to work or to quit, to give his patronage or to withhold it, at his or her own supreme pleasure. I think that upon reflection you will agree with me that that question lies at the very bottom of all other questions affecting human society, and that the issue as to whether our society shall be in essence a free society, or in essence a restricted, if not a servile, society, depends very largely upon the degree in which individual liberty in the respects that I have noted, is guaranteed and preserved. In discussing the question of "The Spirit of Seventy-six, in its Relations to Modern Strikes and Boycotts," I desire to be under- stood as dealing with the matter from a general or abstract point of view, rather than from the point of view of the practical bear- ings of the subject upon the affairs of our daily life. In other words, it is not my purpose to discuss this question with any par- ticular strike or boycott in mind. I am going to discuss the history Sons op the American Revolution 39 of the question, rather than its details or practice. Not that I would admit any inability to successfully defend, or to at least offer a reasonable explanation of some of the things that are going on in our midst; but I do not understand the question now before me as requiring that I shall do so, or even permitting such a mode of treatment. The question before us, it seems to me, is the question as to how far the strike and boycott are in themselves consistent with the spirit of '76, and not the question as to how far the operation or application of the strike or boycott in the present day, or at any other time, may or may not be consistent with the spirit of '76. I wish to have another point understood, if I may, and that is that in considering the consistency or inconsistency of the strike and boycott with the spirit of '76, we are not concerned about the right or wrong of it ; we are merely concerned with the ques- tion as to whether or not these institutions are in reality con- sistent with the spirit of '76. It seems to me, then, that our best mode of reaching an under- standing upon the question lies in a reference to the authorities on the subject. If, in a perusal of the history of the pre-Revolutionary period, we can find that the strike and boycott existed, were adopted or applied or recognized in any way, not in name so much as in essence or in fact, then we may reasonably assure ourselves that these institutions are consistent with the spirit that animated the Revolutionary Fathers. I appreciate fully that this is no time for attempt at learned disquisition. Postprandial addresses are properly of a light, if not frivolous, nature, and the subjects discussed are frequently light, if not frivolous. But it so happens that upon this occa- sion you have chosen a serious, if not a heavy, subject, and in justice to it, I shall be compelled to deal with it in a manner conformable to its essential gravity. I should be the last man in the world, and I speak, I believe, with a knowledge of the dispo- sition of the gentlemen present, to treat a subject of this kind in any other than the most earnest and serious manner. And therefore, gentlemen, I will ask you to indulge me while I refer you briefly to some of the sentiments uttered by the men who made the history and created the spirit of 1776. (Applause.) You have heard the saying: "Let me write the nation's songs, and I care not who writes its laws." Applying that old saying to the case now before us, we must recognize that if we hope to secure an understanding of the spirit that actuated the people of that time, we must find it in the writings of their representatives and 40 California Society tribunes. It has been remarked by historians of that time that it produced a very large volume of personal correspondence. The pamphleteer was abroad in the land. He it was who wrote the views and sentiments of the people, ran them ofiE on some little press in Philadelphia, in Boston, or elsewhere, scattered them broad-cast throughout the length and breadth of the thirteen Colo- nies, and inspired the people to the point of throwing off the yoke of despotism. It is in these pamphlets that we must look to find the real spirit that dominated the men and women of that period. I have brought with me, at great physical sacrifice upon my own part, several unwieldy tomes. I have brought these volumes not with any idea of reading them to you, — that is, not with any idea of reading them all to you, — not with any idea of clinching an argument by historical reference, not with the idea of introduc- ing to your attention any evidence not already in your possession, but simply with purpose of refreshing my own memory and assuring myself that I have quoted the history of '76 correctly. With these few prefatory remarks, let me draw your atten- tion to a work entitled: "The Literary History of the American Revolution," by Tyler. It contains, as you may judge by its title, excerpts from many of the pamphlets and other writings of the period, designed for just such a purpose as we are now undertaking, namely, to cast a light upon the real sentiments that dominated the people of that period. You are aware, gentlemen, of the immediate causes of the American Revolution. Stated briefly, they were the imposition of taxes upon the American people, and the denial to the Colonists of the right of representation in the body imposing these taxes. An agitation sprang up throughout the land, for the purpose of redressing these evils. Various plans were proposed for the accom- plishment of that object, and various theories were propounded concerning the legality or illegality, the constitutionality or uncon- stitutionality of the actions of the British Parliament and King. Much of the discussion of that period dealt with the question as to whether or not the British Parliament had or had not a consti- tutional right to impose the various taxes which the American Colonists resented. Some men said it had ; others said it had not. Again, opinions differed as to the method by which the Colonists might accomplish a reform in their political institutions and secure release from what they conceived to be burdensome conditions imposed upon them by the King and Parliament. I now quote from a pamphlet entitled, "A Few Political Reflections Submitted to the Consideration of the British Colonies by a Citizen of Phila- delphia." This pamphlet, along with many others, was written in Sons op the American Revolution 41 1774, just prior to the assembling in Philadelphia of the Conti- nental Congress, called by the people of the thirteen Colonies, for the purpose, not necessarily of declaring independence, but of doing whatever might be possible, under the circumstances, to secure relief from the onerous conditions then prevailing. The fact that the Continental Congress was about to assemble resulted in a larger activity among the scribes of that date. Numerous pamphlets and addresses were issued for the purpose of influencing or advising the members of the Congress, so that they might act with the full knowledge of the sentiments of the people. This pamphlet from "A citizen of Philadelphia" is one of those writings. The historian remarks as follows concerning the pamphlet: "The uncommon quality of this writer is shown in the fearless manner in which, while approving of the universal rejection of the tax claim of Parliament, he dares to demand that all measures of opposition shall be both lawful and rational." In other words, the author of this pamphlet, said to be Richard Wells, insisted that whatever the Continental Congress might do should be both lawful and rational. He proceeds then to outline the condition as he understands it, and he admits, as his major premise, the constitutionality of the various taxes imposed upon the Colonists, and proceeds to show what, in his judgment, the Colonists ought to do and still remain within the bounds of law and constitutional procedure. Here is his suggestion: "The true remedy, in his opinion, is to be found among the resources of legitmate and honorable commerce. Here, also, there is one resource which, though in itself just, is not wise, that of an agreement for non-exportation. For, just in proportion as we are faithful to it, we merely hurt ourselves. Nevertheless, the true remedy is a commercial one. It is a general agreement for non-importation, which, if honestly adhered to, would break neither the law nor the peace, and would in due time compel the ministers either to give up their policy or go out of office." I construe that statement to be in favor of action on the part of the Colonists which would be tantamount to the levying of a boycott by them upon the products of the British merchant. That sentiment, as you will recall, prevailed to a very large extent, and was put into practice in numerous instances, the policy of non- importation, or of proscription, or whatever you may choose to call it. But this sentiment was by no means unanimous. I do not contend that the idea that the Colonists ought to refuse to consume the products of the mother country was unanimous. There were dis- sentients ; there were men in that day, and they were not all Tories, either, who disapproved of the non-exportation and non-importa- 42 California oocikty tion plans. The historian further remarks: "We should be only- misleading ourselves into a morass of historical error, if we were to overlook the fact that in this season of alarm and of earnest consultation, there were many patriotic Americans who gravely challenged the wisdom, even the rectitude, of the chief measures of opposition which, by so many writers, were already pressed upon the attention of the Congress in advance of its meeting." Here is an excerpt from an address delivered by one of these dis- sentients: "In what colors, then, vrill appear combinations of a large and respectable body of subjects against the supreme power of the community, adopted from the same motives, prescribed by the same rights, and publicly signed in the face of the whole world! For the sake of common humanity, gentlemen, disdain to co-operate with handbills, with newspapers, with the high, menacing resolves of common town meetings. Do not conspire with them to reduce, under the pains and penalties of disgrace and infamy, thousands of your fellow citizens to the cruel alternative of involving them- selves and their wives and children, in indigence and wretchedness, or of being publicly branded and pointed out by the frantic multi- tude as apostates and traitors to their country." It is sufSeient to say, with reference to the views of those who opposed the policy of non-importation, that these views did not prevail. We know that the policy of non-importation did prevail, and prevail very effectively and very widely and generally; that it was one of the common and popular modes of procedure and methods by which the Colonists sought to secure redress and to express their disapproval in the most effective way, of the methods and attitude assumed towards the Colonists by the Mother Country. Let me quote further from the history of this time. This book which I now quote from is the "Narrative and Critical History of America." Touching the attitude of the Colonists in the matter of non-importation, we find here the following statement: "They alarmed British merchants by non-importation and self-denying agreements. When those measures seemed likely to prove in- effectual, they aroused public sentiment through the press, by public gatherings and legislative resolutions, by committees of correspond- ence between towns and colonies, and finally by the Continental Congress. They did not scruple to avail themselves of popular, nor, in the last extremity, of armed resistance to British author- ity." While quoting that excerpt from history, I want to be under- stood as disapproving of the popular violence feature. (Applause.) It may have been necessary, and doubtless was, in that day. But we have emerged beyond the need or wisdom or justification of Sons of the Ameeican Eevolution 43 violence in the conduct of our controversies. (Applause.) And I hope there vnll be no need of our returning to that dark age. I have here another citation to what I woiild draw your atten- tion. You will remember that after considerable protest upon the part of the American Colonists, the British Parliament backed down; it repealed the obnoxious taxes, all of them, with the excep- tion of the tax on tea, which latter it maintained as a matter of principle, just to demonstrate its right to do so. It kept the tax on tea on the statute books, and abolished all the others, hoping thereby to allay public feeling, to secure public confidence, while at the same time retaining the principle for which it was eon- tending, namely, the right of the British Parliament to tax the American people without their advice or consent. The action of the home Government failed in that respect. The American people contended that nothing short of the absolute revocation of all taxes, nothing short of the vindication of the principle that "taxa- tion without representation is tyranny," nothing short of the rec- ognition of the right of the American Colonists to govern them- selves in the important matter of finances, would satisfy the needs of the hour. It says here : ' ' This action did not meet the approval of Lord Boteeourt, the Governor of Virginia, and he dissolved the House of Burgesses. This, however, did not prevent the delegates from meeting at the Apollo, in the Raleigh Tavern" — I notice that many of these people met in taverns, which probably accounts for the poetic nature of their effusions — ' ' and as citizens enter- ing into a non-importation agreement which bore the names of Henry, Randolph, Jefferson and Washington, and became an example of all of the Colonies." The action of Virginia in entering into a non-importation agree- ment became an example to all of the Colonies. Here in a foot- note, I find the following: "North Carolina adopted resolutions similar to those of Virginia, and associations were formed to pre- vent the importation of British goods." I have here a picture. It is said that pictures serve the useful purpose of explaining things to those who can not read. Here is a picture, a fac-simile of a handbill. We would call it a boycott circular, but in those days they had not yet invented the term. So they called it a handbill, and it reads as follows: "The true sons of Liberty and supporters of the non-importation agreement." — there was evidently in the mind of the gentleman who drafted this dodger some connection between liberty and non-importation, because the connotation of the terms would indicate that he regarded the ideas of liberty and non-importation as synonymous — "are determined to resent even the least insult or menace offered 44 California Society to any one or more of the several committees appointed by the body at Paneuil Hall, and chastise any one or more of them as they deserve; and will also support the printers in anything the committees shall desire them to print. As a warning to anyone that shall affront as aforesaid, upon sure information given, one of these advertisements will be posted up at the door or dwelling- house of the offender." The idea evidently conveyed by this is that when the picket or walking delegate, or whatever he was called, reported to the committee that somebody was violating the rules of the union, one of these dodgers was nailed up at his door as a warning. Here we have "A list of the names of those who audaciously continue to counteract the united sentiments of the body of merchants" — this was evidently a boycott levied by some merchants in Boston, which, of course, puts a somewhat different aspect upon the case — "throughout North America by importing British goods, contrary to the agreement." Here is the "We don't patronize" list, containing about half a dozen names. And there was not a judge in the whole country who could be prevailed upon to issue an injunction against it ! , Here is another boycott circular. It is headed: "William Jackson, an importer at the Brazen Head, North side of the Town House, and opposite the Town Pump, in Corn-Hill, Boston. It is desired that the Sons and Daughters of Liberty would not buy any one thing of him, for in so doing they will bring disgrace upon themselves and their posterity, forever and ever, amen." They were quite in earnest about this matter. It was a matter of reli- gious conviction with them, I should judge, from the way they speak about it. We do not, in these times, pretend any religious authority for the boycott dodger! Let me read further and I have here three pamphlets. They are called "Old South Leaflets," and they are practically fac-similes of some of the pamphlets issued during the period. One is entitled "The Destruction of the Tea," by Thomas Hutchinson. Thomas Hutchinson, as you remember, was the British Governor of Massa- chusetts at the time of the "Boston Tea Party," and he wrote the history of it. Now, if there is one authority more to be depended upon in this connection than another, it seems to me it would be the representative of the British Government in Massachusetts at the time of that historical event. We find that the people got together, and resolved that the tea should not be used. In order to assure themselves that it would not be used, they prevented its landing. And when they began to fear that it was going to be landed anyway, in spite of their protests and in spite of the assur- ance of Governor Hutchinson that it would not be landed, they Sons of the American Revolution ' 45 formed themselves into an "educational committee," disguised themselves as Indians, went down to the dock in the dead of night, and dumped it overboard. "The factors for the two other vessels" — the two tea vessels then about due in Boston — "accepted were sent for, and, being informed of the engagements made by the owner and master of the ship arrived, they also made such engage- ments as were satisfactory; and, after making provision for the continuance of a watch so long as the tea continues in the harbor, and for an alarm to the independents upon any molestation, they passed a resolve," — note the resolution they adopted: — "That if any person or persons shall hereafter import tea from Great Britain, or shall take the same on board to be imported to this place, until the unrighteous act" — note again the religious tone of the language — "(mentioned in the preamble to the resolve) shall be repealed, he or they shall be deemed, by this body, an enemy to his country; and we will prevent the landing and sale of the same, and the payment of any duty thereon, and will effect the return thereof to the place from whence it shall come." Instead of effect- ing the return thereof to the place from whence it came, thej^ effected the destruction of the tea; they destroyed it entirely, for fear that it would get past them, and that somebody would brew some of it in spite of their protests. Another of these leaflets is entitled "Lexington Town Meetings from 1765 to 1775." Let me read a brief excerpt, as follows: "Consequently, when the town of Boston, to manifest their oppo- sition to the oppressive acts of the ministry, resolved that they would not import or use certain articles on which these duties were laid, the independents of Lexington, at a meeting held De- cember 28, 1767, 'voted unanimously to concur with the town of Boston respecting importing and using foreign commodities, as mentioned in their votes, passed at their meeting on the 28th day of October, 1767.' These sentiments, published in open town meet- ing" — now note this — "and sanctified by a day of fasting and prayer, would, of course, govern the conduct of a sincere and conscientious people. No wonder, therefore, we find them, in 1769, ready to make what at the present day, would in some families be considered a great sacrifice, by voting 'not to use any tea or snuff, nor keep them, nor suffer them to be used in our families, until the duties are taken off.' " Here is one of the resolves adopted by the Lexington town meeting: "The petition of rights and other statutes of England, that not only counties, cities, and corporations, but also towns and individuals, may consult and adopt measures for redress by petition, remonstrance, or other ways, as occasion and the emergency of affairs may require. ' ' Another resolve : 46 Califoknia Societt "That we will not be concerned, either directly or indirectly, in landing, receiving, buying, or selling, or even using, any of the teas sent out by the East India Company, or that shall be imported sub- ject to a duty imposed by Act of Parliament for the purpose of raising revenue in America." And, "that all such persons as shall, directly or indirectly, aid and assist in landing, receiving, buying, seUiag, or using the teas sent by the East India Company, or im- ported by others subject to a duty, for the purpose of a revenue, shall be deemed and treated by us as enemies of their country." And further : "To prevent the good effect of the honest and patri- otic endeavors of so valuable and powerfiil a part of the com- munity to rescue the trade and liberties of the country from im- pending destruction." "That, as with gratitude to our brethren in Boston and other towns, we do express our satisfaction in the measures they have taken, and the struggles they have made upon this, as well as many other occasions, for the liberties of their country and America, we are ready to resolve to concur with them in every rational measure that may be necessary for the preservation or recovery of our rights and liberties as Englshmen and Christians; and we trust in God that, should the state of affairs require it, we shall be ready to sacrifice our estates and everything dear in life, yea, and life itself, in support of the common cause." "The above resolves being passed, a motion was made that to them another be added. Accordingly, it was resolved without a dis- senting voice." Here let me call your attention to one thing. You are all, I take it, familiar with the mode of procedure of deliberative assemblages. You know that when men gather to- gether to discuss public matters, they usually modify and improve upon the proposition before them, until they finally get it into acceptable shape, and then, as if by inspiration, some one rises and moves that such and such be added, thus giving greater emphasis to the thought or idea evolved out of the whole subject-matter of debate, and adding that to the proposition already adopted. That is evidently what happened in this case, and here is what they added to the resolves from which I have just quoted: "That if any head of a family in this town, or any person, shall, from this time forward, and until the duty be taken off, purchase any tea, or sell or consume any tea in their families ' ' — purchase it or sell it or consume it — " such person shall be looked upon as an enemy to this town and to this country, and shall by this town be treated with neglect and contempt." I have another pamphlet here, of the same series, entitled "The Rights of the Colonists." It is written by Samuel Adams. It will do us no harm, I take it, upon an occasion of this kind to Sons of the American Revolution 47 briefly review the history of the American Revolution, if only in a very limited way. Indeed, I take it that the fact that we do revert to the historical events of those days can but be considered emi- nently fitting and exceedingly profitable. "The natural liberty of man," says Samuel Adams, "by entering into society is abridged or restrained so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole." This statement of the rights of the Colonists, you will note, is a statement of the rights of the indi- viduals, of the extent to which the individual surrenders his per- sonal prerogative and liberty for the good of the whole and of the extent to which he reserves his individual liberty. "In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it is in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights, when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights, the principle of which, as is before observed, are life, liberty, and property. If man, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would abso- lutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." Here we have Franklin's preface to the English edition of the Report of the Committee of Correspondence, published by him in London immediately after he received it. The Committee of Cor- respondence drew up its views and submitted them to the home Government, and Franklin, who was then the American represen- tative at the Court of St. James, printed the report of the com- mittee in the newspapers and prefaced the report by some observa- tions of his own, from which I now quote : ' ' The mistaken policy of the Stamp Act first disturbed this happy situation. But the flame thereby raised was soon extinguished by its repeal, and the old harmony restored, with all its concomitant advantages to our commerce. The subsequent act of another administration, which, not content with an established exclusion of foreign manufactures, began to make our own merchandise dearer to the consumer there, by heavy duties, revived it again; and combinations were entered into throughout the continent to stop trading with Britain until those duties should be repealed. All were accordingly repealed but one, the duty on tea. This was reserved (professedly) as a standing claim and exercise of the right assumed by Parliament of laying such duties." The author of the leaflet proceeds as fol- lows: "Mr. Adam's motion, creating a Committee of Correspond- 48 California Society ence, had specified three distinct duties to be performed — to draw up a statement of the rights of the Colonists as men, as Christians, and as subjects; a declaration of the infringement and violation of those rights; and a letter to be sent to the several towns in the province and to the world as the sense of the town. The drafting of the first was assigned to Samuel Adams, the second to Joseph "Warren, and the last to Benjamin Church. When the reports of the several committees were prepared, they were presented on the 20th of November to a town meeting at Faneuil Hall by James Otis, who now, as chairman, made his final appearance in public — the wreck of one of the most brilliant men of genius that America has produced, but yet sustained by the care and sympathy of some friends and the tender reverence of the people, whose cause he had ever ardently and sincerely supported." Following is the judgment passed upon the work of Samuel Adams in his promulgation of the "Rights of the Colonists:" "Here (in the paper of 1772) is embodied the whole philosophy of human rights, condensed from the doctrines of all time, and applied to the immediate circumstances of America. Upon this paper was based all that was written or spoken of human liberty in the Congress which declared independence; and the mere instrument itself is, in many features, but a repetition of the principles here enunciated, and of Joseph Warren's list of grievances, which follow the "Rights of the Colonists" in the report. If I understand this paper correctly, one thing is made perfectly clear by Adams, namely, that the individual colonist, and the indi- vidual in society at large, reserves to himself certain natural personal rights. These are rights which are inalienable, and he can not vacate them, not even out of respect to the will of the majority, or any number of his fellows. So inalienable are these rights that, as Ada,ms says, the renunciation of them would be invalid, upon the general principle that no man can voluntarily enslave himself. Permit me to quote you just one more excerpt from the general history of this country, and then I shaU give way to the gentleman who will follow me. I have here the "Young Polks' History of the United States." I know not how many young Americans have imbibed the pabulum of liberty from this book, but I should judge, as you may judge by its appearance, that they have been quite numerous. I have no doubt that several successive generations of Americans have learned all they know, and possibly all they will ever know, about the spirit of '76, from this dog-eared book. Let me read to you just one passage in it. And by the way I note here the name of Mr. Otis, a name familiar in American history ancient and modern, although in slightly different connections Sons of the American Revolution 49 (Laughter.) You have all heard of Patrick Henry's famous speech: "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First had his Cromwell, and George the Third — " Then arose the cry of "Treasoa!" and Patrick Henry said, "Well, George the Third may profit by their example. If that be treason, make the most of it ! " A set of reso- lutions, to which I have already referred, calling for the adoption by the people generally of the policy of non-importation, had been adopted by the burgesses of Virginia, and this book goes on to say in that connection: "This example was quickly followed. In Massachusetts, James Otis proposed that an American congress should be called, which should come together without asking the consent of the British Government. Others took up the plan, and proposed that American liberties should be left 'to the watchfulness of a united continent,' The congress met, in October, 1765, and, though only nine of the thirteen colonies sent delegates, it did great good to their cause. This congress drew up a 'declaration of rights' and a petition to the King. All over the country, the merchants agreed not to buy British goods, and men and women promised to wear homespun clothes, and to go without all imported things, in order to show that they were not dependent upon England. One patriotic woman, Mrs. Cushing, wrote to her friends: 'I hope there are none of us but would sooner wrap ourselves in sheep and goat skins than buy English goods of a people who have insulted us in such a scan- dalous manner ! ' ' So much, Mr. President, for the history of "Seventy-six." Now, as to the application of it all, I gather just this from my reading : The non-importation agreements and the proscription of the merchants were nothing more nor less than so many boycotts. The only differ- ence is a difference in terms — they called the thing by a different name. In all probability, if the events of the pre-Revolutionary period should be renewed or repeated in the history of any nation on earth to-day, and I trust that these events, or at least their results, will be repeated in more than one nation of the world in the near future — just as sure as that event tran,spires, when it becomes a question of bringing pressure to bear upon the commercial activities of life of the mother country, instead of using the term "non-importation agreement," they will call it a boycott agreement. And that because they are familiar with the term "boycott" now, and they were not familiar with it in "Seventy-six." In discussing the boycott, as in discussing any other question, it is well to bear in mind that the thing that we discuss may be much older than the name we apply to it. More than that, it may easily turn out that by giving a certain thing a "local habitation and a 50 California Society name," we may be associating with it qualities which it does not really possess. In other words, we may, by the mere use or misuse of names and terms, so obscure the real thing or issue itself as to be misled in our conclusions concerning it. I can readily understand a body of Irish landlords feeling very warmly upon the question of the boycott, because Boycott himself was an Irish landlord, and he added, or his friends have added, that word to the lexicon of our tongue. But the thing itself, the thing which the Irish Land Leag- uers did to Captain Boycott, had been done to many men before Boycott's time, as they will in all probability be done to many other men in our time, and in the future. The boycott, by whatever name it be known, is as old as human liberty itself, and probably as old as humanity itself. In a word, the boycott is simply this: One man, let us say, conceives that another man has done him an injustice. It may be a question of employer and employee, or it may be any other kind of question. One man conceives that another man has done him an injustice, and, taking redress for that injustice, he seeks the aid and assistance of his fellows. He goes to his friends; he explains the case to them, and he urges them to assist him. The only manner in which they can assist him, the only manner in which it can be done, as hasf been noted in the pamphlet by the "Citizen of Philadelphia," that is at once constitutional, lawful, peaceful, rational, and effective, is by withholding patronage, the exercise of an individual right of the citizen, exercised in a collective way by a number of citizens, by concert of purpose, it is true, but none the less an exercise of an individual right. I am satisfied that that right has always been exercised by men in times past, and that it always will be exercised by men. The moment that you can deny by any process, legal or otherwise, by injunctions or by statutes, the right of one man to withhold his patronage from another, and to go to a third per- son and get him to also withhold his patronage from the first party, that moment you make men so many slaves. They have that moment lost the one quality of individual freedom which makes all the difference between liberty and slavery. I have taken up too much of your time, gentlemen. I apologize for having done so, and particularly to the gentleman who is to follow me. I can only assure him that I shall give him as patient and respectful a hearing as he has accorded me. I said at the outset that I would not attempt to discuss this question from a local standpoint, nor from an ethical standpoint, but that I would confine myself, as I conceived it to be my duty by a reading of the question itself, to the historical aspects of the question. If there is one thing in the history of the American Revo- Sons of the Ameeican Eevolution 51 lution that is written larger than anything else, it is the fact that the American Colonists put a boycott, to use that homely, and to some obnoxious and "un-American," expression, upon the British merchant and the British Government, with the purpose of com- pelling the British ministry either to raise the obnoxious taxes or to quit their offices. I have upon numerous occasions made the statement, and I here repeat it — you, of course, reserving to yourselves the right to accept or reject it — that if we are going to apply a nationality, if we are going to give any color of nationality to the boycott, instead of calling it an "un-American institution," we must recognize that it is one of the most American of all institutions. It is the institution more commonly and popularly adopted by the people of the Colonies in pre-Revolutionary days than any other, the institution which did more than any other to bring the Revolution to a head, to inspire the people, to unite them, and to make effective their efforts for political independence. Mr. Toastmaster and Gentlemen, I thank you for the honor you have extended to me, for your courteous and patient hearing under adverse circumstances, and repeat now what I said at the outset, that since the American Revolution stands for the spirit of human liberty, the one epochal event in the history of the world that has inspired humanity with new hope and that will continue to inspire the nations and the peoples of the earth with hope and courage, to secure their own political enfranchisement, you may count me among the innumerable host of admirers, beneficiaries and sons of the American Revolution. I thank you. (Applause.) Reply of Mr. Alfred Holman. Mr. President and Gentlemen: At the outset, let me declare to you and to Mr. Maearthur the pleasure with which I have listened to his very clear exposition upon this subject. But while I admire his clearness of statement, I differ with him radically as to his conclusions. Those who incite union labor to extreme demands and defend them before the bar of public opinion have long sought to create a moral basis for the boycott and its collateral activity of picketing and interference with personal and property rights. This basis they find in an analogy between the boycott and its accom- paniments and the spirit of 1776, which refused to use imported goods and spilled taxed tea in Boston harbor. In San Francisco Mr. Walter Maearthur has been the most industrious proponent of this analogy. Accepting the analogy should please him, and we so accept it, in order to analyze it. The spirit of 1776 and the acts to which it led were features in a revolt against the government under which the actors lived. That spirit rose to the overthrow of established 52 California Society institutions. It was the basis of the Revolution. It was vindicated by the success of the revolution which it incited. That successful revolution established a new government based upon the principles which led to it. The spirit of that new government had expression in the exordium of the Declaration of Independence, in these words : "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted amongst men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." In that exordium is the source of civil liberty. It was affirmed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which recites that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This civil liberty is that condition in which no man shall be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but all shall have the pro- tection of and be subject to the due process of law. Now comes Mr. Macarthur, putting the modern boycott, with its pickets and its denial of personal and property rights, in the same class as the spirit of 1776. It is, then, a revolutionary process, directed against the existing government and seeking its overthrow. Its only justi- fication is its revolutionary purpose to alter or abolish that govern- ment which was founded in the spirit of 1776. This is the only analogous element that exists between the two. The proponents of the boycott and picket are, therefore, the advocates of a revolu- tion. The point at which they attack the existing government is its defense of civil liberty, for under civil liberty it is the right of any man, anywhere, to pursue in a lawful way any lawful occupation to support his life. It was held by Turgot and Adam Smith that when God created man and endowed him with wants which only his labor could supply, he gave man the inherent, primordial right to labor, free from the arbitrary will of any other man. Our American courts have uniformly affirmed this right to labor, in accordance with the Declaration and the Constitution. Labor unionism stands in denial of that right. When Mr. Gompers said "a nonunion workingman has got to get out of this country." he denied that all men are born equal and denied their endowment with the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To deny his right to labor, except upon conditions fixed by the arbitrary will of his fel- low man, is to deny his right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Sons of the American Revolution 53 It is to remove from him the protection of the Constitution and deprive him of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. These, then, are the purposes of the modern boycott, which is used against the right peacefully to enjoy property and also against the right to support life by labor. It is a counter revolution against the Revolution of 1776. It employs the same weapons, but its pur- pose is reactionary. The press and the pulpit too frequently, and always mistakenly, treat this revolutionary movement as a conflict between union labor and capital. It is not so. It is a direct and plain contest between union labor and civil liberty. This contest has gone far. It has made serious headway against the inalienable rights of man. All of our heroic history is the record of a struggle for civil liberty. Every gun fired and every sword drawn in all our wars was for the principle of civil liberty. To secure it is the sole purpose of our government. Every hero dead in our many battles died as a protest against the pretense of any to license or deny the right to labor, which is the right to live. For many years that right has been successfully denied and defied in San Francisco. Civil liberty has been extirpated from this city and a state of war against it exists today and has long existed. Scores of free men have been killed on our streets for asserting their right to civil liberty. Thou- sands of murderous assaults have been committed against men for claiming the rights secured to them by the Constitution. As far as San Francisco is concerned, the counter revolution has justified itself by victory. But it is time for thoughtful men to take counsel together, asking themselves how long a republic dedicated to civil liberty can endure with that liberty extirpated wherever union labor has the power to destroy it? Gentlemen, I thank you. (Applause.) ADDRESSES DELIVERED AT THE SMOKER OF APRIL 20, 1908. President Sargent: Some months ago we had a discussion about the topic, "The Spirit of Seventy-six in Its Relations to Mod- ern Strikes and Boycotts." At that time, the entertainment was limited entirely to an address which Mr. Walter Macarthur was kind enough to give us, and one by Mr. Alfred Holman. There was no discussion by the members permitted, which was to some of us quite a disappointment. The disappointment finally reached the ears of the officers, and therefore this "smoker" was specially called. 54 Calipoenia Society in order to give the members a chance to express themselves upon that interesting theme. The volunteer of the evening is a gentleman from whom we are always glad to hear, and who always says something, whenever his voice is lifted. Without further ado, therefore, I will ask our Past-President, Colonel Cutler, to read you a paper on a subject germane to the subject which was discussed before. (Applause.) ADDRESS OF COL. A. D. CUTLER. Man Works in a Mysterious Way His Blunders to Perform. Last October, we were invited to hear a discussion between Mr. Macarthur of the Coast Seaman's Journal, representing the labor unions, and Mr. Holman of the Argonaut, representing this Society, for and against the proposition that our Eevolutionary ancestors conducted their relations with Great Britain on plans that are followed with profit and credit by the labor unions, nowadays, in dealing with the public. I failed to see then or to discover since, any similarity between the two bodies, that would cause a comparison of their methods, to be competent, material, or relevant. There are three points of diiferenee and objections: (1) The two bodies (2) The issues at stake, and (3) The means employed, are each and all dissimilar. Firstly as to labor unions : There is not a bona fide labor union in the United States — there are thousands of labor dis-unions. The original labor union is involved in obscurity, but appeared first in public, in Prance about one thousand years ago. It was transported to England by William the Conqueror, with a lot of other things good, bad and indifferent, and has taken root, flour- ished and grovra in importance, until it is the recognized regulator of the labor problem in the United Kingdom, and is, perhaps, the most important factor in the body politic, next to the inherited privileges of the crown and nobility, but it is no more like our so-called labor union than chalk is like cheese. In all cases it exists there only by royal permission, is administered under legal author- ity and constantly supervised by municipal rules and regulations. There is an occasional strike, but it is sporadic and not being allowed to interfere with non-union labor, is soon adjusted. The idea of labor unions being tolerated or even organized, with- out legal authority, would not be considered even by its members. It extends throughout all the trades and industries employing or interested in labor, and is one of the great sources of England's Sons of the American Revolution 55 prosperity in commerce and manufactures, because of the stability afforded by its organization and administration, on economic and conservative lines. Even the merchant marine is subject to its con- ditions; its sailors to some extent, and its petty officers, invariably, being recruited from the apprentice class and the same rule applies to the national navy, that leads the world. Now, against these as described are set up our so-called labor union, with which you are all familiar and which needs no de- scription. For the greater part of every year, the entire country from Maine to Oregon, and from Florida to San Diego, is subject to outbursts of disorder, carefully premeditated and intentional, and so arranged that at no time are we free from its evil effects at some points. This course is probably necessary to keep the rank and file in line and alive to their privileges, as taught them by walking delegates and other salaried officers. The abuses brought about by these doings are inconceivable. At a recent hearing before the Police Commission here, four striking car-men involved in one ease alone, were forced to testify they had not worked a day since last May and had been supported meanwhile by Union funds, and it was proved they had been con- tinually involved in riotous proceedings meanwhile. Three others whose testimony was not deemed necessary, were equally involved. There was no time during this period that these men could not have earned higher wages than they had received previous to the strike. They were single men, had no grievances, save as car strikers, and appeared to glory in their record. They were championed and abetted by the usual shyster lawyer. This is a fair sample of labor unionism as practiced in the United States, and for which, as unions, they cannot be held responsible because of their lack of legal existence, which they carefully avoid, for obvious reasons. Mr. Maearthur contended that such bodies as these should be classed with our Revolutionary ancestors, because the latter did what the labor unions are now doing. With as much propriety, one might spill a gallon of gasoline over a tip cart and baptise it as an automobile of the 1908 pattern. To begin with, the New England Colonists, with whom he prac- tically dealt, were all English and followed and copied closely English doings and customs, and such labor unions as were estab- lished in New England meanwhile, in which Paul Revere was a burning and shining light and exponent, were certainly no pat- terns for those of today. 56 California Society The Pilgrims first, and later on, the Puritans, were essentially a deeply religious and industrious people and mostly engaged m agricultural pursuits. They had neither time, inclination, occasion or inducement to engage in pursuits other than those necessary to secure a living, let alone interfering with others similarly engaged. The first thing done by any and all of the numerous companies of immigrants was to incorporate themselves as legal bodies and to assume certain responsibilities, as such; for example, the Pilgrims chartered the Mayflower, borrowed money to fit her out and on the way over, incorporated themselves and issued a share of stock to each of the men and half a share to each woman and pursued the same course with the land occupied by them after arrival. In all these respects they followed the English custom, and aU other communities that settled New England did likewise. There was no perceptible change in labor conditions in New England for the first century and a half, up to the Revolution, and the claim that the artisans and laborers, meanwhile, were organized at all as today, or were permeated by similar ideas, or indicated them by similar doings, has no foundation in fact, and is not sup- ported by any evidence worthy of belief. The assumption of a virtue by the labor unions to palliate a wrong is not good form. The first draft of the Declaration of Independence condemned African slavery, but Abraham Lincoln did not pat himself on the back and pose as Thomas Jefferson, when he issued the Emancipa- tion Proclamation in 1862. The Mohammedans, for centuries before Christ, refused pork as food, but the orthodox Jews do not point to Hindoos as their religious mentor. The English soldiery burned Joan of Arc at the stake, but our English ancestors did not claim her auto da fe as an example, when they roasted alleged witches at Whitfield. The Chinese highbinder in Canton, the negro roustabout at New Orleans, the English navvy at Liverpool, all agree that white gin is the finest tipple, but their convivial triumvirate is not recognized in social, moral, commercial or political circles. The malignant car-picket on the corner, with pad in hand and pejicil in fist, demanding and recording the names of our sweet- hearts, wives and mothers, should not be classed with the Sons of Liberty, who kept a list of Tories in Boston in 1773, who found it best, later, to immigrate with General Gage to Halifax in 1776. The odiferous human sandwich, who patrols the sidewalk in front of an unfair restaurant, should not be listed with the Boston Tea Party. Sons op the American Revolution 57 The sympathizing plasterer dropped a brick from the tenth story on the motorman below ; the bejeweled and bedecked walking delegate who rounds up the non-union man ; the bosses flying round our city in automobiles, promising the political loaves and fishes, should not be lined up with Hancock, Clark, Adams and Otis. It is always a trick of reformers, good, bad and indifferent, to hark back to some ancient and successful prophet, philosopher or result, as a mentor, guide and reference, and these illustrations are on a line with the tactics of the labor unions. So much for the similarity of the two bodies. Now, as to the issue at stake. The Unions of today deliberately undertake the fixing of wages and the hours of labor; the limiting of the output both as to skill and ability ; the limiting of the number of journeymen and appren- tices and the continuing or cessation of labor, in all places and at all times; not only in one industry, but in all, whether actually involved in the special dispute or located a thousand miles off. A more ingenious engine of tyranny was never invented or built or operated in the history of mankind, and playing, as it does, on the weaknesses of a class that have neither the time, opportunity nor inclination to investigate the pleas that are set up for them to affiliate with, it is no wonder that they are successful, so long as they are not amenable as unions, to civil or criminal law, or municipal regulation. What the ulterior purpose is, if any, beyond these results, can only be guessed. It is admitted, of course, that the heads of unions are financially successful and they have also, here at least, dabbled in politics, with woeful results to our city. The contention of Mr. Macarthur is on the line of getting them into respectable society, on the same lines that the reformed pirate is the heaviest subscriber to the missionary fund, and the wealthy retired prostitute is apt to be a devoted church attendant, where her antecedents are unknown. But placing the issue so far as the unions are concerned on the present admitted gain, in the respects named, there is quite enough to warrant their efforts. So long as the average artisan's wages for eight hours equals six per cent per annum on thirty thousand dollars, there would seem to be reason for self-congratulation on their success. The Colonists, on the other hand, were actuated by no such conditions. They were always self-supporting and asked nothing from the Mother Country, save to be let alone, and for several generations they were practically ignored. When, however, with increased pop- ulation, prosperity and wealth, they desired luxuries, there was no source of supply save the home production, which fact was quickly 58 California Society taken advantage of by increased and onerous import duties. Eng- land needed money for her continental wars and found her colonies convenient customers. Again, she wanted places for favorite sons, whose fat salaries must be paid by the colonies. And finally, when objection was made to them and other exactions, attempts were made to transport offenders against the law to England for trial. This was the last straw, that broke the back of the colonial camel. They could, and did for a while, pay duties and taxes, unreasonable in amount and in ways of collection. They paid the salaries of stupid, inefficient governors, they furnished thousands of men for defense and offense, but drew the line at the trial of their friends and neighbors before the London Assizes. This is not generally understood, but is the fact nevertheless, as being the principal and most potent objection to continued English rule. The taxes on imports of merchandise were revoked about as fast as imposed, because the Colonists could not afford their use, and the English merchants were quite as zealous to remove them, in order to restore the demand. The stamp deputies were so notoriously unfair and unreasonable as to excite quite as much indignation at home as in New England, and they, too, were quickly repealed, by the force of public opinion at home. The import duty on tea was finally settled on as permanent, in order to substantiate the right to impose and collect duties for revenue, as against support, or defense, and it was also selected because it really cut no figure as to amount, and would likely be paid as a compromise. The total estimated annual duties thereon were three hundred pounds or one thousand four hundred and fifty-five dollars, and it is a fact that the Boston Tea Party of song and story only destroyed three hundred and forty chests. The tea dodge did not work. It was the principle that King George and his Privy Council were determined to perpetuate and the Colonist equally determined to prevent, and besides it made little difference to the latter, because tea was a luxury little known, used or wanted. The wealthier class used wines, spirits and mixed drinks, and the farmers and laborers, ale and small beer, of home manufacture. The whole tea matter was a bagatelle, one of those little things which crop up in every emergency and are made a handle of to influence the public. Tea continued to be used in moderate quanti- ties and would have been, had there been no afternoon function, at the end of Long Wharf in 1773. The Avhole agitation as to diities, stamps and taxes, was a part and parcel of efforts on the part of England to sustain and enforce control of colonies that had gradually outgrown their normal con- Sons of the American Revolution 59 ditions and were ready to break away, and of equal efforts by the Colonist to get away. At times the game was political, at others commercial, and there was no time, after 1750, that great ability in the matter as politicians and diplomats was not shown by our ancestors. There is no doubt that during this period, 1750-75, they always had in mind their ultimate independence in name, as well as in fact, and that end must have been always in view in the doings of their representative men. Now and always, ends are served by material means and in insignificant matters, are magnified, to produce important desired results, if the people can be led by them in the desired direction. The colonies depended on England for luxuries and the prices charged, including the customs duties levied, grew with the demand, but, as the colonies were actually richer per capita than the mother country, they paid the price, while they grumbled, so long as there was nothing to object to, from a political standpoint, or no principle involved hostile to their independence. But the moment their com- mercial environments became unbearable from a political view, they assumed a virtuous indignation that seemed commendable to the masses, but must have tickled the risibles of their politicians. The English Parliament realized the situation and revoked the unpopular duties and taxes about as fast as they were levied, realiz- ing their weakness and the danger of so alienating the colonies as to encourage them to break away entirely. The colonies, on the other hand, doubtless wanted the so-called persecution continued, as an excuse for rebelling, and so far as we can judge, went around, practically daring King George and his governors, to knock the chips off their ever ready shoulders. In this tea matter, the English Parliament played into the hands of the Colonists, but it was no part of our wise forbears to tell the facts to the public. The imposing and revocation of duties followed each other rapidly and really created no revenue worth considering, but rather an expense, while the constant bickering, although really about trivial matters, was magnified on both sides. No explanation or excuses are necessary. Such tactics are availed of now and were, doubtless, necessary then. And if our ancestors were worldly wise in political warfare then, as in mili- tary matters afterwards, we have no reason to complain or apolo- gize. They had no special rule of guidance, except to widen the breach that was opened early in the century and never lost sight of, until combinations with France and other hereditary enemies of England, together with internal dissensions at home, brought a successful issue in the shape of peace and independence. 60 California Society The rights or privileges of labor unions as such, or of any other similar bodies or class, could have no consideration or effect and were never an issue at stake, because in the first place, they did not exist there, to any extent, and secondly, they had no grievances or differences to adjust. Times were hard, money scarce, v?ages low and the colonies were too busy in getting a living, to bother with matters like those agitating the labor unions of today. Now, finally, as to the means employed by our forefathers, which Mr. Macarthur claims were the same as the labor unions of today. Enough has been already said to prove that such could not have been the case, because the conditions did not exist to make them possible or desirable. He sets up the boycott as the chief action and element of sim- ilarity and quotes copious excerpts from history to prove its use. The boycott is a misnomer and has been held unreasonably responsible for many crimes and misdemeanors. It grew out of the unpopularity of one Captain Boycott, an Irish agent for English landlords, who in 1881, by advice of Irish agitators, was ostracized by his friends and neighbors, because of his occupation in collecting rents from distressed Irish tenants. Neither he nor his principals had anything to do with labor unions, and the use of his name to signify ostracism or non-intercourse, which is as old as the hills, is far fetched and only a play upon words. Paul boycotted the idolaters. The Jews boycotted the Samari- tans. Mrs. Grundy delights in using the boycott to adjust the dif- ferences of the "four hundred." Children refuse to play in each other's backyards on the same theory, and the world generally is mean enough to practice it, as it involves no special risk or danger, and the responsibility for overt acts, under its doings, can be easily shifted or hidden. In short, it is a cowardly way of "getting square" with the other fellow. The Colonists knew nothing of the principles or use of the boycott as now practiced, and the only evidence advanced by Mr. Macarthur in that particular is by quot- ing memorials and addresses by various townspeople in Massachu- setts, to the legislature. Now, as a fact, these were prepared chiefly by the ministers, who included about aU the highly educated class of the day. They were expected to do all that kind of work, and while the moral effect was good, it did not really have much influence on the majority of the people, who were largely farmers and got allopathic doses of sentiment semi-weekly from the pastors, sufficient for ordinary spiritual and moral guidance, without bother- ing their heads about politics, except where the taxes affected their pockets, in which case they simply quit the use of the taxed commodity. Sons of the American Eevolution 61 The old colonial farmer was nothing if not practical, and was quite able to discriminate for or against things and determine his course for himself. As said before, his chief desire was to be let alone and if his good wife wanted a half pound of tea and he had the coin, she got it, tax or no tax. He knew as little of the boycott principles of today as of the molecule theory or the source of the Hempstead ponds, immortalized by Mr. Pickwick, and he cared less. But all these spirited broad sheets and manifestos were useful and had good results, and as the end justifies the means, they should not be questioned, except where used by Mr. MacArthur, to enforce or shift responsibility or draw unfair conclusions. To sum up : The colonies defended a principle ! While The labor unions impose tyrannical rules ! The colonies boycotted luxuries! While The labor unions boycott non-union men and shops, who seek a livelihood outside of union rules! The colonies inherited regularly incorporated guilds and unions, encouraged them and increased their numbers, by liberal rules as to apprentices! While The labor unions refuse any reasonable legal organization and limit apprentices to the smallest possible number! The colonies encouraged personal freedom and liberty in all matters ! While The labor unions intimidate all who differ, and permit no secret ballot or other independent action of its members ! The colonies encouraged and insisted upon labor and industry by all and penalized laxity of manners and laziness of habit ! While The labor unions offer a premium for idleness, and encourage and support thousands of idlers from the contributions of other union men, who are forced to meet such demands or be expelled and boycotted ! Now, Mr. President, I believe in labor unions as organized and operated under the English regime and I wish our entire labor and manufacturing population was so organized, but I would not agree to the claim or subscribe to the theory, that our forefathers indulged in any such frivolities and gyrations as the labor unions are guilty of today, and I venture the prophecy that, when the compatriots here tonight "cross over the river and meet Captain Boycott under the trees on the other side," they will agree with me. The President: I think it is fortunate that Colonel Cutler sug- gested to me the holding of a "smoker" in connection with this topic. I think probably the gem of his contribution tonight, is the 62 California Society plea that labor unions be not abolished, but be legalized, which is a thing certainly worthy of thought. The discussion is now entirely open, and any compatriot is at liberty to express his sentiments upon the topic under discussion. I will therefore call for volunteers. Dr. Moss, have you anything to offer? (Applause.) Reply by Dr. J. Mora Moss. Mr. President, Compatriots and Guests: I think the gem of Colonel Cutler's contribution this evening is not the one of which you speak, but the title of his paper. I consider that a true stroke of genius. It has been some seventy years since Carlyle made his caustic remark that the population of England was thirty millions, mostly fools. In order to make Carlyle's remark of universal application, we have to change the name of the country and bring the figures up to the latest census, whereas Colonel Cut- ler's epigram has universal application. The subject of the blunders of mankind appeals much more to me than the other topic, because there is so much more of it. Perhaps the most curious thing about man's blunders is how he goes on making them, instead of having sense enough to profit by experience. It would seem to be mostly the result of conserva- tism, the feeling that whatever is, is right. And it takes thousands of years to obtain the slightest reform. We see this in many instances — thousands of them could be cited. For instance, the very simple idea of numbering one year after the other did not come until four hundred years after Christ. It was about the sixteenth century before the brilliant idea dawned on anybody that you could put a hall into a house, instead of going through one rom to get to the next one. You do not have to go back into antiquity to find those things. We find them all around us. We congratulate ourselves on having got away from the English monetary system of pounds, shillings and pence, and yet we use feet, inches, rods, roods, and many other weights and measures which most of us do not know, with the metric system right at hand. We and England are really the only nations that have not adopted that system already. Even Japan and Russia and Turkey have made the metric system obligatory. Roosevelt was greatly laughed at a few years ago when he tried to introduce some system into our spelling. I read an article in the North American Review some few years ago in which it was said that it cost the English- speaking nations $55,000,000 a year merely in type-metal, paper, and compositors' time, because of certain of the idiosyncrasies- of our spelling. What would we think of the conservatism of a man who built a house and had to go up a ladder to get into the second story? Sons of the American Kevolution 63 And what would we think of him, if this house burned down, if he built one exactly like it? And yet that is what we have done in San Francisco. A politician by the name of Jasper O'Parrell as I am informed by old residents, received $10,000 for laying out the city of San Francisco, which he did by the simple means of taking Portsmouth Square as a center, and running parallel lines at equal distances with a lead pencil and a ruler. We honored him by naming a street after him, instead of holding him in universal detestation. Several of our members whom I know are absent tonight, on account of violent colds in the head, which have afflicted this community all this winter, caused in large part by the factories of North Beach vomiting forth tons of soot and dust which the winds of the city bring our way, and we go on and breathe it day after day, and we do not object, because it has always been done. It is hardly worth while going on and citing these things. We might go on for a week, and still the list would be inexhaustible. It is perhaps inherent in free countries that these things should be more so than in any other sort of coiantry. Where everybody has a voice, it is very hard, indeed, to obtain the opinion and the energy of the business men in the community, and perhaps for our liberty we must pay the price of inefficiency. I read a report in a newspaper some few weeks ago of a woman's suffrage convention held in San Francisco, at which they characterized our form of government as "horribly corrupt, hopelessly inefficient, and out- rageously expensive." I read, too, that their proposition was to double the number of prejudiced and ignorant voters by giving the women a vote. I agree with their premises, but not with their con- clusions — for we have seen how it works out in Colorado. Coming around now to the boycott, I must take issue with some of Colonel Cutler's remarks. His idea that the boycott in the colonies differed materially from that enforced by the labor unions to-day, I do not think is borne out by the best facts which we have at our disposal. Of course, we all know that history is, after all, merely a lot of stories which have been agreed upon by mankind, and how much truth there is in history is, after all, a matter of indi- vidual opinion for the man who reads it. But McMaster, in his very exhaustive history of the first years of the country, and Park- man, and Fiske, have gone very carefully into this matter of the boycott, and, although the name had not been invented, the thing was there, in all of its features, exactly as the boycott is practiced to-day. What seems to me a stronger argument is, not that they did not practice it, but that they practiced it as a hostile measure. It was a war act, and the labor unions enforcing a boycott to-day are enforcing a war measure in time of peace. 64 California Society The history of mankind shows that any number of men, any class of society, must fight for its own rights. And, strange as it may seem, I believe that, under the conditions, the boycott is neces- sary to the labor unions. I also believe in the labor union. I rec- ognize that they, like all human institutions, will tyrannize when they are powerful. Every human organization that has obtained despotic power has exercised it in a despotic way. Probably there is hardly any one here to-night who has not had some unfortunate experience with labor unions. I have seen them at work. When I was a young man, I lived with workingmen, and ate and slept amongst them. A large manufactory here, one which at that time was the largest in San Francisco, imported some iron molders from the East. Those men came out here, picked men, took pride in doing a fine day's work, and used to work by piece-work, making cams and tappets for stamp mills. They made ten a day. The walking delegate came around, and the first thing they did was to get those men into the union. They got fifty cents apiece, I might say, for those articles, or five dollars a day. After they were in the union, the delegates told them they must not work piece-work any longer, that that was against the union's rules . So, with con- siderable growling, I being with them all the time and living in the same house with them, they succumbed, and made eight a day. They kept on this thing until finally they got those men down to four a day, and made them at what was then the union wages of four dollars a day. The company were getting just that much less work proportionately. It was a simple act of tyranny on the part of the union. The product, as we also know, is limited, as well. I am per- sonally well acquainted with a great many carpenters. I have never spoken to a carpenter who would not prefer to work on Saturday afternoons rather than loaf. Certainly there is no man who builds a house but who would rather have it done quickly than slowly, and yet Mr. P. H. McCarthy enforces his will over those men, and none of them dare to raise their voice in the union against it. At the same time, gentlemen, we must remember and give great credit to the labor unions for the vast amount of good they have done. One only has to read about the condition of the laboring men at the time of the Revolution and in the early years of this republic to know how terrible their condition was, what long hours they had to work, what small pay they received, and how lightly they were considered generally. It is simply the swing of the pendulum. It has since that time reversed his position, and now instead of being tyrannized over, the laborer tj^rannizes over others. The connection between the blvinders of mankind and the actions of the labor unions, as shown in the boycott, is this : That certainly Sons of the American Revolution 65 under an ideal form of government, no class could either oppress or be oppressed. But, as I said before, I believe that in the present state of society, the labor union is justified in using the boycott. I shall read to you a description of the state of society at a cer- tain time and in a certain place, which I will name later, but tell you now that it is not San Francisco, in the days following the fire and earthquake. The extract is as follows: On the whole, society presented very little of legal restraint, and stUl less of legal protection. The largest social motives hardly ever come into play. Per- sonal attachments and quarrels of relatives, or the feuds of private enemies are ever before us. There is no sense of obligation existing between man and man, and very little between each man and the entire community of which he is a member. Personal feelings fill the whole of a man's bosom. As a general rule, ho who cannot protect himself, finds no protection from society. That, as I said, does not refer to the days of the car strike, or of the graft prosecution. It is Grote's description of the state of society and prehistoric Greece as drawn from the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey," showing that there is nothing new under the sun. In the words of the poet: "How haste the unresting feet of Change, On life's stupendous orbit set! She walks a way her blood hath wet, Yet deems her path untrodden, strange." The very first function of a government is protection of life and property. How well our government does that, we all know. Our annual murder list is very many times that of any other country in the world. It exceeds that of most of the sanguinary battles of history. As for protection of property, any man who owns real estate knows what position he is in with a tenant, any man who ■conducts a manufacturing business knows what position he is in with the labor unions. What the remedy for all this is, I have not to suggest. The last twenty years, my favorite pastime has been reading history, and the more I read of it, the more I am convinced of the inspira- tion of the remark made by the gentleman who said that you can- not make men good by act of P^irliament. The only thing to do, it seems to me, is to realize that we are not perfect. There is a certain form of patriotism which consists in lauding ourselves to the skies, and deprecating everyone else. Bernard Shaw, in that celebrated scene in hell, in "Man and Superman," says that hell is full of people who are patriotic and not public-spirited. It seems to me that the true form of patriotism is to realize our shortcomings and try to make our country better. Discontent with present sur- roundings is the root of all improvement. The man who is satisfied with his condition, with the condition of everything as it is, is a 66 California Society clog on human progress. If the whole community was like that, there would never have been an America, there never would have been a revolution, and like our ancestors we should still be running around in the primeval forests, with a coat of blue paint on our bellies. (Applause.) The President : I do not think anybody here need be afraid of hurting the feelings of any one else. We are all expected to speak with the utmost frankness, and every one is expected to take everything said in the utmost good nature. If there is any other compatriot here who would like to express himself, we should be very glad indeed to hear from him. Mr. Eells, we would like to hear from you. (Applause.) Reply by Mr. Alexander G. Eells. Mr. Chairman: I like these informal meetings. I never take any pleasure in set performances that I have to be a part of. But if I can say what comes to me as time passes, and without any appearance of setness, and without any obligation to say bright things, or even interesting things, but simply say what pleases myself, I like it very well. I have listened with considerable interest to the paper this even- ing, and the first feature that struck me in regard to it was, that, if the writer were to have single incidents in his early career picked out, or if you, Mr. Chairman, or I were to have single inci- dents picked out from our early performances, we might be put in a very seriously uncomfortable light, before any audience to whom those things might be made known. I am inclined to think that the writer of the paper this evening has taken things which, standing alone, are perfectly true, but which, put together, give an aspect to the discussion which is not warranted. To take up his contentions in the order in which they were given to us, we have, first the personnel of the contending parties. I am inclined to think that the writer of the paper of the evening has very largely idealized our forefathers. As I read history, they were not blue-blooded in any other sense than that they were blue- stockinged. They were not the exalted of the earth. They Were the plainest, commonest, everyday people that ever got togther in a single community. They had not any aristocrats amongst them, had not any people of wealth, or what nowadays are called people of "standing" amongst them. And, as I shall attempt to point out a little bit later, they did not adopt any of the means appropriate to those of people of wealth and standing. They were an inde- pendent, liberty-loving, democratic people, in the fullest sense of Sons op the American Eevolution 67 the term. They were looked down upon by all those whom the Crown sent in an official capacity. Anybody that came from the King of England, and his family and his retinue, stayed off by themselves, did not commingle with the community, and did not form a part of tTie community. They were known as an official class. Now, as to the principles involved. The principles involved in our struggle for independence were liberty, independence, and democracy — not perhaps in the full sense of the term, as we under- stand any of those principles nowadays. Independence meant inde- pendence of the English Crown. Nowadays it means considerably more. Liberty, in those days, meant liberty to do as our fore- fathers thought best. Nowadays, we understand liberty in a much broader sense. Democracy in those days meant the right to govern themselves. Nowadays democracy has a much larger meaning. But still, those were the principles, restricted and limited as much as you choose to consider them, those were the principles for which they were contending. And what means did they use? I recollect reading some years ago a work by somebody, whose name I do not recall— I never do remember names — which was entitled "The Loyalists During the Revolution." If my memory serves me aright, the book shows con- clusively that the loyalists had a mighty hard time of it. The loyal- ists were the large merchants, in the first place, secondly, the official class, and thirdly, those who were by nature inclined towards ultra- conservatism, such as the church people in Virginia, and those who had aristocratic tendencies generally. They might not have consid- ered themselves aristocratic, but they were the conservative people. Now, every one of those loyalists who was known to be such was afflicted with a boycott compared with which the boycott of the mod- ern labor unions is small indeed. He was driven from pillar to post, and if he had money enough to get out of the country he left the country, because he was not suffered to live in it. The Sons of Liberty, who were your ancestors, sir, and mine, made his life a misery. Prom morning to night every member of his household was beset, and they were deprived of the very means of livelihood. I think Mr. Macarthur, in his address, spoke of the boycott as applied in the Non-intercourse Act with the Mother Country. But it went further than that. The Sons of Liberty made everybody's life a misery who did not stand with them. So much for the means. Now, to come back to the principles involved again. The whole thing was an act of war, as the last speaker has said. Of course it was an act of war. Of course they committed things which were absolutely indefensible from a moral standpoint. Of course the 68 California Society modern labor unions commit crimes, commit atrocities, commit all sorts of things which are indefensible to you and me. War is what it is. It is not one of the ordinary methods of peaceful intercourse. It is only justifiable as an extreme measure. Do we denounce nations because they go to war occasionally? Well, we do denounce them, yes. And yet is war unjustifiable? And when is it justifiable? You cannot draw any hard and fast lines. No more can you say that a boycott is justifiable in accord- ance with any predetermined, abstract rule. It is impossible to do so. These things are justifiable sometimes, yes. "War is justi- fiable sometimes. It is when our liberty, that which is dearer to us than life itself, is affected, that war is justifiable. Boycotts and strikes and the other extreme measures may be justifiable in exactly the same sense. Who is going to draw the line, and where are you going to draw the line? In times past, in the early republics, war was conducted by every little group of men against every other little group of men, on every possible occasion. Nowadays war is a thing almost unknown, thank God. But boycotts are dictated by little groups of men against little groups of men still. They are, however, becoming more and more infrequent. The groups of men are growing larger and larger, comparable to our cities, for instance, and presently the boycott will become as rare as war. You cannot denounce the boycotts, as an abstract proposition, gentlemen, any more than you can denounce war as an abstract proposition, however you may deplore it. They are justifiable, you must confess, under certain circumstances. And what is the rem- edy? The remedy is precisely the remedy for war, that is to say, it is the education of the community to a growing sense of justice, a growing sense of live and let live, a growing sense of public interest, a sense of humanity. That is the only possible solution of the difficulty. Let us have liberty, let us have democracy; and if then we have education and enlightenment, time will solve the thing. That is my summing up of the situation in brief and very inadequately. I do not agree with the speaker of the evening. (Applause.) Mr. Edwards Mills Adams: Mr. President, I did not intend to say a word this evening, but nobody has yet said just exactly the thing that strikes me as being the meat of the question, and so I am on my feet. In saying what I do, I want to say that I am not opposed to the laboring man's bettering himself, and bettering him- self by organization. But I believe that he must do so in obedience to the law. Now, the boycott is the lightest form of the weapons that are used by the labor unions. And it is the strongest ground on which they can plant themselves. I must say that I enjoyed Sons of the American Revolution 69 very much the argument of Mr. Macarthur, at our previous meeting, and I could not help but think how adroit it was. He planted him- self on the strongest ground he had. But the difference, I think, lies here. Our forefathers contended that they could not be taxed without representation, that that was tyranny. I do not find that that is the contention of the members of the labor unions. Thej^ are citizens. They have the same right to vote as all the rest of the community. They have the same participation in the govern- ment as all the rest of the community. They owe the same obe- dience, then, to the laws as do the other members of the communitJ^ Now, it is a matter of common knowledge, and although they deny it officially, we know it, and they know it, that, in order to carry out their strikes and make them successful, there must be violence used. We are always told that that violence is unauthor- ized, that it is frowned upon by the labor unions, and they publish circulars to that effect. But I notice that the violence that is used is always in their favor. That is a coincidence occurring so con- stantly that we can scarcely credit their contention. When they use violence to prevent a citizen from working when he wishes to and where he wishes to, and for such people as he wishes to, they are guilty of tyranny, they are guilty of an infraction of the law. When that is done, it is so far tyrannous that the man who is subject to it and who is on their blacklist is unable to get a living anywhere in this country at his trade. Is that not a most terrible form of tyranny — the worst that exists? I will admit that it is a very natural thing for them to do, that it is almost impossible to make a strike a success unless they do prevent by force the non-union men who go there to take the place of the union men from doing so. If they allow them to go in and work, then the strike is a failure. Nevertheless, we have got to have the spirit of liberty, we have got to have liberty, in this coun- try. That is what our forefathers fought for, and that is what we stand for. And we cannot stand for anything, no matter how good they may think the results may be, which takes away that liberty. I have heard it said by very prominent manufacturing men and capitalists who have the business interests of the country at heart and who care for nothing else, that they do not care how completely the situation is dominated by the labor unions. I have heard them say, "Let them keep everybody out except their labor-union men. Let them drive out all the non-union men. We do not care, if they would only incorporate, so as to make themselves financially respon- sible, so that when we make an agreement with them, when we take a contract to do any great work, that we can know that we have no strikes to interfere with us, so that we may know that when 70 California Society we make our figures, we may be sure of the ultimate result. In that event, we will be perfectly satisfied. But they will not do that." I do not sympathize with that point of view, either. That might be good from a business point of view — I admit that. Of course business could go ahead in that way very well. But that is not the question. That is not the spirit of liberty. I think that the real point of this thing is right here : that we admit the rights of the members of the labor unions to organize, to peacefully desist from work, strike, if you please to call it so, at any time, and insist on higher wages. No one of us would have a right to say a word against it. But when they undertake to say that some man who wants to work shall not work, then it is illegal, it is against the spirit of liberty, and it should not be tolerated in this country. (Applause.) The President: Is there any other compatriot who would like to speak upon the subject this evening? Dr. R. Cadwallader: Mr. Chairman and Compatriots, there is a word or two I would like to say on this subject, although I did not intend to speak this evening. When this country was first organized, then the rich and poor were nearly upon a common level. Factions, such as we count them to-day, were unknown. The educated man, graduated at Harvard, at about the age of eighteen, did not, on account of his youth, know much more than anybody else. With the increased growth of wealth and luxury, the rich became richer and the poor became poorer by comparison, until the two extremes became far separated. This Society is made up of the founders of this country, and will take in the son of the humblest artisan and the educated millionaire upon an equal plane. Such being the case, what is the duty of this Society, if it is not, as far as possible, to bring together those opposite extremes, and get them harmoniously working towards the best citizenship? The reason that I object to a boycott, has not yet been mentioned here this evening. It is the wedge that started between the capi- talist and the laborer, if driven home, is surely going to separate us into two extremes, antagonistic to each other, and is the begin- ning of most serious trouble in the United States. It seems to me that it is a powerful weapon, it is a revolver at hand to a man half insane, if you please, over wrongs, and if he be allowed to use it, he is going to go further than he intended to. It is the opportunity of good citizenship, as I see it, and as this membership should look at it, in my opinion, to, so far as possible, condemn a boycott, because it is the separation into parties, and not in the spirit of democracy, and this countrj^ must be a unit, one and indivisible. Sons of the American Revolution 71 We want to harmonize those things, and bring them together, not allow any boycotting or class spirit to spread into the camps of labor and capital. For we must not forget that labor is dependent upon the capitalist, and capital is dependent upon the laborer, and we want to bring them together. (Applause.) Mr. J. R. MuNSELL: If it be not out of place for one of the spur of the moment, often contain gems of thought. Is there any other compatriot who would like to address us upon the subject? Mr. J. R. MuNSELL: If it be not out of place for one of the younger members of the Society to address the meeting on this question, I would like to say a few words, especially as no one from the county on the other side of the bay has been heard from. Sometimes one comes to a gathering of this kind without many definite ideas on the subject to be discussed, but the different sug- gestions made by others start little trains of thought, and pretty soon one is chock-a-block. At the outset it seems to me that one should come out flat-footed, and say where he personally stands, and then go ahead with his talk. In the first place, I think that until I was of age, I was brought up as a Bourbon, and thought my family the best on earth, and that I was about as good as the next fellow, but my means since that time not being adequate to support me in those Bourbon ideas, I gradually got away from them. I have been in all sorts of places and conditions, have slept and worked in a grading camp, pitched trunks, and have seen a little of the hard side of life, and from that have gotten a desire to see the under dog occasionally win, or at least have a fair show. It seems to me that the different speakers in this discussion have been looking at the question from two sep- arate points of view; one side from what might be called the white collar attitude, and the other from that of the soft shirt, while as a matter of fact, it should be handled from a neutral position capable of seeing both sides. I happen, in my daily walk of life, to be em- ploj^ed by one of the great mercantile agencies. As a consequence, it is necessary for me to look on both sides of questions, because I have two fellows to consider, and not to allow myself to be swayed one way or the other, but to get a net result, rather than a gross one on either side. I suppose it is this which calls this particular feature to my mind. While going about my work I have to interview many people, some of whom are courteous, and others of whom are not. The latter frequently tell me to go to some far off place. I don't go. Why? Because I don't have to. It isn't necessary. If it were I suppose I would. That is the way with most people, and that is the point of my remarks this evening. Another way of saying the same thing, is that it is not to my best interest. 72 California Society I believe that when we all get together and understand what our best interests are, and realize it, that we will be able to accom- plish something in this matter, and not until then. It is our best interests, as we understand them, that control after all. I believe that the solution of this problem of the boycott, is making those who boycott see that by continuing it, their best interest will suffer. When two railroad companies fight, they only fight for a certain length of time, and then they come together and say, "Now, boys, what's the use of fighting any longer? Can't you see the dividends are going down?" It is not that they love each other that they do that. Personally I would not join a labor union — I don't know, but I think I would die first, it is born in me, and I can't help it. How- ever, I suppose that rests back upon whether or not I have to or whether or not it is for my best interest. There is much to be said on both sides. If any of you have ever been fired, if you have had the old man say, "Well, if you don't like our way of doing business you know what you can do," you can understand me there. On the other hand the labor union says, "If you don't like our way of doing business you know what you can do." It's a battle. They talk about the dignity of labor, meaning hard physical work, another of our inalienable rights. Did you ever notice that all our industrious and thoughtful young men are always trying and aiming to have a little shop of their otiti, looking ahead, always in the direction of becoming a capitalist. They are never looking in the direction of going down again and being employed by others. They are always striving to get out. Talk about the dignity of labor, I repeat, you will notice that the same man who talks of it, if he can, will get some one else to do the hard work for him. I dare say that there is no one here, myself included, who would not rather lie in bed an hour longer in the morning, and have some one else light the fire for him, than do it himself. There are very few men that do otherwise, if they can help it. We have simply got to recognize the state of facts that exists and that is that in a race there are some men who will win, and some who will fall behind. When we start out in the race we may all start from a given line, but we do not all get to the goal at the same time. We must not be jealous of the other fellow who gets there first. All we must ask for is the same course, the same oppor- tunities, and nobody running out in front of us. Give everybody a square deal and an equal chance, and when one man gets ahead, take off your hat to him. Sons op the American Revolution 73 To go a little further. We must learn that the view of the so- called laboring man, (for all labor who are worth their salt,) toward the antics of society, if you get at it once, is as good to know, as the so-called society man's opinion of the laboring classes. In other words, the former has quite as much to be contemptuous about, its haK and half. We have got to realize things as they are, that we are all human beings, and most of us, myself included, as I said before, are yearning secretly for a soft snap, and wiU only do, in the final analysis, what we have to do, or what is to our best interest, as we see it. We must realize also that life is like a battle, and we are after the victory. If we find that any action, though it may apparently win us an immediate victory, loses for us in the long run, we will stop it. Just so soon as the laboring classes can be convinced that boy- cotts do not pay, that they are not to their best interests, as must be apparent to an impartial observer they are not, they will stop them and not before. It is a question of education and expediency. (Applause.) [At the close of the address of Mr. Munsell, Mr. Walter Mac- arthur, who was present by invitation, was given an opportunity to speak again. As his remarks were along the same lines as his former address, for lack of space it is not given.] Closing Remarks by the President. I have listened with close attention, to the addresses this evening, especially to that of Mr. Macarthur. I also listened with close at- tention to the one he delivered last October. In the address to- night, he states that he did not appear before vts last October to defend the labor unions or the boycott. I think his memory must be at fault in this respect, for the reason that the very subject upon which he spoke, implied a comparison of modern boycotts and strikes with the fundamental principles enunciated in "Seventy- six." To a certain extent, the labor unions were on trial, and he ap- peared as their defender. The boycott, which he presents to us, is a very platonic sort of thing, and, as he defines it, amounts to no more than the right of access to the strike breaker, in order that, by an appeal to his reason, he may be induced to quit the job, in order that the striker may be found indispensable, and therefore be re-employed upon his own terms. If these were the limits of the modern boycott, there could be no complaint; but the description does not square with the facts. We know that the use of persuasion lasts only a brief time ; that if the strike breaker declines to listen, the demonstration immediately becomes threatening; and unless protection is at hand, becomes violent ; that the strikers and their 74 California Society sympathizers prevent their trades-people from selling the neces- saries of life to the strike breaker, through fear of losing trade. At the latter point, the boycott, strictly so called, ends, and actual violence, as an adjunct to the strike, begins. Mr. Macarthur made the statement, both to-night and last October that he did not be- lieve in violence; that the heads of the unions are constantly cautioning their men not to indulge in it ; that they regret it ; that violence always means the loss of the strike ; that he had seen many a strike start well, and with every prospect of success, fail when violence was used. From this, one would infer that the one thing to be guarded against by the strike leaders, is violence; and that their earnest efforts would be exerted to prevent it. If this be so, why did every union in San Francisco protest against policemen being put upon trucks by Mayor Phelan, during the teamsters' strike? These policemen were put there to accom- plish the very result which Mr. Macarthur professes to desire; and yet it was denounced by the leaders of the strike, and by all news- papers sympathizing with them, as a trespass upon the rights of the strikers, and a taking sides against them. Mr. Adams asked a pointed question, when he inquired of Mr. Macarthur, why, if they so deprecate violence, they do not instruct their pickets to prevent it? Mr. Macarthur's excuse was lame and impotent. He merely said the pickets have no authority to make arrests. Every citizen has a right to make an arrest. Furthermore, it would not take the pickets long to find a policeman who could do it for them. Again whenever arrests are made, the large pro- portion, in fact, nearly all of those arrested, prove to be strikers or their friends. These are always defended in court, by the attorneys of the union. Finally, so far as I know, no union has ever exercised its powers, and disciplined them within the union itself. We have heard of fines for violation of union rules; and for riding on street cars during the strike, — a heavy one too, but never of suspension or fines of any kind, levied by the union, upon a striker, for breach of the peace. In his reply to Mr. Cutler's suggestion, that the Unions incor- porate, Mr. Macarthur said he feared if they did, they would be compelled to carry out contracts and perform services as agreed by contract. In answer to this, it is only necessary to say that it is a fundamental principle of law, that the performance of personal services can never be enforced. The singer who refuses to sing; the physician who refuses to heal; the mechanic who refuses to ply his craft ; and the workingman who refuses to labor, cannot be com- pelled to do so. It would require a radical amendment to the laws, to give the courts this power, and that amendment cannot be had. Sons of the American Revoi;Ution 75 without the vote of the people represented in its legislature. The requisite majority to do this, could never be had. The only remedy of a person wronged, by the failure of another to perform services, is a judgment for damages, and if the unions seek to escape this, after having made a binding contract to render labor at a certain price, for a certain time, they are seeking to escape a liability for breach of contract, to which every other citizen is subjected. Taking up now more particularly the address of October last, we find that the instances of what Mr. Macarthur calls the boycott of "Seventy-six," were these : Non-importation agreements, Mr. Macarthur says these were tantamount to a boycott. Another instance given, is a handbill by an organization styling itself the "Sons of Liberty." It stated that they were determined to resent any insult or menace to the committees, appointed at the meeting in Faneuil Hall, and to chastise any one or more, as they might deserve. It threatened to post a copy of the notice at the doors of all offenders. Also a circular, which Mr. Macarthur calls a boycott circular, which designated one William Jackson as an offender, and re- quested the Sons and Daughters of Liberty not to buy anything from him, because in so doing, they would bring disgrace upon them- selves, and their posterity, forever and ever, amen. The "Boston Tea Party" is also specified. At the meeting out of which it grew, it was resolved, among other things, that all persons who should directly or indirectly assist in landing the tea, should be deemed and treated as enemies of their country; and treated with neglect and contempt. As to this "Tea Party," my individual opinion has alwaj^s been, that it was an exhibition of mob violence, and a thing not permissible at any time, or in any age. It was an act of spoliation, for which the town of Boston should have felt itself obliged to pay. These are all of the instances given by Mr. Macarthur. But as the topic under consideration was "The Spirit of Seventy-six, and Its Relations to Modem Strikes and Boycotts." He discussed only boycotts and then sat down. He said nothing about strikes — the more serious of the two. But there is another aspect, which Mr. Macarthur has altogether failed to consider. The Colonists were engaged in a political quar- rel. The modern strike and boycott are invoked and used in a business quarrel. In Colonel Cutler's expressive phrase, these two are as different as chalk and cheese. The political quarrel of our an- cestors, was waged for the people — for the benefit of the entire community — upon a matter of vital interest to every man in it. 76 California Society The strike and boycott, the business quarrel, is waged upon a matter of remote interest to the community in general, and is an attempt by one party to a contract, to force the other to part with some- thing which he has a legal right to withhold; to place him at such a disadvantage, by the use of the boycott, strike intimidation and violence, that he will not be free to contract according to his own notions of his interest, but will be forced to enter into a contract, satisfactory only to the other side. The struggle of the Revolution was for the maintenance of the rights of all men. To repeat, it was a political, not a business quarrel. A new political unit was about to come into existence. The line of fracture had already developed, and these preliminary resolutions and acts of more or less responsible bodies, were but the preliminary crackliag, before the final rupture came. The issue at stake, was the right to tax the Colonists. In other words, to take their property without their con- sent, against Magna Charta; against the Bill of Eights; against the Resolutions of the Long Parliament, and against all the principles upon which the English Revolution was founded. This assault threatened every man and woman in the Colonies, including the workingman. The purse once being grasped, every other liberty would be at the mercy of the ministry. It was in vindication of this right, that the Colonists used the boycott, if Mr. Maearthur is correct in calling it such; and when they lost their temper, and threw the tea overboard; and finally went to war. Things may be done under one set of circumstances, that may not be done under another. In a political quarrel, between distinct political units, either in being, or in course of coming into existence, one may go to the extent of levying war, and of taking the lives of many per- sons in battle. And as the greater includes the less, the combatants may seize and destroy the enemy's property on land or sea, or boycott him, or adopt any other means known to civilized warfare, necessary for the accomplishment of the end desired. Obviously these rights do not exist in the business quarrel, and for this, we have Mr. Macarthur's own statement. There is no similarity be- tween the two situations, and comparisons fail. But there is an inherent weakness in Mr. Macarthur's argument. He was discussing the topic, "The Spirit of Seventy-six, and Its Rela- tions to Modem Strikes and Boycotts," but he presents us with in- stances of the practice of "Seventy-six." His argument is founded upon a syllogism. Now in order that I may be sure that I use the word "syllogism" correctly, I will define it as I understand it, in order that even though my understanding may be incorrect, you will still follow my argument. Sons of the American Revolution 77 I understand a syllogism to consist, of a statement of an admitted truth. That is the major premise. This is followed by a statement of a fact, which is said to resemble the major premise. It is called the minor premise. From this follows the third member of the syllogism, namely, the conclusion, which results from the identity of the minor with the major premise. For instance, this would be a syllogism. All virtue is commendable. This is the major premise. Kind- ness is a virtue. That is the minor premise. Therefore, kindness is commendable. That is the conclusion. Now, Mr. Maearthur's syllogism runs thus: The spirit of "Seventy- six" is a safe rule of action. This is his major premise. The practice of "Seventy-six" was to levy boycotts. This is his minor premise. Therefore, the modern boycott is in accordance with the spirit of "Seventy-six," and therefore allowable. This is his con- clusion. You see it is lame, and does not follow his major premise. The one is the spirit, the other is the practice. He has failed to show that the practice accorded with the spirit. That the practice of "Seventy-six" was not in accord with the spirit, may be shown by a few contemporary instances. For this purpose, I select the acts of no less a body, than the august Conti- nental Congress itself, which, as at first constituted, contained a greater proportion of eminent men, than any body that ever sat. Early in the war they passed the following resolution: "Besolved, That it be recommended to the several provincial assemblies, or con- ventions, or councils, or committees of safety, to arrest and secure every person in their respective colonies, whose going at large may, in their opinion, endanger the safety of the colony, or the liberty of America." Journal of Congress, Vol. I, page 149. They also passed the following: "Resolved, That it be recommended to the executive powers of the several states, forthwith to apprehend and secure all persons who have in their general conduct and conversation, evinced a disposition inimical to the cause of America, and that the persons so seized be confined in such places, and treated in such man- ner, as shall be consistent with their several characters, and security of their per- sons." Journal of Congress, Vol. 2, page 246. There are many similar resolutions to be found in the archives of the Congress. And they acted upon these resolutions, and clapped the undesirable citizen into jail, and there he stayed, until the committee saw fit to let him out. I will give one more instance: — The publisher of a newspaper was speaking and writing against the liberties of the colonies; so they took his paper away from him and gave it to a man who ran it in the interest of the colonies, using the Tory's type and press. 78 California Society If Mr. Maearthur's syllogism be correct, and anything which ac- cords with the practice of "Seventy-six," is in accord with the spirit of "Seventy-six," and therefore a safe rule of action at the present day, there would be nothing inherently wrong in so amend- ing our constitution, as to permit the legislative body of a state, to commit to a voluntary association styling itself a Committee of Safety, the right to arrest and imprison, for such time as it might deem proper, any person, who, in their opinion, should not be per- mitted to go at large. Now there have been various strikes in the history of the United States, which the governing powers have thought unwarranted; that their methods were reprehensible; that agitators were making trouble, and that their absence would be in the interest of the community and of the strikers themselves. If the practice of "Seventy-six" be a proper guide, then there would be nothing wrong in the committing to the Citizens' Alliance, for instance, the right to judge of the propriety and the duration of the imprisonment of these agitators. I think Mr. Macarthur would promptly dissent from this proposition. Again, during the late car strike, a publication in this state, known as Organized Labor, in the heat of the discussion, used some expressions, which tended to encourage the very violence which Mr. Maearthur so strongly condemns. What would he thought of an order by the governing power, which should take from this publication, its type and press, and publish the paper for the benefit of the strike breakers? I think we would all join in a declaration that this would transcend the legitimate powers of any government ; and yet this very thing was done at the time of the Revolution. Instances, both ancient and modem, are not wanting to demon- strate the same proposition, namely, that the practice of a given time, is not necessarily an exponent of the true spirit of the time. For instance: In the early days of the Christian Church, when Cyril was bishop of Alexandria, there lived a young woman named Hypatia, renowned for her virtue, her learning, the sweetness of her temper, and her singular beauty. She taught the Pagan philosophy to many scholars. She had so large a following, that she aroused the bitter animosity of the Christian Church. The matter finally came to a climax, when the monks seized her in the street one day, dragged her into a church, tore her clothing from her body, threw her prostrate upon the ground, and then and there scraped and tore the flesh from off her living bones, till nothing but the bones were left. I apprehend no one would claim that this was in accordance with the spirit of Christianity, and yet there is reason to believe that if Cyril did not plan the atrocity, he connived it. Sons op the American Revolution 79 There is no record of anyone having been punished for it, and the Christian writers of the time, do not cry out against it. Again, we read in the Bible, that there was a general known as Jael, who came weary and fainting to the habitation of a woman, whose name I have forgotten. She invited him to enter, and prom- ised him protection, and timely warning of the approach of danger. He, believing her, entered and slept. He was no sooner asleep than she slew him. Another instance from holy writ : King David had a general named Uriah. The general had a beautiful wife, whom David burned to possess. So he sent Uriah to battle, where he might be, and where he was, slain. David then proceeded to enjoy Uriah's wife (to satiety). Now the Bible says David was a man after God's own heart, and yet no one would claim that this act of David, is in accordance with divine revelation, or the true spirit of religion. Instances of this kind could be multiplied almost without limit. They demonstrate the well-known truth, that there is a radical differ- ence between spirit, in other words, theory, and practice. That while the spirit of the time may be sound, the practice may be un- sound, and even open to censure. One more instance and I am done. In the Declaration of Inde- pendence, it is said, that man is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The First Continental Congress passed a reso- lution that no more slaves should be imported into the United States. Yet when we came to adopt the Constitution of the United States, a little over a decade later, the slave trade was expressly permitted until the year 1808, under the disguise of a prohibition of any restrictions upon the importation of persons bound to service. This was a well understood provision in favor of the slave trade, and was made by the very men who adopted the Declaration of Inde- pendence. It was a flagrant departure from the spirit of "Seventy- six." Where, then, I hear you say, is the spirit of "Seventy-six" to be found, if not in the practice of the fathers? I answer, it is to be found in the writings of the great men of the time, penned in the calm of their studies, when their minds unclouded by passion, or thoughts of expediency, or other bias. Avere able to see the eternal stars, which guide all true men. One such expression is found in the quotation given by Mr. Macarthur himself, in his address last Octo- ber. It is taken from a pamphlet written by Samuel Adams, entitled, "The Rights of the Colonists." Mr. Adams says, "The natural liberty of men, by their entering into society, is abridged or re- strained so far onlv as is necessary for the great end of society, the 80 Califoenia Society best good of the whole. In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it is in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights, when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the sup- port, protection and defense of those very rights, the principle of which, as is before observed is life, liberty and property. If man, through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." Mr. Macarthur interprets this in his address of last October, thus: — I quote from the shorthand report of his address. "If I understand this paper correctly, one thing is made perfectly clear by Adams, namely : — that the individual Colonist, and the individual in society at large, reserves to himself certain natural personal rights. These are rights which are inalienable, and he cannot vacate them, not even out of respect to the will of the majority or any number of fellows. So inalienable are these rights that, as Adams says, the renunciation of them would be invalid, upon the general principle that no man can voluntarily enslave himself." With this interpretation, I entirely agree. It is a common ground upon which Mr. Macarthur and I can stand. We shall see in a few minutes, how the acts of the imions of the present day, square with these inalienable rights, but before passing to that, I want to point out that the trouble with Mr. Macarthur is, that he does not discuss, nor even undertake to define the incidents of modem strikes. He takes the most harmless, and least incident, and stops there. He says nothing of intimidation, the hostile picketing, the boycott as we have it, as distinguished from the platonic boycott which he describes, the violence, the assaults, the murders. It is quite useless for him to say that labor leaders deprecate violence, when it is tacitly understood that it will be resorted to, if the demands of the men are not granted. It is also useless to deny that it is a necessary incident of the strike, and one of the best assets of the strikers. It comes with the strike — lasts as long as the strike, and ceases with it. There has never been a strike known, when the employers did not yield to the demands of the strikers, in which violence has not existed. A thing which so constantly attends upon another thing, is necessarily a part of that thing. It is useless to publish declarations deprecating violence, and to say that it is hurtful to the strikers themselves, in the absence of de- termined efforts by the organizations directing the strike, to pre- Sons of the American Revolution 81 vent it. It would not take the strike leaders long to convince the authorities that they really did not approve of violence, and that they wanted it stopped. It would not have taken the union leaders long to have so disciplined the men, who were throwing red-hot bolts from the Sherman & Clay Building, during the ear strike, that they would have ceased to do it. We heard of fines as high as Fifty Dollars for riding upon street ears, but we did not hear of even censure by the unions, of the men who were imperiling the lives of citizens in the street cars, who had a perfect legal and moral right to ride, if they chose. There is a maxim of law which says, "He who can, and does not forbid, that which is done on his behalf, is deemed to have bidden it." Therefore, it makes no difference whether the violence be committed by the strikers or their friends ; if the strike managers do not forbid, and use all possible efforts to prevent it, they cannot escape the responsibility for the acts com- mitted in their name, and for their benefit. The fact as it appears to an outsider, seems to be, that while the unions indulge in pro- testations of abhorrence of violence, they know it helps them, and wink at it ; in fact, count on it. Why did not the associated unions of this city take speedy action, at the time of the teamsters' strike, when non-union teamsters were being dragged from their seats, to have their arms broken by strikers, so that they could never drive a team again? This happened not once, or twice, but many times. Why did they not use their superabundant members, to sort out the sheep from the goats, and run the latter off into the prison corral, where they belonged ? Instead of this, they loudly protested, as did every other union in the city, against putting policemen on the trucks, to preserve the very order, which Mr. Macarthur says is so essential to a successful strike. An instance of this violence came under my own notice. I boarded a Harrison Street car at the Ferry one day, at the same time with a man about thirty years old, tall, strong, apparently a laborer from the country, whose possessions were carried in a barley sack. The car had not proceeded more than half a block when three men ran to catch it. One of them I noticed, was very nervous. When we got to the top of the Harrison Street hill, between First and Second Streets, these three men suddenly attacked the country man, without any questions, or warning or opportunity to defend himself. He was seated on the dummy. Two attacked him from the front, and another with a piece of iron about nine inches long sewed up in leather, tried to strike him on the side of the head. In trying to get at him, two of them jostled together and one of them was knocked off the moving car. The man jumped upon the seat, and grasping the post with one hand and the roof with the 82 Calipoknia Society other, gave one of his assailants such a kick with his heel, that he sent him off the car. About this time we were approaching Third Street, and all three ruffians took to flight. Marvelous as it may seem, this man, attacked by three, escaped with nothing more than a nose bleed. The incident passed so quickly, and came as such a surprise, that none of the passengers had an opportunity to collect themselves and interfere. My solution of this was, that these men were union pickets, who were watching for all men from the country. They took it upon themselves to decide, without a hearing, that this man had come to take a teamster's place, and proceeded to maim or intimidate him so as to prevent him from doing so. Another kind of strike, to which Mr. Maearthur has not alluded, is the so-called sympathetic strike. By this species of strike, the members of a craft, which has no grievance, suddenly quit an em- ployment, with which it is satisfied, and cause enormous loss to its employers, and inconvenience to the public. The reasons for a direct strike, if I may use such a term, namely dissatisfaction with wages, or hours, or condition of work, do not exist. It is based upon the proposition, that because John Doe has a business differ- ence with Richard Roe, Peter Black will make it so uncomfortable for Richard Blue and all the other friends of Richard Roe, that they will bring pressure upon him, and force him to settle. I have never yet seen an attempted defense, upon principle, of this kind of strike. It would be like beating the friend of a man, against whom I had a grudge, merely as a more efficient means of carrying my point. For instance: If I had not been suited with Mr. Tvitmoe's articles in Organized Labor, I would have been at liberty to beat Mr. Mae- arthur, the editor of the Coast Seaman's Journal, until Mr. Tvitmoe had changed his tune. An instance of this sj^mpathetic strike, was the railroad strike of 1894. There was a dispute between the Pidlman Company, and its employees, in Illinois. As a means of winning that strike, a large labor organization, headed by Eugene V. Debs, demanded that every railroad in the United States, cease hauling Pullman cars, until the Pullman Company had complied with the demand of its employees. All tlicfse railroads were under contract with the Pullman Company, and would have suffered enormous judgments for damages, if they had complied with this request. Further, the traveling public would have been compelled to put up with much inconvenience, and even actual suffering. Imagine crossing the continent and sitting up five successive nights. Now it is within the range of possibility, that the employees of the Pullman Com- pany, being judges in their own case, may have been either wholly Sons op the American Revolution 83 or partially wrong in their demands; and that the railroads may have thought so. But be this as it may, they had a perfect right, both legal and moral, to decline to inconvenience themselves and their patrons, and to decline to pay the heavy damages, v^hich the courts would surely have charged against them, in favor of the Pullman Company. Mr. Debs, and those operating with him, had no notion of paying these. The railroads did refuse, and a strike was called upon every rail- road in the country. Thousands of people were caught away from home, or prevented from traveling, and those away from home, only reached it at increased expense. Business was brought to a stand- still, contracts involuntarily broken, and persons who had agreed to deliver goods by a certain time, were subjected to heavy dam- ages, which the courts awarded against them. The strike would be no defense. One who agrees to deliver goods at a particular time, is bound to do so, regardless of the impossibility of doing it, unless he is prevented by what is called "the act of God," of which the sympathetic strike is not an instance. The loss to the fruit growers of the State of California alone, in fruit that rotted be- cause it could not be shipped, amounted to millions of dollars, and the loss to the country altogether must have exceeded the aomunt in dispute, to an extent that would have paid the wages of the Pull- man employees for many years to come. I fail to see how anyone, in order to secure a benefit to himself, or even an admitted right, may wilfully cause a loss to an innocent person. The rights of one citizen must always be exercised, with due regard to the rights of others. Among other railroad employees who quit, were those of the Southern Pacific Company. They admitted that they had no com- plaint whatever against their employers ; that they were well paid, well treated, and perfectly satisfied; and yet, because the company insisted upon running its trains, and fulfilling its contracts with the Pullman Company, they combined into mobs; took possession of its property, and wrecked one of its trains, smothering the engineer in scalding steam under his engine. This, by men who were not striking for themselves, nor urging a complaint against their em- ployers, but merely annoying their employers, in order that their employers might bring pressure to bear upon the enemies of others. This is wholly indefensible in principle or morality. There is also another phase of unions and strikes, to which Mr. Macarthur has not alluded. It is the theory of the union, that the power to regulate hours, wages, and conditions of employment, must be vested in a govern- ing body; that the right of private judgment by the employee on 84 California Society these subjects cannot be exercised with safety to the whole; that he must be compelled to labor according to union rules, or not at all. I think this a fair statement of their position. In the middle ages, it was the prevailing theory that in matters of religion, the individual could not be allowed to think or act for himself, or to worship at any, except the established, or we might say, union shrines. If he attempted to worship according to the rules of any of the new unions that were then springing into exis- tence, he was imprisoned, and maimed, and burned. An elaborate system of pickets, known as the familiars of the inquisition, was established for the purpose of detecting all who worshipped except at the union shrines. The theory was, that it was necessary to worship at the established shrines, for the salvation of the soul of the individual, and for the good of the community at large; that there should be only one union, — religious union, and that be the established one. All liberty of individual action was as completely withdrawn, as it is in modern labor unions. In other words, the church was a closed shop. It took seventy years of war in Europe, to partially dispose of this notion. Forty years of this war were waged by Charles "V and Philip II, in the Netherlands. I think nothing gives one a more appalling sense of the length of this strug- gle, than an incident which happened during its course. The Spaniards were beseiging a town; and, as a means towards its capture, mined under the walls, with intent to blow them up. The beseiged discovered this, and countermined below the Spaniards. The defenders got their charge of powder in first, and exploded it. Standing within the Spanish mine, was an ofSeer in complete armor. He was hurled into the air with the flying debris, came down with it, and was buried deep in the earth. There he lay, in his dark and silent sepulchre, until thirty years afterwards, during the same war, which had raged all the time, when his body was found in digging for a new wall. And the war went on for ten years after that. The balance of the seventy years of war, was fought out in Germany from 1618 to 1648, when the Peace of Westphalia, brought about by the exhaustion of the parties, stopped it for a time. The principle, however, was not vindicated; and we find Charles I and Charles II of England, harrying their Presbyterian subjects, and Louis XIV, of France, by his dragonnades, coercing his Huguenot subjects, and finally revoking the edicts of Nantes, by which toleration had been accorded them by Henry IV. The time is within the memory of living men, when true toleration for dissent and individual thought in matters of religion, was first accorded. Every time a man is forced to join a union; every time he is denied the right to labor and earn his living honestly, as he chooses, Sons of the American Revolution 85 this right of the individual to act and think for himself, is violated. In other v?ords, the closed shop is a tyranny, and an anachronism. The methods of the trusts, by v^hieh they monopolize all trade for themselves, crush out all competitors, and set the price of the commodity to suit themselves, are not distinguishable in principle, from the union, which says that the price of labor, shall be this, and that no one shall be permitted to work at any price, if he does not belong to a union; in other vrords, to its trust. The modem labor union is a trust in every sense, and, as conducted, is as open to condemnation as is the Standard Oil, the Steel Trust, or any un- lawful business combination.- The question naturally rises to your lips, are unions contrary to the spirit of "Seventy-six"? To this, I unhesitatingly answer. No. It is not the principle of unionism that I criticise, but its present practice. The right of persons engaged in any handicraft, to unite for the protection of their interests, and to better their condition, by all lawful means, is denied by few intelligent men. In the face of the vast aggregation of capital of modern days, when one railroad system owns a line from shore to shore, and all of the products of every manufacture are controlled by vast corporations, for whom a man must labor, or else not labor at all, we realize that the fate of the laboring man, single-handed, would be sad indeed. I have seen upon the Roman Campagna and in France, men heavy browed, with down cast eyes, crowned with a great shock of hair, altogether brutish looking, that spoke the animal more than the man. These are the results of feudalism, and the aggregation of all of the land in the hands of a fortunate few. They are "The Man with the Hoe." Such men have no education, no aspirations, no ideals, and are the most dangerous class that can people a re- public. The labor unions by combining together those engaged in each craft, and by combining these crafts together, enable our labor- ing men to deal upon equal terms with their employers, to secure a living wage, obtain an education for themselves and their children, and a reasonable share of the comforts of life. It will produce in the end, a self reliant, self respecting, home owning and conserv- ative laboring class ; that will form the very bulwark of the republic. The present manifestations of activity by the labor unions, and the irresponsible walking delegate with tyrannical powers, the tj-pe of labor leader who has in view only the interests of the laborers and not their responsibilities, are but the excesses to which a principle, good in itself, is carried at first. The unions are a new power, and the possessors of it are intoxicated with an unexpected success. They fail to realize that the only pledge of permanent power, is moderation in the use of it. The flagrant disregard of the rights 86 California Society of others, which is manifested in many modern strikes, will con- tinue and possibly grow worse, until a reaction in public sentiment and in the minds of all reflecting laboring men, will cause the great pendulum of public sentiment to swing to the other side. I hope it will not swing too far. In the end, things will settle down to the admitted proposition, that while the unions have rights, so have non-union men, and the community : that while everyone has a right to further his own welfare, he must do it with proper regard to the rights of others; that everyone has the right to do everything he pleases, provided he does not abridge the same right of everybody else. I have faith in the future ; faith in the future of unionism ; faith in the future of our country ; faith that we shall have self-respecting, law abiding labor unions. When the time shall have come, it will be found that the unions will squarely place themselves upon Mr. Mae- arthur's interpretation of Samuel Adams's statement of the princi- ples of "Seventy-six." In that day there will be few institutions more beneficient, than the labor union. BANQUET AT FAIRMONT HOTEL, FEBRUARY 22, 1908. Opening Address by the President, George 0. Sargent. The personality of George Washington does not suffer with the lapse of time. He is like a great mountain, that grows higher and higher, and broader and broader, as we put mile after mile between us and its base. The forests and foothills that hide its top on nearer view, melt away and sink into the general mass, until nothing is left but one great towering, majestic peak crowned with the eternal snows, that dominates the landscape to such an extent that we can neither think of, nor look at anything else. Such was Washington. The men of his time who fought and struggled and schemed and hoped and feared, have sunk into the oblivion, from which they emerged ; and the few really great names left serve only to make manifest the greater greatness of Washington himself. He is a colossal figure in the history of his country. He is a colossal figure in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race ; a colossal figure in the history of the world. Wherever the Caucasian race is found, his name is honored. There is scarcely an important town in Italy, that has not its Hotel Washington. In France, his name, associated with that of Lafayette, means liberty, progress and death to the ancient regime. I venture to say that in the Douma of Russia, his name is often on the lips of the orators who are striving to bring that country to liberty and light. Even in semi-despotic Germany, he is honered by the liberal classes, and even in court circles he is regarded with mingled admiration and Sons of the American Revolution 87 surprise. Surprise that any man should let such opportunities slip. In England he is better understood ; and it is safe to say that there is hardly a reflecting Englishman who does not recognize that in fighting the battles of the Revolution, his success meant as much to them as they did to us ; that on Long Island, at Princeton, on the Brandywine and at Yorktown, he was fightiug for them. It is alto- gether fitting therefore, that we should celebrate the birthday of such a man. It is also fitting that the orator of this evening, should be one born upon the other side of the water, but who now makes his home with us. The subject of his address will be, "Washington as a man of peace." It is unnecessary for me to introduce him to j'ou, for you know him already. In fact, I think it would have been more to the point, if he had introduced me, Professor Henry Morse Stephens. "WASHINGTON AS A MAN OF PEACE." By Prof. Henry Morse Stephens, University of California. I have been trying to find out whether it was two years ago, three years ago, four years ago, or ten years ago that I had the honor of addressing the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolu- tion at the St. Francis Hotel. At any rate, years and years seem to have passed, owing to a certain eighteenth of April; and every- thing that occurred before that, it is difficult to get into proper per- spective. Mr. Sargent has told me that I spoke to you three years ago. I thought it was two years ago. Somebody has since told me that it was two years ago. But of one thing I am quite certain, and that is, that it was before the eighteenth of April, 1906. There are but few things that I am absolutely certain of, but that date is one that I shall always remember. Indeed, when I look back to that former San Francisco, to that old St. Francis, and then think of what we have passed through since, I begin to feel that living here on the Coast, living here about the Bay, coming constantly over here to San Francisco, is about as much living history as it is possible for anyone to do. The poet talks about a cycle of Cathay. I think the last two years of San Francisco have been equal to about five hundred years of ordinary history. (Applause.) What with earthquakes and fires and rats. I don't know whether we can possibly realize what a calm, quiet, peaceful life George Washington must have led. (Laughter.) For surely here we are having experiences which make it important for us to be able to tell our children that we lived through April, 1906, and the two years following. 88 California Societt It so happens that it is my lot, and I don't complain of it, to spend much of my time over the records of the period from the 18th of April to the 4th of June, 1906. Either a vaulting ambition or an unkind fate, I don't know vfhich it was, laid upon my shoulder the task of writing some record of that period. And, having gone over a ton and three-quarters of material, I feel that I know very little about it. I am quite sure that while the rest of you are trying to forget, that it is my very painful duty to have to try to recall ; and I make this as my excuse for not being quite certain how many years ago it was that I met you in the St. Francis. But another difficulty confronts me. I have given you one talk on George Washington. I am a man of the same character in that respect as William Gerard Hamilton, who was known as Single Speech Hamilton, because he only got off one speech. It was a success, and he was wise enough not to make another. Now, I have one speech on George Washington. I first gave it in the year 1896. I have got it off in many places, in many colleges, in many public buildings, in many clubs, on many occasions. It is a very nice speech. But I gave it to you before the fire, and I know that you won't desire to have an absolute repetition of it. It is a subject that took a good deal of time to work up. The stenographer took it down at the St. Francis, and I have had his transcript laying on my desk ever since. I have been asked to revise it for purposes of publication. Mr. Adams I think writes me once a fortnight to ask when I am going to revise the proof of that speech. He forgets what a terrible thing it is to get rid of one's one and only speech and prepare it for cold print. Such a nice speech — and in print it looks so terribly bald and needs so much decoration. I got off everything I had to say, worth saying, about George Washington on that occasion, and yet I could not refuse Mr. Sar- gent's invitation. It was too good to be true, though, that I was to be asked again to talk to you on the subject within a decade, or whatever it may be. So it is that I am going to give you the speech of two years ago, hoping that something may have eliminated from your memory what I said two years ago. But I'm afraid it won't do. Mr. Sargent prefers that I should talk about Washington's foreign policies — that is what he wrote me. I said that I would, and I spent a long time trying to think whether it might be at all possible to make an entertaining after dinner speech on Washing- ton's foreign policy. Offhand, the subject does not seem promising. It is rather difficult to deliver a lecture on Washington's foreign policy. But the more I contemplated the subject, the more it came into my mind that there was something that might possibly be said, even if it did take a little time, not so much perhaps, on Washing- Sons of tub American Revolution 89 ton's foreign policy, but on Washington, the President; Washing- ton, the man of peace. Too much, I think, in our books, do our children learn simply of Washington the man of war. I have alvi^ays thought it one of the faults of our school text-books that they lay weight almost exclusively, in dealing with American history, upon the war of the Revolution, leaving the thought to rest in the minds of the children that Washington was first in war only ; and yet you know that the famous cry that the children have instilled into their minds (I remember hearing the Vassar girls giving it in shril- lest tones), is "George Washington: First in peace, first in war and first in the hearts of his countrymen" — "First in peace" preceding the reference to his prowess in war. It is true that George Washington was first in peace, — that peace showed him to be a statesman. And it occurs to me that it is a mistake not to lay more weight on Washington, the man of peace, that is, Washington, the President, rather than, Washington, the General. I would here interpolate a word to the point of view of the change of perspective in the American histories of the last few years. It is part of my business to have to prepare for a teacher's certificate in history a varied number of young people from the University of California, and that makes it necessary for me to go over all of the text books. One of my exercises given to those young people in so going over the text books of American history, is an arithmetical one ; that is, simply to count up the number of pages in the text books of United States history devoted to the wars of the United States from the Revolution onward, and that devoted to peace. Tou will find, if you try the experiment yourselves, that it would appear from these text books that the Americans have always been at war. You know that is not true, but that is the effect of the text books. The victories of peace are a very small slice in between the War of the Revolution and the War of 1812, in between the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, in between the Mexican War and the Civil War, in between the Civil War and the Spanish War, and there has not been any history according to the text books since. And so it is, that if you read the books on United States history, taking the period from the Revolution down, you will find the weight laid entirely upon the wars. And yet what is the greatness of the United States? Its great- ness rests not in what it did in wars, not in what it did in the Mexi- can War. Its greatness rests in what it had done in peace, in the conquering of the continent, in the joining of Atlantic and Pacific, in the victories of peace in all the lines of applied science and applied engineering. The United States is essentially a pacific country, and 90 Calipoenia Society its greatness lies there. It is the bellicose state of which we teach our youth. Is not this, therefore, somewhat true with regard to the history of "Washington? Is it not Washington, the General, of whom we most gladly think ? Is it not part of our old barbaric sympathy with our old barbaric ancestors, to whom war was joy and peace was sleepiness, that we delight in the renown of the great warriors? Is it not the fact that you, as Sons and Daughters of the American Revolu- tion, think rather of the bellicose side of the greatest of Americans? Is it not worth while, then, that one should draw attention to the work of peace, and that it is particularly fortunate that the man who was first in war, was likewise first in peace? I think perhaps the greatest contribution to historical knowledge that was made by that very remarkable lecturer and writer, John Fiske, was that he wrote of the critical period of American history. That period is not the War of the Revolution ; it is the period be- tween the close of the War of the Revolution, and the making of the Constitution. Mr. Fiske, with unerring exactitude, points out the importance of this critical period. I would not have it understood that the War of the Revolution was not a critical period in American history. That I do not mean to say. Nor that it was any easy matter for the Thirteen Colonies to bring about their victorious separation from the Mother Country. I do not mean to say anything to minimize that Revolution which you all here represent. But I would point out to you that there is another side of it, and that there was a most critical period in the following period of peace. What I have to say to you tonight, then, is rather to dilate upon Washington as a peace statesman, than to talk of him as a soldier. You have heard more eloquent men than myself, doubtless many a time, discourse on Washington as the national leader in war. But I am going to arrogate to myself that, even though I cannot pos- sibly pretend to give you such an original point of view as that which I gave you when I spoke of him as a typical Englishman; still, it may be of interest, if I tonight simply dwell upon George AVashington as a typical peace statesman. There have been many Presidents since George Washington, many policies since George Washington. But we can, I think, date back to his tenure of office, those great first eight years, for the fact that, despite the bellicose tendency of certain administrations at different times, we can fairly and justly say, as a whole, the United States school text-books to the contrary notwithstanding, has stood for peace. Sons op the American Revolution 91 Let me recall briefly, lecturing as little as I can, for it is my business to lecture, and so much so that I am always mortally afraid that my after-dinner speeches may seem like lectures in dis- guise — let me for a moment dwell upon the difficulties that sur- rounded the first President of the United States, as a man of peace. Our sympathies always go out to the man of war. He is a much more glorious creature, a more picturesque creature; the man of war has always, from the earliest ages of humanity, appealed to our sympathy, our adoration. It is because he appeals to our bar- baric delight in the exhibition of personal bravery. On the other hand, it is very hard to admire a man of peace. The man of peace is apt to be stout and of unpicturesque build — things that the man of war never is. At fat warrior is unthinkable, except Jack Falstaff — and we don't think of him much as a warrior. So it is that I want to draw your attention to a hero in his unheroie pose — not the hero on horseback, the hero at Valley Forge, the hero whenever he was in uniform, but the simple, modest gen- tleman, without his uniform, sitting down at a desk and writing dispatches, and sometimes signing other people's state papers, writ- ten by his directions. How about that man ? How about the simple, unpretentious gentleman who went up and down through the coun- try side? How about the planter of Mt. "Vernon? Not so heroic there. And yet I sometimes think that if we put together the great heroes of war, with the great heroes of peace, you can almost test the progress of civilization. Put side by side those two men, so nearly contemporaneous, the older of whom lived long enough to see the dawning fame of the younger, George Washington and Napoleon Bonaparte — put them together as men of war, and which was the more picturesque? The little man on the great white horse, doubt- less. Put them together, and which was the more picturesque in number of battles and great conquests? The great Italian, the famous Corsican. But how about peace? Napoleon Bonaparte did not allow himself, and that meant anybody else, very much peace — until he went to St. Helena, when he had a great deal of peace, more than he wanted. On the other hand, we find Wash- ington deliberately pursuing a policy of peace. When the Federal Government was first organized, remember to what small extent preparation was made for military and naval defense. You will remember how George Washington struck the keynote which marked the whole of his administration, and which I am going to go into in great detail in a moment, the keynote that the United States was not to be a power, did not want to be a power — and we are, oh, so proud, of being a world power now; why we want to be world anything, I don't know, it is so expensive 92 California Society and troublesome. But it does make the newspapers interesting, so I suppose the United States has got to be a world power. But if you turn back to those critical times, when the thirteen states had come into existence, you will find nothing about being a world power at all. I don't believe Washington ever thought about a world power in his life. He talked about entangling alliances, which is a different thing. I have a sort of impression that he rejoiced a good deal over the fact that the Atlantic was broad and wide, and I am not at all sure that he would have welcomed rapid transit across that ocean. It was rather comfortable not to be a world power, when there were no steamers. It was rather comfortable, I fancy, for the great statesmen in those days to be able to develop a policy of peace, as there were no entangling alliances. Let us go a step further, and see what were the conditions under which Washington managed to preserve the peace, under which he constructed that traditional peace policy, which, although broken away from now and again under the first sweep of a national indignation, has upon the whole (and I refer to American history) been the general trend of the policy of this country. As you know, it was in April, 1789, that the first president of the United States took office. In May, 1789, met the States General at Versailles, France, and the movement known as the French Revolution began. The United States had only then just got into shape, when began the movement which was to involve Europe in more than twenty-three years of war. Who were the great figures in Europe, at the time George Wash- ington was inaugurated into his high office, — the time when he was to mark the traditions that were to be followed in the history of a state, the history of the United States, a line of policy that was eventually to develop this new state, in the European sense, this new United States, into a world power? What were the conditions in Europe? Conditions of unrest and distress. The greatest ruler in Europe at that time, without the fragment of a doubt, was a woman, the Empress Catherine of Russia. And the Empress Catherine of Russia at that very time was engaged in her great policy against the Turks. She, with Frederick the Great of Prussia, had accomplished the first partition of Poland, and she was now having a joyful time in seeing how much of the Turkish dominion she could obtain. A great woman ; probably the greatest woman, except Elizabeth Tudor, ever known in history, but de- cidedly a disrupting element in European politics. Together with the Emperor Joseph she was engaged in war upon the Turks, a war with the Turks followed with trembling hesitation by the great English Minister, William Pitt, who had prepared in the previous Sons of the American Revolution 93 years what was known as the Russian armament, a great fleet which was to be sent around to the Mediterranean — the great Rus- sian armament. The fleet never went around to the Mediterranean. It was rather a bluff than anything else, for Mr. Pitt didn't desire to get into trouble of that kind. This was about the situation when George Washington, in the most critical period of American history, took office as the first president of the United States. The center of interest was in eastern Europe — Russia and the Emperor Joseph against the Turks. No one knew what a flame was to burst out, in a few short months, in France. Go over the contemporary docu- ments, as it has been my business to do ; go over the contemporary news leaders, and what do you find? You will find, whether in England or in Germany or in France, all eyes were fixed on Con- stantinople and the Turkish War, and the great figures in the European world were the great Empress of Russia, now an old woman, approaching the end of that unexampled glory of her reign in Russia, and her brilliant young contemporary, the Emperor, the representative of the house of Hapsberg Lorraine, the man who had freed the serfs of Bohemia and Hungary, the man who had broken down the guilds and monopolies that had stifled labor and stifled trade, the man who had issued an edict of toleration which for the first time permitted in the eastern dominions, freedom of worship and had given the Jews the rights of citizenship, by all odds the greatest reformer that the world had seen in the eighteenth century. The Emperor Joseph was a contemporary of George Washington, and had to be watched with care, for George Washington realized what a firebrand there was in this great reformer who was setting men free to labor and to worship. To many an American, to many English, to still more French thinkers, the days of the Emperor Joseph seemed to indicate that the spirit that had started in America was now working in Europe. The great enlightened despot who, in 1788, had started this war with his friend Catherine, against the Turks, little realized that the reforms that he had brought about were going to bring him to a broken and miserable end. And the rest of Europe. On the throne of Prussia was the nephew of the great Frederick, a mystic, a person full of fears of the future, on which mesmerists and other occult personages played. In Spain, the great reformer, Charles III, had died in December, 1788, and his son, Charles IV, had succeeded him upon the throne, showing no prospects for a happy or a useful action, since he was entirely under the control of his wife — that, of course, was an admirable thing, but for the fact, as you will remember, that his wife was entirely under the dominion of a handsome and unprin- eipled guardsman, who, therefore, really governed Spain. Portugal 94 California Society — poor, mad queen, whose insanity was recognized but whose coun- try had not yet given official recognition to the government to her son. In Sweden, a brilliant reform ruler, the great Gustavus III, hurrying, like Joseph, reforms upon his people, sweeping away monopolies and guilds, and doing what he could to reduce the curse of Sweden, which in those days was the terrible drinking of brandy ; but he made himself unpopular thereby, and was shot dead two or three years later as he was stepping from his carriage in Stockholm. Those were the chief figures that appeared in European politics at the time. In England, a country which had recently recognized the independence of the United States, there had come to the control of affairs a very young statesman — I remember making the statement that I am about to repeat, two or three years ago, the statement to which Mr. Sargent alluded in his introductory words, when he stated that the reason why George Washington is so care- fully studied and so much admired in England is because the success of the American Revolution prevented a revolution in England. I remember two years ago pointing out, that it was during the Amer- ican War of Independence that the feeling in England about the King's personal government and the fact that George III was not satisfied with being a king and ruling, but insisted likewise on be- ing a boss and governing, had risen to a universal discontent wherever the English language was spoken. Remember that it was during the War of the American Revolution that the Gordon rioters occupied London, opened Newgate prison, and were in possession of the capital for several days. A series of events, perhaps best de- scribed in Dickens' novel "Barnaby Rudge," took place. It was in the War for American Independence, too, that the Irish Volun- teers were raised and demanded legislative independence for Ire- land. Everywhere the personal government of George III was being assailed; and that there was a successful result in America meant the great peaceful revolution in England, which was accom- plished in the general election of 1784. In America, your ancestors foaght and shed their blood for the right of self-government against a boss king. In England, we know that we were saved from the necessity of shedding their blood, because the American blood means the surrender by George III of the boss power that he had attained unto. I don't want to go into the details of English history, but you all know that the English Parliament in the eighteenth century did not represent the people. The House of Commons was con- trolled by a body of borough owners, and I hope you all know that George III went into the market and controlled boroughs, and through those so controlled by him illicitly he was enabled to be Sons of the American Eevolution 95 boss. From the revolution of 1688 English kings had been symbols, symbols of unity, as they were styled, and they had been content to leave power in the hands of the committee of the party that had the majority in the House of Commons. But when George III came to the throne he went into the borough market ; he bought boroughs, he influenced boroughs, and he influenced them some- times by asking their owners to dinner, and sometimes by giving them cash out of hand. The arts of the politician are not an American invention, I assure you. At any rate, the king was boss. Lord North was his lieutenant. The overthrow of his bossism meant the disappearance of the power of this ruler, and the putting back of the king into the position he properly occupies under the English system; that he properly occu- pies as simply representing national unity, as the social chief who saves the trouble of selecting leaders of society, as the proper person to open hospitals, make speeches at foundation ceremonies, and, above all, to make after-dinner speeches. That is his proper place. George III abandoned the proper place. How was he put back? I have been for many years looking for the man who wiU write the history of the peaceful English revolution of 1784. It was peaceful. There was no blood shed. It was simply an election, characteristic in a way of the English people. In that election, the poAver of the borough holders was largely overthrown. Every city in England in which there was the slightest remnant of independent thought, in all the great countries of England that had hitherto been buttoned up in the pockets of the great lords who owned land, there was a general revolution against boss government. We have known of such things in the United States. We are entirely likely to see it again. In England it took place in 1784. People got tired afterwards, but at any rate they did it in 1784, and a majority was returned to the House of Commons consisting of independent men. There is perhaps only one name in that great group of famous members returned in that great election. You have all heard, though from a different standpoint, of William Wilberforce. The first fame of William Wilberforce lay in the fact that this young son of a merchant, a young Cambridge graduate, came out of the great country of Yorkshire. He opposed the borough magnates, the great lords of Yorkshire, and beat them at the polls. That was stimulating. After that general election the power of England became vested in the man who had the confidence and was at the head of the committee that had the majority of the House of Commons, and that man was William Pitt. William Pitt, who thus came into power in 1784, a mere boy not yet twenty-five years old, was believed by the king to be his new Lord North, ready 96 California Society to do his bidding for him. But we are sometimes mistaken in young men of twenty-five. Mr. Pitt was quite certain that this was his majority, and Mr. Pitt was going to govern as Prime Min- ister, as Prime Ministers had done in times before George III became England's ruler. When George Washington came into power as President of the United States in 1789, Mr. Pitt had for five years been Prime Min- ister. He was now going on thirty, and he had already devised a peace policy. The elder Pitt was a great soldier. He had been the director of the great war, the French and Indian War, that won Canada for England. The younger Pitt did not like war. He had been a disciple of Adam Smith. He came in as a peace minister — he stood for peace. That was the situation when General Washington became Presi- dent. No man ever became president with so full a confidence from the people themselves. And at first all went smoothly. The peace- ful Prime Minister of England, the young man who shivered at the thought of war, who was ready to bluff, but not to fight, who saw the need in England of an era of peace for her commerce, and who stood for peace ideals, had the reins in England. So started Washington. But two months after his accession met the States General of France, four months later the Bastile was taken, the keys of it, by the way, sent to George Washington, as you know, by Lafayette as a token of his regard; and then began an entirely new set of events. The President, who had come into power with a comparatively simple program before him, found, as many another president, as many another governor, as many another mayor has found, that circumstances a long waj' off, with which he had nothing to do, rather altered circumstances at home. I think one of the greatest proofs of Washington's true statesman-like genius lies in the fact that, having marked out his policy of peace, having settled what he wanted to do in regard to England, sending Jay there in pursuance of his policy, he was unmoved by those great changes that came so swiftly upon Europe. It is none of my business to lecture upon the history of the French Revolution. Heaven knows I have done that too mxich in the last twenty years. But I do want to simply insist upon the fact that the French Revolution came just as suddenly to startle American statesmen, as it did to startle Mr. Pitt; as it did to startle the Emperor Joseph; as it did to startle the Empress Catherine. Everywhere all ideas had to be changed. Here was a people speaking an inarticulate new tongue. The French Revolution and the American Revolution are utterly different things. It is the poverty of our language that causes us to call them by the same name. The great movement in France Sons of the American Revolution 97 changed the whole structure of its society; the great movement in America did not affect the structure of society ; it merely brought into existence a new political unit. If there are two movements more utterly opposed to each other than the French Revolution and the American Revolution, I should like to know them. The whole basis in detail of the two great movements differed. But the French Revolution came. A new society was to be constituted. Nowadaj's we understand all about revolutions, — that is, the sort of revolution which occurred in France, not the sort of revolution that occurred in the United States, which, let me state, was a revolution creating a new nation, a new political unit, and which was not, in the true Aristotelian sense, a change in the form of government from top to bottom. Now, when a country is in a state of revolution, we say, "Go on, and when it is all over we will recognize your de facto government." But at the time of the French Revolution, this was not understood. We have had a great deal of experience with revolutions, in Central and South America, during the last hundred j'ears, and we entirely understand the way in which revolutions are made, and the way in which to make them as little troublesome to anybody, except the revolutionists, as pos- sible. And when the revolution is over, we understand how to renew intercourse. This was not understood in France. The French Revolution set before the nations at onee the question of interven- tion or non-intervention. That was the problem confronting each. On the one side there was the brilliant genius of that great Irish- man, Edmund Burke, pleading for intervention. He had remem- bered the ill-fated queen of Prance, in all her beauty and all her youth, and in a famous passage in his reflections on the French Revolution has shown how his emotions were stirred by the recol- lection of Marie Antionette, the queen. Further than that, his political instincts were aggravated by the belief that a people could make itself free and self -governed in no other way than the English way. And Edmund Burke began to preach the crusade. What Edmund Burke preached, the other powers were going at before they were preached at. And the doctrine of intervention at that moment swept over the world. It is easy for us in this day to be non-interventionists. We understand, as I say, revolutiouarj^ movements. Who has inter- vened in Russia? And yet the condition in Russia, so far as blood- shed has gone, has been far worse than the condition in France in the first three years of the French Revolution. Who has dreamed of intervening there? We live in a non-intervening time, except when the republic in which you intervene is very small and very weak, and perhaps then one can intervene. But in regard to large 98 Califobnia Society states, intervention is now out of fashion. At that time, however, intervention was the fashion. Intervention swept over Europe. As you know, the War of the French Revolution began in 1792, and continued almost unchecked for twenty-three years. The point on which I wish to insist is, that intervention was the idea of 1792, of 1793, of 1794 and 1795 ; while in 1796 it began to weaken a little bit, because a certain young Italian called "Buonaparte," better known as Napoleon Bonaparte, had begun to show that it was not quite safe to go on intervening. Napoleon Bonaparte's army had something to do with the change of opinion; but at any rate up to 1797, when George Washington had finished his service as President, he had lived through a period in which the world in general seemed to have been impressed with the duty of intervening. Said Burke, "When your neighbor's house is on fire, is it not your duty to go in and put the fire out?" — a bad argument supported by a famous and classic quotation from the poet Juvenal. Is it not our duty? Certainly, said all the powers of Europe, and they went to the aid of France. They did not succeed. But the United States had many who favored intervention, but it was an intervention on the other side. They said, "If our brothers are trying to win seLf- govemment in France, if the nation that helped us in the time of our difficulty, is now in difficulty, and attacked by crowned Europe, is it not our duty to intervene on their behalf ?" On the other hand, the merchants of Boston, who read their "Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution," were inclined to think that if there should be intervention at all, it should be intervention against the French revolutionists, for the revolution was very bad for business. Again, there were the sympathetic people who remembered Lafayette, who remembered the army of Rochambeau, who were wild to intervene. Turn over the newspapers of that period, look at the wild enthu- siasm which existed in favor of intervention, and you will see that, if it were true, and it was true, that the quieter mercantile element was on the side of intervention against France; the wilder, more enthusiastic, more sympathetic, was in favor of intervention on behalf of France. They were all full of intervention. Why, you can study the curve in history of the periods of intervention and non-intervention, a most beautiful curve, and you will find it about in 1793 and 1794, which was when the idea that it was your duty to interfere in your neighbor's difficulty was declared to be the highest statesmanship, and it was declared that the world formed one great country, and we must not allow any integral part thereof to be deluged in blood. You will find about that time, I say, that it was said that we were indebted to France, and that we must help an old ally. I am not criticising in making these statements, but Sons of the American Eevolution 99 just stating the facts, and you may judge for yourselves. Take the literature of that day, and don't take it second-hand from a text- book, but look for any of the old newspapers of 1793 to 1797, par- ticularly the years 1792, 1793 and 1794, and you will see what an enthusiasm there was for intervention. The strongest thing that any statesman can do, ladies and gen- tlemen, the thiag which, in the long run, we admire more in si statesman than anything else, is the power to resist a great wave of popular emotion. We expect to have mayors and governors and presidents, who have their ears to the ground, as I believe it is called, and are swayed by public opinion. We virtually want the man in power to move our way. Public opinion is something which we feel must be respected in every case. But after the storm is over, when the historical furore is past, when we have had a good night's rest, and have awakened from the nightmare, is it not the fact that the people whom we admire most are those who keep their heads during the storm? It seems to me that the American people has, like all other peoples, a tendency to occasional hysteria. And there have been periods in the American history when hysteria among the people has instantly upset the government. But a classic instance of when hysteria among the people did not upset the government is found during the two terms of George Washington as president. No man loved his popularity more. We have a record of the sadness with which he observed the caricatures that were made of him, one of which showed him with the body of Louis XTV and the face of George Washington, because it was declared he was a king and an enemy of the people. Washington was a man, I say, who loved his popularity. And why should not a man love to be popular? With aU of his dignity, he liked to be first in the hearts of his countrymen. And first he was — after the storm was over. During the storm, he was strong enough not to yield. I am afraid I have lectured almost too much, and I now turn toward the general considerations of the subject. The end of the lecture period is to point out to you that the one statesman in the world who resisted this great intervention was George Washington. Pitt gave way, and England got mixed up in the war of the French Revolution. Joseph never did so, but, as you know, his nephew Francis did, and Spain, Portugal, and the Holy Roman Empire — all of them became mixed up in the war of intervention — interfer- ing with other men's affairs. Let me repeat again that I am not criticizing. It may be right to interfere in somebody's else affairs, particularly if you are strong enough; but there is a certain imwis- dom in interfering in the affairs of the big, strong man, and that 100 Calipoenia Society is what the powers found. They tried to intervene in France, and they got more than they bargained for; and they had a Napoleon on their shoulders some ten years later for doing that very thing. The one man who held out against that was Washington. When he made that famous farewell speech of his, and spoke of entangling alliances, do you not see that he was alluding to those years through which the country had passed? We are too apt to read a document of that kind without thinking of its background, without thinking of what was in the mind of every man who heard the words of that particular document. Five years and more he had remained reso- lute against the popular demand for intervention, and the not less effective murmuring into the other ear from the good Boston mer- chants. During that time he held firmly to the policy of non- intervention, and he made classic the American policy of non-inter- vention — may I say classic? Yes, America has intervened since. It intervened in Mexico, or perhaps we should not be exactly where we are now. It intervened in Panama, or perhaps there would not be any canal being made now. Yet, despite an occasional instance of intervention of that kind, is it not true that the American policy has been definitely modeled, since the days of its first president, upon the idea of non-intervention? George Washington's policy was non-intervention in Europe. We have discovered Asia since. But don't you think that if George Washington were living now he would have included non- intervention in Asia as well as non-intervention in Europe ? It seems to me the policy was not meant for one particular continent, but was meant to be applied as a general principle. Non-intervention, pursued by a man in spite of popular clamor, can, I think, be pointed out as George Washington's greatest claim to be regarded as a statesman of peace. It is quite true that there are some writers even to-day who consider that George Washington ought to have intervened on behalf of France, and that it would have shown more gratitude for what had been done for us. It is sometimes argued, ,iust as it is said that Elizabeth Tudor ought to have intervened in behalf of the Protestants of Europe, that this country should have intervened. It is very easy to say that. But how about the great statesman of the United States who refused to intervene, and who thus laid down a policy of non-intervention, of not interfering in the affairs of other people, even if sentimental gratitude — true sentimental gratitude, I mean — demanded it. And so I have worked out the thesis I wanted to bring before you, a side of Washington's career, I think not as a rule suflBciently commemorated: the way in which he met the popular demand for intervention, for the help of France against the English, against Sons of the American Revolution 101 the Germans, against the Spaniards, against the Portuguese, against the various powers that united in fighting desperate France. That was the thing — it was the popular thing to do — undoubtedly the popular thing. It is always popular to go to war. You can always get up enthusiasm for a war. Our natural bellicosity causes us to enjoy seeing somebody else fight, and, when we are young, taking some part in fighting ourselves. We believe in it, and God forbid that I should be here declaring that at all times we should turn the other cheek. It may be Christian, but I have my doubts whether it would be politic. And it needed a strong character, and a real love for peace, to stem, as Washington did, the popular demand for intervention. It is much harder to be a man of peace than to be a man of war. A man of war is popular. As I have said, he looks well. War stirs the imagination. Try teaching your children, and see how much more they enjoy and how their eyes lighten up if you tell them about people fighting, and how soon they will go to sleep when you tell them about making roads and bridges, or useless things of that kind. We love the warrior — the man who does for his country is our hero. So he should be. But how about that poor man who lives for his country, and even votes sometimes? It seems to me that, although he is not heroic, although he is very unheroic in fact, he is apt to be a sedentary person or an uneducated person — he chooses an unpopular part. So for any man it is hard to oppose a war clamor. You remem- ber 1898. There were not so many people then who opposed a war clamor as there have been people since who say what a pity it was we ever went to war. A great many people have said that since. But at the time it was very difficult to oppose the real enthusiasm for war. We did want to see our relatives immortalize themselves. There is, as I say, a genuine enthusiasm for war, in almost any condition. Therefore, when I say that George Washington was as heroic there in New York and Philadelphia, resisting the war move- ment, as he was at the head of his army, it is making a statement I think not in the least exaggerated. It would have been possible to-night, for me or any other speaker addressing you, to have made the main point, "Washington, a great warrior." I prefer to have made it, "Washington, a great peace statesman." It is perhaps well that we should, now, a hundred and more years since Washington's time, recall the fact that we have so respectable an authority in favor of peace. The world around us is full of war rumors. A most pacific fleet is coming to a Pacific Ocean. Yet there are those who will persist in discovering that it is not pacific at all. There are those who find it to their account 102 California Society to write up war rumors. There are those who seem to talk with a good deal of pleasure of war — ^not professional soldiers or sailors, for the truest enemies of war are the men who have seen it, who know that there is truth in that famous sentence of General Sher- man, "War — well, war is" — you know what it is, you know all about it. It is the soldiers, it is the sailors, who do not want war. They know what it means. Washington knew what it meant. He knew what war implied. You remember the advice of Polonius to Laertes, "Be sure to have thy quarrel just." Your nation, if the quarrel be just, should be ready for war. The hero dies for his country. But, on the other hand, it surely is not mal apropos at the present time, in these days of rumors of war, and secret alliances, and wars in China, and the breakup of China, and wars with Japan, and wars here and there, to remember that the framer of the classic policy of the United States was a man who disliked intervention, who would not be persuaded to intervention in France, even when France was claiming it in the French Revolution, and that the classic policy of the United States was thus laid down. It may be that the United States, as a world power, needs a larger fleet, and a greater fleet, particularly for intervention, than it had in the days of your ancestors. It may be that I am an old- fashioned person in admiring Washington as the man of peace ; that I am a still more old-fashioned person in thinking that the United States has enough to do at home without trying to put out the fire in its neighbor's buildings, and the arguments that Washington solemnly made against the Burke program of the duty of inter- vention may be even true to-day. Countries grow. Individuals grow. And, as I say, it may be that Washington's policy has been outgrown. But even if the policies be outgrown, if it be the proper duty of the United States to intervene in China, or Japan, or any- where else, where it feels like it ; if it be necessary to use big sticks against any powers that ought to be intervened with; if it be true that we have come to such a new sense of our duty in the world that intervention should take place, I think in taking that attitude it may be worth while to remember that the United States, in so doing, is breaking away from its old traditions. There are those who say since 1898 the United States, as a world power, has entered upon a new age in its history. It may be per- fectly right, perfectly proper. The historian of the future may mark 1898 as the beginning of the new era of American intervention. It may be right to have fleets and armies, and to take our part in suppressing Boxers and others that ought to be suppressed — I do not pretend to take issue in American politics, for that is one thing that I know I know nothing about ; but I do know something about Sons op the American Revolution 103 the policy of a hundred and more years ago, and tliat policy I have tried this evening to lay clearly before you as a part of George Washington's record. His record is not only the record of a general in the Revolutionary War, but is as well that of a great peace statesman, who for eight years was at the helm of the United States government, who laid down its line of policy, and who, through at any rate five of those years, had to meet a great outcry for a war of intervention, and met it with that calm serenity which is perhaps the most remarkable of his characteristics. Two years ago, in speaking before you, I ventured to allude to Washington as a typical Englishman. I am not sure whether I then said that perhaps the most typical trait of Washington was a certain phlegmatic trait, although with such an exterior he concealed a very feeling and a very tender heart. It was the business of an English gentleman in the eighteenth century, and in the nineteenth century, and is in the twentieth century, not to show what he feels. The English boy is trained like a Spartan in the public schools not to show what he feels. A certain amount of shell is developed. That is what makes him so disagreeable to other people ; people with shells, I think, are not agreeable. But at the same time Washington, though he had the shell of an English gentleman, and after he be- came president a still stififer shell of official dignity, felt deeply those attacks upon his policy, felt deeply what he held to be the loss of that popularity which he enjoyed, — and who does not? But for all that, in that great serenity of his he went on in the way he be- lieved to be right. And what has been his reward? While there have been perhaps more flashy popularities at dif- ferent periods, they have fallen away. But Washington still remains first in peace, and first in war, and, still true to the end, first in the hearts of his countrymen, because he did not yield to public opinion, because he did 7wt yield to a passionate sentiment for aiding an ally, because he did not yield to war sentiment, because he did not do all the obviovis things that a weak man, responsive to a national demand, would have done, because he showed himself haughty, serene, quietly in opposition to the popular cry. That is why he is set before us, not simply as the great soldier of the Revolution, the great commander, but also as the great statesman of the first period of American history, a man who met popular clamor, a man who refused foreign intervention, a man who, in his fare- well speech laid down a program which has hitherto been mainly followed. (Applause.) 104 Calipoenia Society Closing Address of the President. It seems clear that Professor Stephens has at least two speeches. And I suspect that he has a number of others conveniently stowed away in his mind. I want to thank him, and I know the word of thanks naturally springs to the lips of all of you as well. So I thank him for all of you, for the very entertaining as well as in- structive address he has given us. It is entertaining because it presents to us Washington from another point of view, because it shows what a many-sided man he was. It shows that he had not only physical courage, which, with the Anglo-Saxon is very com- mon, but he had that more rare thing — moral courage. He had the courage to stand at the helm and hold the ship xip against the storm — the driving sleet, the snow, and the wind — the crew all grumbling, no one to comfort him; when to turn and go with the wind would have satisfied all. But he knew that would be to run upon the rocks and lead to the destruction of the ship. He held the reins of government until March 4th, 1797, when Adams came in, and he held the same policy until 1801. By that time the tradi- tion of non-intervention had become to a certain extent fixed, and, best of all, the aggressions of Prance upon the commerce of the United States had so exasperated a large portion of the people of this country that Thomas Jefferson, although an ardent admirer of Prance, did not dare to propose intervention on behalf of a nation that imprisoned our seamen, confiscated our ships and wrought as much damage to the commerce of the United States as the English did, whose aggressions eventuated in the War of 1812. We do not appreciate the enormous damage done to our commerce by France ; but the people who lived there did realize and under- stand it. So the danger of intervention in the war in Europe passed. If there is any one thing that Professor Stephens has made mani- fest in the course of lectures he is now delivering, it is that in the age of Elizabeth the thing that made for the prosperity of England was the long peace. He calls it the peace of Elizabeth. While all Europe was distracted and torn into shreds by religious wars, while men of energy and men of thought were driven from Prance, from Germany, from Spain, from Italy, from all over Europe — the one country where they could find an asylum and peace was England. They brought with them their capital, their intellect and their handicraft, and in the thirty long years of peace in the reign of Elizabeth they built up that country and laid the foundations of its commercial greatness. Sons of the American Eevolution 105 Washington started a similar era of peace for the United States. Non-intervention, the chance to develop along our own lines and in our ovs^n way, to consolidate our government, to build up the national sentiment, was his policy; and here we are to-day, as the result of that policy, a strong, possibly the strongest nation on earth. It is like water after champagne to listen to me after Professor Stephens, but what I say has a point, which is simply this: That this man of peace, this man who was so unselfish that he was ready to resign power as soon as opportunity offered, a soldier who relin- quished the sword and set an example which every other great soldier we have ever had has followed, has not a monument, not a marker, nor a memorial of any character within the State of California ! Is it possible that we are so far removed from the traditions of our ancestors that we cannot, even with all the wealth of the State of California, raise a monument to George Washington? You can- not go anywhere in the Eastern states, from the Gulf of Mexico to the St. Lawrence River, without finding statues and monuments and memorials of every description of Washington. But I venture to say that the most careful search through the State of California would not develop a single memorial, a single token of appreciation of this great man. People traveling aroiind the globe come here, to a portion of the great republic that he founded, and yet they find nothing to commemorate the existence of the one man of all men who did most for his country. They must be impressed vdth the idea that Washington is gone, and forgotten. That is not creditable to the people of California. We raised thousands and thousands of dollars for the Sanitary Commission. A sack of flour was sold, if I am not mistaken, for twenty-five thou- sand dollars. It first started, as you know, in an election bet. One man bet another a sack of flour upon the election. The defeated man had to carry the sack home with him, which he did. When he got it there he asked what he should do with it; said he did not want it. Some one shouted, "Sell it for the benefit of the Sanitary Com- mission!" He mounted his gate-post and sold the sack of flour for fifty dollars. The man who bought it called out, "Sell it again!" like a true miner, "I have plenty of flour." It was sold over and over again, and that sack of flour was carried all over the State of Nevada and the State of California, and the East, and finally it was baked into little eakes, which they sold for one dollar apiece. That demonstrates that it is not that we are not generous, but because we are forgetful, that Washington has no monument in California. And the more shame to us, that we should forget the greatest benefactor our countrj^ ever had. 106 California Society At the business meeting of the Society, Compatriot Sampson, after the business was finished, arose and proposed that a subscrip- tion be started for a monument to George Washington. I suggested that the subscription be opened at this banquet, to which Mr. Samp- son consented. So that under the auspices of the Society of the Sons of the American Revolution there is to be started a fund for a monument to George Washington. A subscription paper has been quietly passed around tonight and there have been subscribed one hun- dred and ten dollars. Each one of the persons named has subscribed five dollars, and no single subscription can be more or less than five dollars. Any two or three or five persons can combine upon one subscription. With one hundred and twelve people here, it seems to me we ought to raise more than one hundred and ten dollars. I think every person present should go to the secretary before he leaves the room and put down his name upon this subscription list. Subscriptions will be deposited in a savings bank, and a campaign started in which the newspapers have agreed to co-operate with us. I hope within a very little time we shall have enough to start a monument to Washington's memory. (Applause.) BANQUET OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1908. The President (Mr. Sargent) : I believe it is Lord Palmerston who says that the human race must fall at each other's throats once every generation. Taking up the history of the world, at the time when the Barbarians poured in from the fall of the empire and from the peace which the Roman Empire had maintained for cen- turies after the physical power to preserve it had passed away, the history of Europe fully bore out the aphorism. The hundred years of war between Prance and England, the seventy years of religious war upon the continent, and down to the time of our own Revolu- tion, makes a war rather less than every generation. The preservation of the peace, in spite of the warlike instincts of some sovereigns and some generals, has been the care of states- men in all times. At the end of the war which gave us our independence there also came white-winged Peace. That is the theme which to-night brings us together, and, to speak to you upon that subject, we have asked to attend here to-night a gentleman who will give you the view on the subject of those who live and believe in the text, "Peace on earth, good will towards men." It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you Doctor Rader. (Applause.) Sons op the Amekican Kevolution 107 "THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN TREATY." By Rev. William Rader. Mr. President and Gentlemen: I have been rather jealous of your position this evening, since I do not belong to your organization. If you will pardon a personal reminiscence, I will venture to say that I was brought up in the atmosphere of the American Revolu- tion. I very well remember that one of the relics of my ancestors was an interesting flintlock musket which on a Fourth of July I proceeded to load with a half a pound of gunpowder, and fired off, having a washline tied to the trigger. The musket did the rest. (Applause.) I think that that musket itself is an argument for the fact that I am legitimately a Son of the American Revolution, siuce it was used by one of my illustrious ancestors in the war against Britain. And then, too, looking back upon my early life, I remem- ber that I was brought up in the vicinity of some of the famous Revolutionary battlefields. I used to play upon the heights of Valley Ford, overlooking the beautiful Schuylkill, and spent many precious hours in the sacred Hall of American Independence, putting my boyish hand upon the bell, and spelling out that immortal motto taken from the Old Testament, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." Certainly, so far as my in- heritance is concerned, if I may speak a personal word, I ought to be, I suppose, though it may be difficult for me to prove, a descend- ant, a legitimate Son of the American Revolution. (Applause.) Standing here this evening, I certainly share your spirit, and I hope in the few words that I shall utter to be able to express your sentiments, so far as these sentiments involve the large and splendid passion of American patriotism, as that passion was ex- ploited by the muskets and guns of our Revolutionary fathers. I am to speak to you this evening upon the general subject of "Peace," upon the particular subject of our relations with Great Britain. The nations of the earth have been gradually moving in the direction of a world organization of national life. Perhaps this is the most significant movement in modem times: the organ- ization of all the nations of the earth into a world power, into a world passion of international good-will and fellowship. This is due, first of all, to the physical conditions under which we have been living. The nations of the earth have been brought into closer relations than hitherto by steam and electricity. The ships that pass to and fro across the Atlantic and the Pacific have brought into juxtaposition the governments of the hemispheres. We are are 108 California Society eliminating space, we are annihilating distance, by virtue of our modern material progress. So that the sea is no longer as broad as it once was, so that the world is living in a closer unity than it ever did in the past. In the second place, because of the mathe- matical formula that "things that are equal to the same things are equal to each other." This is particularly true of the relations between Great Britain and the United States. First the wars were fought for the liberation of men, and now wars are fought for the unity of men. Unification is one of the ruling passions of the twentieth century. We are beginning to come together in religious things. Great Britain and the United States worship the same God, revere the same Christ, read the same Bible, attend the same churches, and practically accept the same creeds. So that re- ligiously we are one. So far as the language is concerned, the English tongue is being spoken the world over. It is the tongue of commerce and the tongue of eloquence. It is becoming more and more the common speech of the common people. And this is a unifying principle which has brought together the nations of the earth. Furthermore, we are of one blood. There never was a truer thing stated than this, that we are one people so far as blood is concerned. These bonds of commerce, of the affinity of flesh, of religious qualities, and of the unifying passion of democracy — because of these we are becoming more and more one people, pos- sessed with common ideals and assured of a common destiny. In the third place, we are beginning to realize a world's patriot- ism. It was a great hour in our national life when we escaped what I would call the provincial patriotism of the state, of the tribe, of the family, or even of the Nation. It was a step in advance when Great Britain, for example, escaped from the narrow limitations of British patriotism, and it was an equally significant step when in the United States of America we evolved from our provincial Amer- ican patriotism. There is a State pride; there is a National pride. But, gentlemen, there is also an International pride, a patriotism not based on the provincial interests of a single people or a single era, but a patriotism based on the universal concept of the brother- hood of man and the fatherhood of God. And so I take it that we are emerging to-day, all over the world, into that universal patriotism which comprehends all races and all governments and all mankind. Speaking of peace in this connection, reminds us that we are showing some signs of the contrary. It seems almost sarcasm to emphasize the world's peace when we are continuing the building of battleships and the exploitation of magnificent navies. We saw Sons of the Ameeican Revolution 1U9 not long since a caricature of the conference at The Hague repre- sented in the Dove of Peace sitting upon eggs made of cannon-balls, which lay in a nest composed of straws made of spears and bayonets. We have been reminded of the "merry widow" hat upon the head of the Goddess of Liberty, trimmed with guns and torpedo boats. All of which would seemingly indicate a discrepancy between our ideals of peace and our practice of war. In the presence of our friend, the United States Senator, who has uttered the wisest word concerning the American navj% you will permit me to remark, representing not wholly the opinion of the church, but sharing, if you please, the riper opinion of the United States Senate, that peace can never come wholly through the police power of a great navy; that the reality of peace is found in the fulfilment of law and in the voluntary obedience of the indi- vidual and of the nation to those high ideals which stand for Christian civilization ; that there is a peace which comes from the threatening club of the policeman and the shadow of the United States army rifle and the formidable gvins upon our battleships, but that is peace by compulsion; that the era of peace that is yet to dawn will be marked, not by compulsion and force, either in the army or in the navj% but by the development of that kingdom of peace which is the kingdom of God within us; that when we have peace that shall last it shall come when the individual man, when the city government and the state government and the national government will voluntarily obey the precepts and the example of the Great Master of Peace, our Lord Jesus Christ. And to this end I think we need to have our attention directed this evening in the consideration of this all-important thought that is now confronting the world, the conservation of the world's peace; so that we may realize the dream Tennyson has expressed in these words : "When the war drum throbs no longer, And the battle flag is furled, In the parliament of man. The federation of the world." In the fulfilment of that dream, gentlemen, the United Statea has taken a very conspicuous place. It has occupied a first and important place in the declaration of this peace. A great change has come over the world since the days of George Washington. It is a long step from Washington to Roosevelt, and many things have happened between these two periods. One of the notable things which has happened has been the peace between the two great English-speaking peoples. Tou will recall that in 1897 the Hay-Pauneefote Treaty was defeated on our side of the Atlantic, due, perhaps, in part, to the influence of the Irish ; 110 California SociETt that in 1905 the Hay and Durand Treaty was also defeated, due in part to the jealousy of the Senate and senatorial dignity, for we have a United States Senate in America, and that body of distin- guished lawmakers is very jealous of its place, and it looked upon this proposed treaty as a challenge to its independence and its authority, so that it, too, was defeated. In 1906, thanks to Secretary Root on the one side, and that distinguished gentleman over on the other side of the Atlantic, Mr. Bryce, on the other, a treaty was framed with conditions satisfactory to both parties. You will re- member that one of the conditions of this treaty of 1906 was a special agreement which made it possible for the dependent colonial possessions to have something to say in any agreement arrived at; and also that it was agreed that the President of the United States, with the consent of the Senate, should have something to do with the formation of the agreement. So that, having the President in his right place, and the Senate also satisfied with the authority dele- gated to it, the treaty of 1906 became an actual fact, and is another bridge spanning the Atlantic, binding together the two great English-speaking peoples. This is only one of the manifestations of the peace of the mod- ern world. And I wish to speak, in passing, of some of the causes which have brought this about. These causes are vested, for the most part, in individuals. Individuals are the cause of progress, and when we speak of any successful measure or accomplishment we must also speak of certain eminent persons through whom and by whom these achievements have been made possible. We would omit the purpose of the gathering this evening if we did not defi- nitely mention certain individuals who have during the past decade stood conspicuously before the world as the great peacemakers of the earth. I do not mean that kind of peacemaking referred to by Mark Twain in the London drawing-room, when he was found by his friend reading the New Testament. The friend said to him, "I find you are reading a new work." "Yes," replied Twain, "I am read- ing the New Testament. Here is a reference to the English even in the Sermon on the Mount, in the fifth chapter of Matthew." "In- deed, what is that?" was the query. "Why, it says 'Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,' and that refers to you English people." (Laughter.) I do not know but there is much truth in this, and the men whose names I mentioned represent that kind of Americans who are to possess the earth. It is not the kind of man who has a chip upon his shoulder, who boasts of the power of his army and of his military reinforcements, but it is that quality which represents the profounder principles of Christian civilization. I look to them, for instance, to our English representative at Wash- Sons of the American Revolution 111 ington, Mr. Bryce, who more than any other foreigner has seized the situation and interprets the American people in his "American Commonwealth." Thank God for Mr. Bryce, as he has stood be- tween the two nations and brought them together in international good-will through this treaty of 1906. And back of him, let us not forget King Edward, the present illustrious King of Great Britain, who is always ready for this kind of thing. We have on our own side Secretary Root, who has distinguished himself, next to Mr. Hay, as an accurate interpreter of those fundamental prin- ciples of international good-will which have served to bind together the two great nations. Back of Secretary Root stands the greatest peacemaker of the twentieth century, or even of the nineteenth century, the man who has the ability to fight on the slopes of San Juan in such a way as to challenge the admiration of the world, and who, in a larger and grander way, stood between the forces of Russia on the one hand, and the armies of Japan on the other, and, in the name of humanity and in the name of God, said, loud enough for the whole world to hear, "Let us have peace" — President Roose- velt. (Applause.) And then we have, back of Roosevelt and Root and Bryce and Hay, the Czar of Russia, the most military man in Europe, and yet the man from whose lips emanated the first sug- gestion of The Hague tribunal; and back of him the greatest and most revolutionary man of the twentieth century, who is so far beyond our civilization and our organized Christianity as to be lone- some, as one who would stand among the snows of the highest summits — Count Tolstoi. When we trace the present desire for peace to its source, I am inclined to believe that we trace it back to Tolstoi, who has spoken in words of thunder to the modem world, calling that world out of war into peace. It is a very interesting study, this origin of The Hague tribunal, to which the legal aspects of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States are to be referred. I think that we have in this, first of all, the consciousness of the inevitable destiny of the British and American people as the moral police of the world. We do not know the future; no man can guess the morrow. This seems, how- ever, to be assured, that the American and British people are des- tined to become in certain respects the custodians not only of the world but of the world's prosperity.- Great indeed and uncertain is the future. The Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes are to be intertwined as the symbols of universal peace. The business of the Britisher and of the American is not to make material conquests and conquer the nations of the earth, but the business of these two peoples is to make the world better and purer. If there is anything worth while in democracy as it is lived in these two great nations, 112 Califoenia Society then that democracy should be established everywhere. Is there a nation that is downtrodden? Liberate it. Is there a people living in the shadow of ignorance? Enlighten it. If there a government that is being humiliated by the baser passions of the people? Stand by it. The political mission of Great Britain and the United States is to establish democracy everywhere, to give every people in the world a "square deal," to stand by those who are standing alone, and to rescue those who are being trampled underfoot. The Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes that have been so splendid upon the fields of battle in the past, now should be blended and bound together as the united symbols of a larger experience, of a better government, of higher ideals, and of that illumiaation which is to cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. I believe, gentlemen, that this is the consciousness that is pos- sessing us at this present time. And this consciousness began with the American Eevolution. Here we have a species of patriotism which must more and more be lifted up from the city and the state and the national to the international plane. I know of no type of American patriotism that is better fitted to go out throughout all the earth than that patriotism which shot the guns of our Ameri- can forefathers, and which immortalized the battles of the American Revolution. What we need to do in the United States, in the City of San Francisco with its political corruption, everywhere through- out the length and breadth of our land and throughout the whole world, is to foster that spirit which rang the bell of American inde- pendence. (Applause.) And I believe that England herself shares this particular attitude. I very well remember being in London some years ago speaking before five hundred men in the very heart of that city. And when I came upon the platform, the gentleman who had charge of the service that afternoon, said, "Sir, recognizing the fact that you are an American, and loving America even as you do, we have decided to sing some familiar hymns that you sing in the United States, written by your own authors." And so he showed me a list of those hymns. There was one from Lowell, and then there was another that I had to look at the second time. I said, "I think there must be some mistake about that. I believe you have here our National anthem." And he said, "Yes, we are going to sing it." And there stood those five hundred loyal Englishmen, in the presence of one American, and sang that grand hymn as I have never heard it sung before or since : "My country, 'tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee I sing." Sons of the American Eevolution 113 And I said to them in reply, "The next time an English minister oc- cupies my pulpit in San Francisco, we will sing at least two stanzas of 'God Save the King,' if I have to resign my pulpit the next morn- ing." Now, gentlemen, they did not always sing "My Country 'Tis of Thee" in Great Britain. There was a time when thej' sang an en- tirely different hymn. You will remember that picture that was painted by the talented artist of the Revolution, Trumbull, and which now hangs in Buck- ingham Palace. The reason it hangs there is that it describes that moment of the Battle of Bunker Hill when our gunpowder gave out and ammunition was gone, and the British seemed to have the better of the fight. Just at that time the artist seemed to photo- graph it and put it upon immortal canvas. We Americans never liked it, and so we permitted it to be hung in Buckingham Palace, where Britishers can gratify their feelings all they please by gazing upon it. But you know there has been a great change since those days, and the change has been brought about in the revolution of religion and society and government and polities and language and literature, so that the literature of Great Britain is the property of the United States, and the literature of the United States is the prop- erty of Great Britain. Charles Dickens belongs to us just as surely as Mark Twain and Fenimore Cooper belong to them. Henry W. Longfellow is the property of the English people just as surely as John Ruskin and Thomas Carlyle are the property of the United States. We are one in passion, in literary desire, in political ideals, in religious convictions, and we stand as one before that uncertain future which faces the modern world at the present time. Let us, therefore, stand for peace. I hope the time will come when we shall have no more war. As Sherman well said, "War is hell." And yet, gentlemen, I would not have you think for one moment that I would diminish the authority or the significance of our magnificent American navy. I believe that the President of the United States is pre-eminently right in building more battleships. We are in a position at the present time when it is absolutely neces- sary for us to maintain the peace of the world by the authority of the greatest navy that we can fling out upon the seas. We are to listen this evening to an address by Senator Perkins, upon a topic with which he, more than any other member of that body, is familiar, the place of the American navy in the seas of the world. And yet I look for- ward to the time when we shall have no navy. I look forward to the time when we shall have no army. I look forward to the time when we shall send every soldier from the Presidio back to his office, to his farm, and to his factory, when we shall convert the guns of 114 Calipoenia Society our battleships into plow-shares, and when we shall be good enough and brave enough and strong enough to protect our interests, not by the authority of gunpowder, but by the eternal principles of right and wrong. (Applause.) To this end I think we all need to look, and for this end we all should work. And in doing so, we should not be unmindful of that interpreter of Anglo-Saxon liberty and peace, Rudyard Kipling: "God of our fathers, known of old — Lord of our far-flung battle line — Beneath whose awful hand we hold Dominion over palm and pine- Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet. Lest we forget — lest we forget." (Applause.) "THE NAVY IN TIME OF PEACE." By U. S. Senator George 0. Perkins. Mr. President and Friends: "When I looked at the programme this evening, while I could but feel flattered that my name headed the list, I stated to your toastmaster that I desired the benefit of the clergy, and, therefore, wanted to hear my friend Dr. Rader speak first. He has honored us, and we have all had a literary and intel- lectual treat, as we always have when we listen to him. Perhaps I had another motive in view. I remember when quite a smaU boy I undertook to study elementary astronomy. I had learned that in our solar system the moon had no light of its own; that it became quite useful by reflected light borrowed from the sun; therefore, I thought I might borrow some light from our distinguished speaker, who has preceded me, and say something, perhaps not to controvert what he has said, but bearing upon it. And yet he has reminded me very much of a Justice of the Peace in one of the interior counties of our state, at a town where I was engaged in mining for many years. He was a good reasoner, and he would argue a matter and pre- sent his views in the most pleasing manner, and his conclusions were always right — but they had no bearing whatever upon his reasoning. Oiir friend Dr. Rader has given us an intellectual treat, as I said, but he winds up with the very proposition that I intended to lay before you, and to use a nautical term, has "taken all the wind out of my sails." Your Toastmaster says I am a sailor by vocation. I might add that I am a merchant from necessity and a politician by accident. I followed the sea for a great many years when a boy because I was born in that old rock-bound State of Maine, where it is pretty hard to get a living, unless you go to sea. When I visited a foreign country I became more patriotic, particularly when I saw Old Glory Sons of the Amebican Eevolution 115 waving over the consul's house and felt that I was an American citizen and entitled to the protection of that flag. I have always been loyal to Old Glory, and loyal to our institutions. While I have undoubtedly made many mistakes, yet I have tried to do the best I could. The Navy of the United States has a very warm place in the hearts of the people of this country. If there is any one institution in this country that is non-sectarian, and non-partisan, and belongs to no section of the country, it is the Navy of the United States. In the first place, the government has established for the educa- tion of its officers a naval school at Annapolis, and annually makes an appropriation for its support, and every Congressman of the United States, every delegate in Congress from the territories, and every Senator has a cadet, a midshipman, to appoint to that naval academy, so that its graduates represent every section of this country, every Congressional district. The President of the United States also has the appointment of twenty cadets at large, and he is supposed to appoint to the academy the sons of naval officers who have rendered distinguished and efficient service to oiir country. Therefore they enter the academy representing different political and geographical sections, and different religious denominations. It is non-sectarian, and non-partisan. Even the populists and the socialists are represented in the naval academy, and in the Navy. For the first appointment I made to the naval academy I had a competitive examination held. A little Irish boy out in the Mission won the prize and was appointed to the naval academy at Annapolis. To-day he is a lieutenant commander. One of our admirals in the Navy is the son of a merchant ; another is the son of a laboring man, an Irishman working on the public roads in the State of New York, when the boy heard that he had been appointed a midshipman at An- napolis he was working alongside of his father. To-day he is a rear admiral, commanding one of the ships that recently visited our own harbor. I only speak of this to show you that every part of this country is represented in the naval academy and in the Navy, and it should be popular. Every city in the United States has a blue- jacket or a marine in the Navy. Someone is enlisted in the Navy from every city anrl town in the Union. When I first went to Con- gress in 1893 only thirty-seven per cent of the enlisted men in the Navy were Americans. To-day eighty-two per cent are American citizens or have declared their intention of becoming so. The Navy has become Americanized, and I believe to-day that our Navy is the best bond for peace that we can have in this or any other country. It is a notice to the world that we can defend ourselves, and this is one of the reasons why I favor a strong Navy. 116 California Societt My friend Dr. Rader might say he is not in favor of a city fire department because we do not call it out every day. But when a conflagration comes, and the fire alarm calls it to action, we must have a fire department to put out the fire. For the same reason we have a police force and when a man fails to observe the rights of others and the dictates of law and order, we call upon a police- man — if we can find one. At any event, the principle is correct: We must be in a position to defend our country and our cities. I believe in the Golden Rule, but I interpret it the same as David Harum did, "Do unto others as they would do unto you, but do it fust." I was interested in what Dr. Rader said about our British friends. Yet he failed to refer to America's friend, Rev. Dr. Beeeher, who went to England during the trying times of the Civil War and was almost mobbed by the English people. They did not look upon our Navy with much respect at that time. I respected Gladstone — great statesman as he was — for his ability; but I honor John Bright, be- cause he had a Christian soul within him and sympathized vdth the United States in the conflict between the North and the South. I never could forgive Gladstone until he died because of his sympathy with the South; although he was a Christian, he had been brought up in a school that believed England's financial prosperity was para- mount to all other interests. If he had been animated by the same principles as John Bright and my friend Dr. Rader, I am sure he would have espoused the same patriotic cause to which Beeeher de- voted his voice and his pen, and which Dr. Rader now preaches and advocates. Our Navy was born on December 22, 1775, as you remember, and Zeke Haskins, from Rhode Island, commanded the little fleet in the waters of the Delaware, if I remember correctly. There were only eight vessels, none of them much larger than a good topsail schooner sailing out of this port to-day. It was called "the fleet of whale- boats" by the English naval officers. It was then and there that First Lieutenant John Paul Jones hoisted to the masthead of the "Providence," the largest of the fleet, the rattlesnake flag, a yellow emblem with a pine tree in its center and a rattlesnake coiled be- neath its branches, with the words written on its ground, "Don't step on me." He went down the Delaware and they didn't step on him as he went out to confront the English fleet of 112 battleships, frigates, and other ships of war, with 3714 guns, all heavier than ours, with only one hundred and fourteen guns all told. It seemed audacious to face such an adversary. If we had had the navy they possessed, with our brave and gallant men, we would soon have wiped them from the sea. But we had John Paul Jones, and you Sons of the American Revolution 117 know what glory he won for us. He went to England and made a raid on Scotland, where he was born. The Continental Congress had then adopted the Stars and Stripes, and he first hoisted them to the masthead of his vessel right under the shadow of old England. I like England and I like the British people — in their own country. But they respect us more when they know we can take care of ourselves. When the "Constitution" — "Old Ironsides" — went out and met them at sea and won her great victory over the "Seraphis," sending her to Davy Jones' locker, and later on meeting some of the other ships, England commenced to have respect for us. And if we had had a navy equal to half of England's, she would have had still more respect for us and there would have been no war. In 1812, when the question was whether we should have the rights of our sailors respected on the sea, whether or not our ships should be searched, you vdll remember that the "Constitution" again went out, met and captured the "Guerredere," the "Java," the "Cyane," the "Levant," and other ships, and we soon brought them to time again, as Americans on sea and land have proven their valor and patriotism. During our Civil War, England permitted ships to be built in her shipyards that were sent out as privateers. It was in violation of every treaty of neutrality that England had ever negotiated. If we had had the navy that we should have had, England's action would not have passed unchallenged at that time. At the close of our in- ternecine struggle the Geneva conference awarded damages for their unlawful acts and censured their violation of a sacred treaty. Our friend Dr. Rader says he believes in a good navy. We have a splendid navy to-day. There has been an evolution in the Navy of the United States during the past twenty years. Swelling sails have given way to the engine and the screw. Wooden vessels to the steel battleship clad with armor-plate. Smokeless powder has taken the place of common black powder. The old smooth-bore gun has given way to the breech-loading rifled gun. And the result is that to-day we have a navy second only to that of England, and the equal, man for man and gun for gun, of that of any nation on the face of the earth. A strong navy, as I have stated, is the best bond for peace, the best assurance we can give foreign nations that we can take care of ourselves and that we are ready to protect the honor of our country if need be. Our friend Dr. Rader referred to the Hay-Pauneefote treaty, which was rejected by the Senate of the United States. It was proper that we rejected it because, as it was interpreted and con- strued by the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Senate, it would 118 Calipoenia Society prevent us from fortifying the Isthmian Canal, or the entrances to it. England saw the mistake which she had made, tliat she could not outgeneral the Senate in diplomacy, and the treaty of 1906 was negotiated and ratified by the Senate. As you are aware, the Con- stitution of the United States makes the Senate a part of the ap- pointive and treaty-making power, and a Senator would be negligent of his honor, and certainly violate his duty, if he voted for any measure that he did not believe to be for the interest, the honor, and the benefit of his country, which he in part represents in the Senate. The Constitution, by its provisions, divides the law-making power into three different divisions: the legislative, to make the laws, the judicial to construe them, and the executive to enforce them. All treaties must be ratified and confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate before they become the supreme law of the land. I think it was one of the wisest of actions on the part of the Senate that the first Hay- Pauncefote treaty was rejected. We are building a great isthmian canal, to cost us from two to three hundred million dollars. Why- should not the United States have control of it without consulting other nations ? We say to England and other countries : "You may pass your vessels through it and pay tribute to us. But, if we see proper to fortify it, we are going to do so." We do not propose to give away our rights for the present or for the future that properly belong to us. When I was appointed a member of the Committee on Naval Affairs in 1893, Congress appropriated only twenty-three millions of dollars for the annual support of the Navy. We have continued to increase the annual appropriations until in the first session of the Sixtieth Congress we appropriated $123,000,000 for the increase and support of the Navy. When I became a member of that Committee there was not a single battleship afloat, though two had been ordered or contracted for. To-day we have twenty-nine battleships afloat; we have two of the Dreadnaught type, 18,500 tons, contracted for, and two more authorized by Congress now under construction. I believe it is the part of wisdom for us to continue in the way we have been going, learning by our own experience and profiting by the mistakes of other nations. We do not want to build to-day the old superimposed turrets or other abandoned theory of con- struction, or to use antiquated engines and boilers that were but a few years ago the proper thing to have. The battleship "Oregon" that went down the coasts of Central and South America, passed through the Straits of Magellan, and arrived off the coast of Cuba to take part in the battle there is comparatively obsolete to-day. She is not within twenty-five per cent as effective as the "Kearsarge" or "Ken- tucky," which were built ten years later, while the "Connecticut " Sons op the American Revolution 119 which was here a few months ago is fifty per cent more effective for fighting service. It is a progressive improvement you see in hulls, in machinery, and in equipment. The Navy is constantly in process of evolution. And there is no branch of the government in which improvement is more marked. We have increased the personnel of our Navy in fifteen years from 20,000 to 48,000 men, sailors, bluejackets, ofiicers and marines. The coming session of Congress will provide for two more battle- ships, other auxiliary vessels and for improvements and equipments in our navy-yards. I remember once hearing a story of the time when Franklin was our minister to France. He was sitting at a banquet table similar to the one at which we are now sitting. Someone arose and said, "I give you the health of the King of France and call it the Sun." Another arose and said, "I give you the health of the King of Eng- land and call it the Moon and Stars." Someone alongside of Franklin said, "Mr. Minister, with the Sun, Moon, and Stars gone, what will you do?" Franklin arose and said, "Gentlemen, I cannot give you the Sun; it has already been appropriated. I cannot give you the Moon or the Stars, because they have been allotted to another^ country. Therefore I give you 'The United States of America, and I call them Joshua, Son of Suns, at whose command the Sun, Moon, and Stars stood still." So I say to my good friend Dr. Rader to-day, that if it had not been for our Navy and its power in the world President Roosevelt could not have asked Russia and Japan to send their representatives to meet at Kittery, Maine. He could not have said, "Let us settle this difficulty that now exists between you. Let us submit this whole question to arbitration." I am in favor of arbitration, but the best way to make arbitration a success is to show that you are capable of caring for yourself. Then if proper arbitration can not be had, we can do the other thing. The Hague conference has been productive of great things. I wish the millenium could come on earth. But in that connection I am reminded of the story of a theological student, just graduated, and full of enthusiasm and religious zeal. He went to the Bishop and said, "Bishop, I am going out to evangelize the whole United States. I am going to evangelize everyone in every city in this nation." The good Bishop commended him for his thought and bid him God-speed in his mission. A year afterwards he met him and asked him how he was getting along. "Well," he said, "I have not made quite the progress that I expected to, and therefore I am going to confine myself to Indiana," in which was the theological school from which he had graduated. "Well," said the Bishop, "that 120 CALrPOENiA Society is a pretty good mission, my friend, if you can evangelize all of the people of Indiana you have done a noble thing." He did not meet him again for a couple of years. The young man had then got into bad ways. He had been associating, perhaps, with some of the offi- cials in San Francisco. Be that as it may, he had taken to drinking, gambling, and so on. The good Bishop asked him, "How have you been progressing in your religious work which you encouraged me so much to believe that you would accomplish for the good of humanity?" "Well," he said, "Parson," (he was half -seas over then) "I have come to the conclusion that if I save my own soul, I am doing pretty darned well." So it is, my friends, we are continually preaching about what we are going to do, to save our people and other countries, and what we are going to do for other people. Let us stick to our own country, and let us say, "We are citizens of this great Republic ; each one of us has a political duty to perform, that of American citizenship." And where is there a greater honor than that of being a citizen of this great Republic, and of which you are all heirs? But, citizens of California, the United States carries its responsi- bilities ! No man can neglect a political duty, any more than he can a religious or a home duty. It is his duty, and your duty, and my duty to put honest men in office, and if you find them dishonest, it is your duty to punish and give them the just deserts which they merit, I care not who he be, rich or poor, high or low. If the oiBceholder violates a trust, or betrays the confidence reposed in him, he deserves the condemnation and censure of every good citizen. So I feel that our Navy is the one branch of our government that should have the moral support and its officers and men the advice and counsel of every good citizen. We are all proud of our Navy. Wherever it goes it floats aloft Old Glory, a bond for peace, surety for law and order, an inspiration for patriotism in the American, wherever he is, whether at home or in a foreign country, when he sees the Stars and Stripes floating at the peak of a battleship it thrills him with American enthusiasm. I think the amity and good-will engendered by the trip of the fleet of the ships of the Navy around the world has been of great value to us as a nation. Especially is this so in Chile and Brazil and the other South American republics. It has shown the nations of that continent that we are for amity, good will, peace and harmony, and renewed commercial relations between them and the United States. Then again, my friends, as a home business proposition the Navy is a good investment. The money paid out for every ship that we build is kept among our people. Ninety per cent of the money that goes into every ship is labor. Labor digs the iron ore from the Sons of the American Revolution 121 ground, it runs it from the furnace into pigs of iron, then into ingots of steel, to be rolled out into plates or fashioned by the lathe into valve, piston, or cylinder of an engine. It is all labor. We give employment to our own people, we build the ships in our own ship- yards and in the United States navy-yards. We ought, therefore, to do it as a business proposition. The lumber comes from our forests, the lead from our lead mines, the tin and zinc from our tin and zinc mines, the copper from our copper mines. The artisan works and moulds it into shape, until it becomes a thing of life and usefulness, pulsating and throbbing with vitality- — it is the ship of the Navy plowing over the ocean. So the battleship is not a messenger of harm, it does not go out to do harm, but it goes out as a messenger of peace and good will from us to the other nations. As to our army: We have the smallest army, per capita, of any civilized country in the world. We have only about 60,000 soldiers, hardly enough to man the fortresses from Maine to Florida, and yet one-third of that armj^ is in the Philippine Islands, which we are bound, by honor and the duty that we owe to those people, to give a good government and maintain law and order. Therefore, while some of our political friends are charging us with extravagance in our army and navy, they do not speak from the records. We are the most economical government in the world in respect to our standing army. Someone said to me, "California is asking too much for appropria- tions for the Presidio, too much for fortification, too much for harbor improvement." I said to my Eastern friend, "Why, California is larger than half a dozen of your Eastern States. The length of the coast of California from Crescent City to San Diego is as great as it is from Eastport, Maine, to Charleston, South Carolina." He looked at me in astonishment. I said, "Look at your elementary geography. Rhode Island has an area of only four hundred and fifty square miles, while California has one hundred and fifty-seven thousand square miles, with her great, diversified and varied resources, so im- mense that we cannot really realize what we have here. We as Califomians all honor our state. We honor her great institutions of learning, philanthrophy, and public spirit, and we are striving to make California one of the greatest states in the Union, as it ought to be and will be. Nature smiles upon us most bountifully, and has given us everything that human thought or mind can conceive. But, we must all join hands and work together with that object in view if we would help our state. Do not throw rocks at your representa- tives in Congress because they do not in every respect carry out your views. Rather sit down and write a friendly letter to your 122 CALrFORNIA SOCIETT member in Congress giving him your advice and counsel. Remem- ber that we are only your servants in Congress and we need your counsel and advice rather than your censure. "We will meet you more than two-thirds of the way if you vsdll co-operate with us, as we desire to so act that we will merit your good opinion. Whatever the people want, public sentiment directs and will secure. If public opinion is in favor of a large navy, a large army and great internal improvements, we shall have them. It all depends upon the gentlemen who control the public press, and especially you, who, as members of this Organization, trace your ancestors from those old Revolutionary heroes who laid deep and well the founda- tions of this Republic. With the approval of the people, who are the source of all power, we are going to continue improving the Navy of the United States, second only to that of England in number of ships. She perhaps needs a greater navy than the United States since she must send her ships to her provinces of New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and in Africa. It is only necessary for the United States to maintain its relative present position to that of Great Britain. And there never was a time in the history of our country when Old Glory was more honored at home or more respected abroad than to-day. It is therefore eminently proper my friends that we, as sons of Revolutionary fathers, should rally around Old Glory and "Up with our banner bright, Sprinkled with starry light, Spread its broad emblems O'er mountain and shore. While from the summit high, Loud rings the nation's cry. Union and Liberty, one evermore." BANQUET AT HOTEL ST. MARK, OAKLAND, NOV. 28, 1908. President Sargent: Compatriots, Realities are sometimes more strange than fiction. At the time of the Revolution the wildest imag- ination of our ancestors would not have conceived of the Pacific Coast as a country with prosperous communities, large cities and happy homes, such as we have around us. Such changes are brought forth in the fullness of time. We meet in this city to-night for the first time. We are glad that we came here, and we are only surprised that we did not come before. It is a very simple proposition, so obvious that nobody thought of it. It reminds me of Columbus and the egg. Nobody could seem to think how to stand the egg on end, until Columbus set it down a little hard on the table, and it stood itself. It is quite Sons op the American Revolution 123 a simple proposition, but none of us understand why we did not do it before. We have an unexpected treat in store this evening, in the fact that we are to be addressed by Dr. Baker, who will now speak to you on "Progressive Patriotism." "PROGRESSIVE PATRIOTISM." By Rev. Ernest E. BaJ^er. Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Sons of the American Revo- lution : It is only fair to you, as well as just to myself, to say some- thing that the President has very kindly neglected to say so that you should not feel too disappointed, that I am here to take the place of ex-Governor Pardee. Those of you who remember your college days will recall the equation when "x" was an unknown quantity, and when you have the place of an ex-Governor supplied by an ex-preacher, you have two unknown quantities. (Laughter and applause.) And it is up to you to find out the value of that equation. Personally I congratulate myself, but commiserate you, on the absence of the ex-Governor. Because while I may be able to fill his place in quantity, I must say that I cannot possibly fill his place in quality. A distinguished representative of the Society, who honors Oak- land with his citizenship and his commercial activity, reminds me of a character in one of Shakespeare's plays, where it is said, "1 can call spirits from the dusky deep !" And so can I and so can any man. But will they come when you do call them? I refer to Mr. Capwell, who is to speak after I have wearied your ears, for they do come when he does call them, so compelling is his charm and so persuasive is his eloquence. Augustine Burrell, an English critic, says that when a man resorts to humor in making a speech, it is because he is sorry for his audience and sjonpathizes with them. He thinks, however, that any man who has a serious mind ought not to be so sorry and so sympathetic as to give them too many occasions to laugh. He says, "I no longer make my audience laugh. I punish them." And so to-night, with so distinguished a company, and so illustrious a subject, if you will pardon my seriousness, I will proceed to punish you, and I trust that you know how to take your punishment. I am using phrases evidently not familiar to the patriotic gen- tlemen present. "When I address a church congregation they seem to know the language of the prize ring, and respond accordingly. (Laughter.) Permit me, however, to recur to the feeling that I myself have concerning the manner of being invited to speak, before 124 California Society I take up the subject of "Progressive Patriotism." I am reminded of a story of an Irishman who was a conspicuous object on the streets of London. He had seen very serious times in the past, and had sears to show the experiences through which he had passed. An eye was gone, an ear had disappeared, his nose was somewhat out of joint, an arm had been removed, a leg was wanting, and he was there on the streets of London to solicit the charity of passersby. An Englishman came up and took a glance at him and dropped ia the cup a sixpence. He passed on but soon he came back after going about a square, and took a good look at him, and he put in a shilling. He went on further and returned again and looked at the man very carefully and put in two-and-six. He hadn't gone more than an hour until he returned and investigated the man very, very care- fully, and put in a five-shilling piece. The Irishman was overcome with gratitude, so that he proceeded effusively to express his thanks. The Englishman interrupted him and said, "That is not charity. The fact is, I have never seen an Irishman trimmed to my satisfaction before." (Laughter.) The application is very evident. This is not charity on my part; it is satisfaction. I have not seen such patriotic gentlemen in such goodly numbers and looking so happy and prosperous and con- tented in a long while, and I am very happy to be here. (Applause.) The day we celebrate. — I did not know we had a day to celebrate until my well-informed and literary friend, Mr. Capwell, told me what the day was, that there had been in the remote ages an evacu- ation of New York. I don't think he even told me that it was the evacuation of New York; he simply said it was Evacuation Day. The only Evacuation Day I remember was when I took my first voyage at sea. (Laughter.) But I fortunately found some books of reference that my friend, Mr. Capwell has, and I looked the mat- ter up, and I discovered that on November 29, 1783, the city of New York was evacuated by the English under the leadership of Sir Guy Carlton, and on that same day the army of the Colonists entered, and there was great joy on the part of' American citizens in New York City, when this very fortunate consummation of the War of the Revolution was brought to its grand consummation. I have not any doubt that it was a memorable time then, and I am sure that you and I would not miss this Evacua,tion Day, for on what pretext could we have come together and had this festive occasion and regale ourselves with these luxuries of the season and look into each other's faces and say, "We are patriots indeed, in comparison with the patriotism of the past"? But, more seriously, when, nine days after the evacuation of the city of New York, General Washington, for he was not then Sons of the American Revolution 125 President "Washington, took farewell of the officers of the Colonial Army, and bidding them an affectionate farewell, said : "With a heart full of love and gratitude, I now take leave of you, and most devotedly wish your latter days may be as prosperous and happy as your former ones have been glorious and honorable." And then history goes on to tell us that he drank the toast, having poured out a glass of liquor, and then he invited all his officers to come and take him by the hand, after which he marched down where there was a boat waiting to take him across the river, so that he might resume his peaceful pursuit of the cultivation of his farm. And with the soldiers lined up with uncovered heads, with the church bells ringing the joy of this great hour of triumph, he proceeds to be the Amer- ican Fabius, and to find himself at peace, at rest, honored and revered by all who have ever come in contact with his greatness and with his patriotism. I am pleased to say to you, that this was the most memorable occa- sion in the history of the American people, when there had been brought to an end the great conflict, a conflict that meant the exist- ence of a Union and of a Nation, having accomplished which they then addressed themselves to the constructive period of developing their own country. I have looked very briefly at the pages of his- tory that include the years that succeeded the evacuation of New York, the glorious consummation of this armed resistance, and this assertion on the part of the American people that the right to rule was no longer a divine right, not a Heaven-ordained right of any class to govern, but that Man, by virtue of his very existence, by virtue of creation, was sovereign in his own right, and that in these later days all just rights in government were derived, not from the will of the ruler, but from the consent of the governed. When this had been established by the intervention of arms, then came the period that was the most painful and the most perilous, the most critical in the history of the nation, that period of transition, from the time of the Colonial Confederacy to the time of the Con- stitution. I am surprised when I turn to the record and flnd that six years intervened between the time of the evacuation of New York and the adoption of the Constitution. And in that time, the attend- ance upon the Colonial Congress was reduced from ninety-one to twenty-five, the attendance being wholly voluntary, the pay of the congressmen at that time being assumed by the States, each State having an opportunity to send not more than seven congressmen nor less than two. And in the sending of these seven, the States that sent them had to assume the responsibility and pay the expenses of the congressmen. As a conseqeunce, when the war was over the interest in their hanging together in this Confederacy disappeared ; 126 California Society there were a great many States that refused or failed to send their representatives, and so Congress had to adjourn from time to time, by reason of a lack of a quorum, and for thirteen days they stayed adjourned because there was no quorum. I am pleased to report to you that, at a time when interest in public affairs was so little and so slight that only seven States were represented out of the original thirteen, and only twenty delegates were present, that the resignation of Washington was received and acted upon, and at the time when the Treaty of Paris of September 3, 1783, which recognized the independence of the American Colonies, only twenty-three representatives of eleven States were present. And so, alas, was the Confederacy ! so separate were the various colonies, so independent were these integral republics, that the favorite toast that was proposed in those days was a toast like this: "Here's to a hoop to the barrel," meaning that there was but the one barrel and one hoop to hold it together in the form of the national govern- ment. Another toast was this : "Here's to a cement to the Union," meaning that the Union was so separated in its integral parts that there could be no Union, and that cement was needed. Now, my friends, the effort that was made at the time following the evacuation of the city of New York was an effort of this sort, to gather together those barrel staves and to form a barrel; to gather together those pieces, those separate pieces, and to form one piece, a Union, that should be indissoluble, and that should never be broken, and by no power, within or without, should ever be separated again into its original elements ; and the man who could under any circum- stances make himself a factor at this time, was the man who was the true patriot, and the man who made himself for the establishment of the government and for the perpetuation of our patriotic form of republican government. I am pleased to report to you that after many, many days of conference, after many months of debate, after drawing together the patriotism of a new country and of a new people, the greatest document ever evolved out of the human brain was submitted for ratification to the American colonies — ^the Constitution of the United States, the greatest single document ever conceived by the mind of man, unaided by inspiration, is this document knovsm as the Consti- tution of the United States. And yet, strange to say, it took a great many months, it took a great many debates and a great deal of argument, to get the Colonies to ratify the Constitution. Unless we are familiar with this page of our American history, we do not know how near it came that the Colonies refused to ratify the Constitution and make one great gov- ernment. Delaware was the first to make the ratification, because Sons of the Amebican Revolution 127 under the provisions of the Constitution, the small States had equal representation in the Senate with the large States, in the form of two senators. As a native of Pennsylvania, I am proud to say that Pennsylvania was the second on the list to ratify the Constitution. New Jersey was the third — under what guise we may call the man from New Jersey a foreigner, I do not understand at all. Georgia was the fourth, Connecticut was the fifth, Massachusetts the sixth, Maryland the seventh, South Carolina the eighth, and it is worthy of note that, when the ninth State should ratify the Constitution, that then the Constitution was binding upon the nine States that made the ratification, and while Virginia was in the throes of a consti- tutional convention that made for or against the Union, New Hamp- shire had ratified the Constitution and made it bindiag upon the nine States, and Virginia never heard of it until, by formal vote and a long debate, they came to the conclusion that they should enter the Union. New York, after many, many weeks of debate and discus- sion, led by Alexander Hamilton for the Union, finally ratified the Constitution. North Carolina was the twelfth, and you may remem- ber that Rhode Island was the thirteenth. Mr. Capwell very kindly suggested to me that I call your atten- tion to the fact that, immediately after the War of the Revolution was over, there began a period of construction. Just as Washington retired from military office and his military leadership and went back to his plantation and addressed himself to the arts of peace, to the cultivation of his farm and to the care of his slaves, and to the ordinary pursuits of an aristocratic gentleman (for he never was a democrat in any sense of the word, although he is the Father of our Country), all others went in the same way to make for home upbuilding, to make for the upbuilding of the church, for the up- building of the college and the school, to make for the development of the interior — the very first adventure in the way of internal gov- ernment came immediately after they had successfully resisted the oppression of the Mother Country. I do not myself hesitate to say that the same problem is on with us. Have we the same devotion and patriotism? Are we as capable and as consecrated to this great service? Are we as ready to turn away from the time of jeopardy and of peril to the time of peace and prosperity? I wonder whether you and I are as thankful Thanksgiving night as we are Thanksgiving morning. It is a very different thing for a man in time of national peril to be patriotic and to stand up for his country than it is for a man in time of peace and prosperity and abundance and all that makes for self-aggrandize- ment, to carry on a patriotism as progressive, and to stand for a citizenship that is constructive, and to make for himself a place in 128 Califobnia Society public affairs, where he shall count in the waj^ of conscience and in the way of influence. (Applause.) I define the various forms of patriotism in this fashion : The patriotism of the Revolution was a patriotism for self-existence. The patriotism that came in the time of the Constitution was a patriotism for the right to be unified. In 1812 there was the patriot- ism that would protect the American citizen, even though he were ■ only an American seaman. In the time of the Mexican War, it was a patriotism that was progressive, that was meant also to protect and enlarge American territory. First there was American exist- ence, then American resistance of foreign oppression, and then resist- . ance of disintegration, and then in the War of 1812 came insistence upon protection from wrongs upon the seas, and then in the Civil War came the protection of the American people in the time of in- ternal strife — I think that if you gentlemen will give me your atten- tion, we will not need to recognize the presence of the barbarians. [The reference was to some persons who had entered the dining room and become very noisy.] Colonel Kinne: Mr. President, the best way will be for us to leave the dining room and let them have it to themselves. Mr. Baker: That would not be in the spirit of the American Revolution. I think we should say that we will not leave anything. (Applause.) It was only in the time when we were under fire that we found we had the ability to stand together and to meet even the worst of competition and opposition. In the time of the Civil War, there was the progressive patriotism that protected the oppressed that were black, and in the time of the Cuban War there was the patriotism that protected the oppressed when they were yellow. And I claim that to-day the patriotism that is progressive is the patriotism that will protect the oppressed, even though they should be white. And the time will come when you and I will have a con- structive patriotism that will protect the white man though he may be oppressed ("Good," "Good") by law, by inequality, by any injus- tice, by any unrighteousness. The oppression of the white man any- where is the white man's burden, and the American burden, and as American citizens we stand here to-night to say that we will all ignore the petty persecutions and stand for the uplift of every man, whatever be his color, black or yellow or red or white — whatever his color, we stand for him. Now, the proposition that comes to you and to me is this: In . the sentiment of Webster, we have this sort of a feeling. He says : "To preserve the government, we must also preserve a correct and energetic tone of morals. When the public mind becomes vitiated and depraved, every attempt to preserve it is vain, laws a nullity. Sons op the American Revolution 129 and constitutions waste paper. There are always men wicked enough to go any length in the pursuit of power, if they can find others wicked enough to support them. Vicious men must be re- strained by the public morality. When they rise up to do evil, they must find themselves standing alone." I wonder whether I may refer to conditions that exist over in our sister city? I wonder whether the men who have risen up to do evil are standing alone? If they were standing alone, standing by them- selves, with their evil deeds, there would be none to go to their support and none to go to their defense. It is only because when wicked men rise up to do evil, and good men stand with them, that they seem to be lost in the crowd, and find some escape and some pro- tection. (Applause.) It is a question of, with whom we should stand, and in this city it seems to me the call should come to every citizen, whether he belongs to this Society or not, to stand with the people who stand for righteousness, and to stand opposed to the people who stand for unrighteousness, and to let the unrighteous people stand alone. (Applause.) Patriotism is the principal thing. (Applause.) May I quote to you from a book that I can recommend to you as very interesting reading, wherein it is said that when there was about to be a great reform movement, in which the leader did not dare to stand and lead alone, he gathered some representative men to stand with him on the platform, and, supported by them, he could stand and read the words that had been revealed from on high. And only when the leader has men standing with him can he read out of the Book of Revelation and make the people to understand that the Word that he reads is the Word of God. I think, after having had the most interesting if not the most trying experience to-night that I have ever had, I may call your attention to the three laws that make for our perpetuity, the laws that Senator William Evarts has given us. "Education," he says, "is one of the three pillars that is to support and sustain the Amer- ican people and perpetuate their life; education, which means law from use, not from force, to bring people to such intelligent respect for the right that they will do very well what they will never do under compulsion ; industry, that peaceful pursuit of our usual affairs that makes for content ; and commerce, which is the one great power to carry the world." The representatives of our San Fran- cisco Chamber of Commerce and of our Oakland Chamber of Com- merce, and those from Los Angeles and from Portland and Seattle, that have gone with their representative business men to Japan, I venture to say are doing more to carry good-will to Japan and to disarm the enmity tha,t was perhaps ripe over there, and to bring 130 California Society about a peaceful compact with the United States, than any individ- ual effort might have done. The commercial conquest of the markets of the world makes for our national as well as our commercial suprema,cy. So the three pillars that stand for American supremacy are equal- ity of right, community of interest, and reciprocity of duty. May I ask your attention to one single sentence? I agree with the sentiments of our friends, but I deny their inspiration and the source thereof. I believe that we, as patriotic ciitzens, should com- mit ourselves to this form of patriotism that means that the men with a country, yes, or men without a country, those that should now have a country, shall preserve it and promote it and protect it, and shall make it a country of progress, and shall make it a country of peace. (Applause.) The President : Perhaps the most precious maxim on which this government is founded, is that everyone has a right to do everything he pleases, provided he does not infringe upon the right of his fellow- citizens to do the same. Any number of people properly constituted can enjoy the same place at the same time without interfering with each other. Sometimes that right is trespassed upon. But the gen- tleman is he who conducts himself with the least noise and with the least disturbance, leaving the noise and disturbance to the ill-bred man. I suggest that we show that we are gentlemen, and iquite above such things as are occurring in our presence at this time. Col. Kinne (after the retirement from the room of certain objec- tionable parties intent upon breaking up the meeting) : Mr. Presi- dent, we have gotten rid of a lot of hoodlums. The President: You have my congratulations. Mr. Capwell : And my thanks. Col. Kinne : I ask you, Mr. President, and Mr. Capwell, as a mat- ter of right and propriety, that the names of those parties be ob- tained from the hotel proprietor and published, omitting the ladies. It is nothing short of an outrage. The President : I would not have believed that in a civilized com- munity, anyone wearing civilized clothes could be found who would so conduct himself. It has passed, and we are now in the flush of victory, because we have accomplished that which we have desired. Gentlemen, by the energy and capacity of Mr. Capwell and Mr. Cushing, this gathering here to-night has been made possible. It is a great success. We are still glad we are here — glad that we have seen and that we have conquered. We will now listen to Mr. Cap- well; I know everybody is anxious to hear him. Sons op the American Revolution 131 "SPIRIT OP 76." Address by Mr. H. C. Capwell. Mr. President and Gentlemen, Sons of the American Revolution: The President says we are still glad we are here. I think we are all glad we are here still. I, for one, am rather sorry we have gotten rid of the disturbance. I believe there are a number here who have the spirit of 76 with them and that they are almost sorry the "war" is over. I observed that some of those present had their fighting blood up, and they wanted to get busy. It is a mistake that my name appears as one of the speakers this evening. It was not to have been so. Mr. Gushing is responsible largely for the fact that you are on this side of the bay, and he asked me if I would give him a little help, and I have done so. I think I have given him a great deal of help, and I believe you will agree with me, for the reason that to me fell the selection of the one who was to make the address of the evening. You have heard Dr. Baker, and I believe you will vote that I have done my part. (Applause.) Mr. Gushing asked me to say something to the "boys," as he put it, in the way of jollying them up and keeping alive the spirit of 76 that made it possible for them to accomplish something in the strenuous days of the Revolutionary War, and point out the neces- sity or advisability of those who are members of this Society to-day of standing shoulder to shoulder, as our forefathers did, and not only to try and keep every soldier that was in the ranks in, but, recognizing the advisability and the importance of having a larger army, try and persuade, if possible, volunteers, or draft as many as they thought were ablebodied. In other words, to see to it that every one we know of, who is eligible for membership in this Society, be called upon to come in and swell the numbers. (Ap- plause.) That was all I was supposed to say, and I iatended to take as a text, with an apology to my learned friend on my right, second removed (referring to Dr. Baker) "The Spirit of 76." You will remember that in 1776, a great many thiags had to be contended with besides the English. The men of those times had the Indians too, as we had them with us to-night. (Laughter.) So this disturbance has carried you back to that time. "We have done something more than I expected— we have revived the spirit. "We have rekindled it. You have not crossed the Delaware as "Washing- ton did, but it has taken a longer time to get you over here than it took "Washington to cross the Delaware. I assume, however, there are greater trials to be encountered and larger difficulties to over- 132 California Society come in these busy days than simply plowing your way through the iee, as they did in the old days of 76. We have not only managed to get you here, but have treated you to something better than greeted those who crossed the Delaware. I was going to apologize for getting you over here and having you meet, as your forefathers did, a band of Indians — but I am not going to, for I find you have taken it in the right sort of way, and it has simply brought the "Spirit of 76" back, and Colonel Kinne has demonstrated that he is made of the right stuff, though we knew it any way, since as a Colonel in the late unpleasantness, he thoroughly demonstrated that. A point I want to make is that we who are members of this organization are members of it by reason of the fact that the spirit of 1776 existed. This is the celebration of Evacuation Day. You probably have all read, as I have, that the different engagements that had taken place prior to the arrangement of peace terms, were really nothing compared to what might be called the very last battle, and that last battle, if you please, was when the British troops were marching out, and one of the British officers declared that no Rebel or American flag should float while the British were in the City of New York. But there was a certain Mrs. Day who concluded she would run the American flag up, and she did so, on a little flagstaff that was conveniently nearby. This British officer charged on that flag and proposed to pull it down. But she beat him off with nothing but a mop or a broomstick, knocking his wig off and so dishevelling him that he concluded he would keep right on marching out. That has been called the last battle of the War of the Revolution. Well, we had another one here to-night, and we will attach it to our annals, and history of course will record it, and this will be yet another Evacuation Day. And Colonel Kinne led the troops. (Laughter and applause.) There is another little incident that indicates the spirit of 76, although oceuring some time after, yet it was that same old spirit. When the British moved out of the old fort down at the Battery, before going they pulled down the flag, and knocked the cleats off of the flagstaff and slushed the pole so it would be impossible to go up it. But a boy sixteen years old nailed the cleats back onto the pole, and climbed to the top, so when the British looked back they saw the American Flag flying there. It is that spirit I want to ask all of you to remember and keep with you at all times. It is necessary, in my opinion, that the spirit of 76 be kept alive. That peculiar spirit which leads and enables Americans to do things, seems to have been the same that, for all time, has had something to do with not only the development of this Sons of the American Revolution 133 country, but its discovery. If you have read, as doubtless you have, of the trials and troubles Columbus had in going about from place to place seeking aid to discover this country, you know^ that he had it too. He had the same troubles, the same trials to overcome, and the same difficulties, to get permission, if you please, to come over here and discover this country, that our Colonial fathers had to wrest it from the English, and make it possible for us to be here to- night. Yes, Columbus had trials and troubles. Our President has alluded to his making the egg stand on end, — he just squashed the egg and it stood on end, because he had the thought and the idea that he could do something that nobody else could, and he did do that vrhich no one else did. We are glad he stood the egg on end and demonstrated that he vsras the man to discover this country. Dr. Baker has alluded to the fact that V7e had no understanding of the use of the VFord "punish" in the sense that he had been in the habit of handing out that doctrine. As a matter of fact, the Sons of the American Revolution have no idea of punishment. They have no idea of it, because their forefathers had no idea of pun- ishment. If they had had an idea that they were being punished, they probably vsrould not have gone on and brought about Evacua- tion Day. It is because they never said "Die," — they never said they were punished, — they never knevF they were whipped, or could be whipped, but knew they could not be, that they kept on with that spirit and indomitable will that brought about Evacuation Day, and that means, of course, as you know, the great development that has taken place, not only in the United States, but elsewhere. The fact that this country was successful at that time with the War of the Revolution, has done more for England, more for France, more for Germany, more for the whole civilized world, than anything else has ever done. Yes, the success of that war set in motion things that have brought about more benefits to the people of the earth than any other one achievement. You can bring about much good in your day by keeping that spirit alive, making up your minds that you are going to stay together and be all agreed to protect this country from the evils that are besetting it. Dr. Baker has alluded to the condition across the bay. You all know that if this little organization, or this big organization, if you will make it so, wiU inculcate the right spirit, we will not have things of that sort to contend with. Love of country and true patriotism will keep people from going down into the slums to do business, and from trying to bring about their own ends, through the unholy methods they have pursued in San Francisco. Dr. Baker told us the duty of this Society should be to stand for the moral uplift, and so it should. How many of us stop to con- 134 California Society sider what we are members of this organization for. You know we take a great many things for granted. We are members of the Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, but there are a great many people in this country to-day whose forefathers were not here in 1776, who say, to any man who wears the button, (I am not wearing one because the tailor did not leave a hole in the lapel of my coat) ; "What have you done? You wear this button; you have not earned it. You have done nothing for it." I will grant that is so. We who have done nothing (and I do not, of course, allude to Colonel Kinne, who has done much) — I mean we who are simply good citizens, know we have perhaps done nothing that en- titles us to wear this button as a badge of honor. We are not wearing it for that purpose, but are wearing it as we would put a flower on the grave of a departed loved one, because we revere the memory of those who did do things for us and for this great country. (Applause.) We are wearing it because we are proud of the fact that they gave us the privilege to do so. We are proud of the fact that the spirit of '76 prompted them to do things that no other army under like conditions has ever done or probably ever will do. But, returning to the main thought, I hold it is incumbent upon us to see that we do things for ourselves that would make these same Colonial fathers proud of us, if they could be cognizant of them. (Applause.) We belong to this Society without giving heed enough to the fact. We do not stop to realize that we have a duty to perform. We have that duty, and it should be our pleasure and our pride to not only stand shoulder to shoulder, and come out at all meetings of this kind, whether they are over here in the wilderness among the Indians or elsewhere. We should show our patriotism, and our love of country by being alive to the necessities of the hour in our citizen- ship, and by crossing, as did Washington, the Delaware. I have here a little something I cut out of the paper last night. We have been observing Thanksgiving Days for a long time, and that day is pretty closely wrapped up with the event we are cele- brating here to-night. How many of us stop to read Thanksgiving proclamations 1 And if we do, how much do we find in them except that on a certain day Thanksgiving, as usual, will be celebrated? But did any of you know that this year there was a different ring to the Thanksgiving proclamation? I did not notice it previous to Thanksgiving, but after the day had passed, this came to my notice, and, reading to you only a portion of it, I want to call this to your particular attention : (Here a portion of the last Thanksgiving proclamation was read.) Sons of the American Revolution 135 That is from Theodore Roosevelt's document proclaiming a Thanksgiving Day. It is a proclamation that is well worth read- ing every word of. It is something a little different from anything that has been said before. He does not follow exactly along the footsteps of those who have gone before him : he is willing to strike out in a new path, as were our Colonial fathers — they were con- stantly hunting for new paths. There were no old ones — they were ever striking out to do something, and Roosevelt is the same sort of a man. That is the duty of this organization, to be constantly on watch and on guard, finding new paths, where the old ones have become beaten down. The members of this organization can find a great many things to do, can accomplish much of good, if they will only turn their minds and attention to it, that will be of vast benefit to the community in which they live. It takes a very small seed to make a very large tree, and it takes just a little handful of people with the right spirit and the right determination, to accomplish great reforms and to perform great deeds ; it is simply having life and being alive — that is all it is. I do not know that there is anything more for me to say, except to thank, on behalf of Mr. Gushing and the Oakland members, all of you gentlemen who have come from the other side of the bay, for having come here. Whatever disturbance we have had to-night, I want to apologize to you for. You must understand that we are not numerous enough to take the entire dining room — we will be next time, since you have found how easy it is to get here, and you will find the next time we have an evening in Oakland there will be so large a gathering that we will utilize all of the room — there will be no outlying territory; the boundaries will be extended so that it will all be our own, and we will not be offended or annoyed by the Indians. (Applause.) I thank you again for having come to us. We have been going over to your city for years past, and we are willing to do so again. I know you want to become acquainted with the members of this Society who dwell on this side of the bay, and when you come here, you will have a better opportunity to meet them than perhaps you will on the other side. I assure you that for many, many days, the memory of this evening, the first that the Sons of the American Revolution have been good enough to come to Oakland, will linger with us. I thank you. (Applause.) The President: Now that the precedent has been set of crossing the Delaware, I suggest that we hereafter do the same frequently, and that we may some time have a ladies' night here, and bring the ladies from that side with us. I bid you all good night. 136 California Society BANQUET HELD AT HOTEL ST. FRANCIS, FEB. 22, 1909. The President : Three years ago to-day we celebrated the birth- day of Washington, in this room. A world of history has happened since. The greatest conflagration known in history, not only in extent of territory burned over, but in amount of property destroyed, has swept through our city in the meantime. But this grand building and beautiful room have risen, phcenix-like, from the ashes of the stricken city. Perhaps the most remarkable of all things, was the spirit of the people who suffered this great calamity. I remember few dis- couraging words of the citizens of San Francisco ; and those who had lost most, were those who had least to say in the way of com- plaint. I know of one member of this Society, who had a small boy playing the hose upon one end of his lot to put out the fire, while he commenced building upon the other end. That is typical of the spirit of San Francisco. We are all glad to get back here, for it seems like getting home. I have in my hand a greeting which I will read. It is dated at Portland, Oregon, February 22, 1909, 1 P. M. "California Society, Sons of American Revolution. GEORGE C. SARGENT, President, San Francisco. Greetings from Oregon Society. May the story of the past teach us patriotism we need in the present. WALLACE MeCOMMIN, President." At the time of the birth of the great man whose birthday we celebrate to-night, and in fact one hundred years later, in the thirties of the nineteenth century, there was a very grave discussion whether the Oregon Territory was worth saving. I remember one member of Congress who waxed eloquent and prophetic on the sub- ject, said that if a member of Congress were elected in the Oregon Territory in the November election, and were to start immediately for Washington, he would only reach there in time for the adjournment of Congress. And if he should immediately start out upon his return trip, he would get there just in time to start back again for Congress, and would reach there just in time for adjournment, that he would get home in time to celebrate the expiration of his term of office. From which he argued that the Oregon Territory was not worth hav- ing, and that we had better devote our energies to matters lying nearer to, or in the far West, which in those days meant Ohio or Missouri, or some such locality as that. Sons op the American Revolution 137 The celebrated Proctor Knott soared into notoriety by the fun he poked at the city of Duluth. He pictured a country inhabited by wild bulls, and he drew an inspiring picture of a drove of those animals, charging down the main street of Duluth, with their tails in the air like fiagstaffs, and passing entirely through the town, before they knew they were there. He said the herdsman had to turn back to find the place. And now Duluth is a great city. This telegram, which was received at my office at four o'clock to-day, traveled a distance of twelve hundred miles in that time, which included the transfer from one station to another, a thing which in the time when George Washington was born, and even in the thirties of the last century, would have required about one hundred days. Looking back upon the nineteenth century, it seems almost like glancing back into the Middle Ages. It seems like a different world, a different people. The message of this telegram should be taken to heart: "Teach us the patriotism we need in the present." We do need patriotism, and the patriotism we need is not so much national patriotism, as civic patriotism. There has been no republic known to history up to the present time, that has been able to stand prosperity. They have been virtuous when they have been poor, but when wealth has come, they have, up to date, universally become corrupt. Their institu- tions have gone down before municipal corruption. And unless the people of the United States can evolve a civic patriotism that wiU be proof against municipal corruption, the boasted civilization of the United States will go down just as it went down in the republics of old. We need, and we must have, civic patriotism. We are too strong for any foreign nation to come over and conquer us, or seriously molest us, if we are properly prepared. But we are in grave danger, serious danger, imminent danger, from^the lack of civic patriotism. As an inspiration to that civic patriotism, we have distributed here to-night the words of "The Star Spangled Banner" and "America," which it is intended that you shall take home. It is my experience that most of us do not know those words, when we want to use them. So I suggest to you all to take them home, and commit them to memory. One thing more before I give place to a gentleman who needs no introduction. At the banquet last year, a movement was started to erect a monument to George Washington. I believe there is no monument to George Washington west of the Missouri River. This great empire has grown up, in which George Washington is known only by name. The Germans have erected statues to Schiller and 138 California Society Goethe, and the Scots have a statue to Burns, and there are various other great men whose statues are in the Park. Let me say that I do not begrudge those statues at all, for I think they are proper and show the proper spirit. But it is somewhat of a scandal to us that we have no monument to our First Citizen. I have subscription books here, in which anyone can enter his name, and I want to ask the Daughters of the American Revolution here now to co-operate with us in starting a fund for the erection of a proper monument to George Washington in the State of California. (Applause.) I will not go through the wholly unnecessary formula of intro- ducing the gentleman who is going to speak to you this evening. I simply say to you that in place of the title "The United States as a World Power," he prefers to address you to-night on "The United States as a Center of Peace." (Applause.) "THE UNITED STATES AS A CENTER OF PEACE." By Dr. David Staar Jordan, President of Leland Stanford Jr. University. Mr. President, Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution, Ladies and Gentlemen: I was asked by your President to give you, as well as I could, some lessons to be derived from Washington's farewell address. One lesson was that the United States could not be a world power and be worth keeping up unless it is a home power, unless it is a government for the purpose of making it hot for someone else. That is perhaps the most striking lesson that Wash- ington has left us, that in so far as we try to carry the United States out among the gamblers and warriors of the rest of the world just so far we destroy its usefulness to us and its probability of remaining a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. And so perhaps I shall get the same lesson out of this that I would if I had had the title iirst assigned to my talk. I shall speak to you more particularly of the value of the United States as a center of peace. Out of Washington's farewell address I will read just a few extracts: "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all." "Why forego the advan- tages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of Euro- pean ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?" "There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." Sons op the American Eevolution 139 That will serve as a text, perhaps. Those are a few simple phrases out of Washington's farewell address. It is a tragedy of history that the two most broadminded and most noblehearted, and, therefore, most humane and beloved of all our Presidents, of all our public leaders, have been forced to fight the two great wars which our nation has undergone. The other wars that we have taken part in were petty wars by petty men for petty purposes. One and all, they have been disgraceful as a whole to the United States, although there were a great many deeds of heroism and a great deal of noble patriotism displayed in them all. But these two wars of which I speak stand in a different category. Great men, noble men, had to fight them — -at least, as we understand the situation. The first of these wars was fought in defense of man, in defense of that which makes manhood worth while, equality before the law. Our ancestors came from England because they were thoroughly dissatisfied with the inequality before the law which they found the basis of English policy in those days. There were all sorts of devices to hold men down. There was the law of primogeniture, which made only the eldest son eligible to take or possess the prop- erty. There was the law of entail, which decided that whole coun- ties should belong to some boy long before he was born. There was the Church that ruled the State, and there was the State that ruled the Church. They had no freedom to worship God in the fashion in which they wanted to worship. And the ideas that were prevalent in England in Cromwell's time were the ideas that actuated our ancestors who came over from Somerset and Devon and other English counties, not because they liked the climate or expected to get rich in the new world. They came to a very hard country, — the hardest part of the United States in a way is Massachusetts — to form a settlement in a country filled with Indians and storms, and covered with snow in winter, a "stern and rock-bound coast" — they came to establish free institutions. Then they found that they must fight for equality before the law. So they conceived the idea of forming a nation which could be made up of just plain people. Just so far as you have hereditary titles among men, just so far the men who do not have those titles are made ignoble, and made ignoble before they are born. Their nation was to be made of farmers and fishermen and hunters and woodehoppers and lumber- men, and of all kinds of just plain men, "just plain citizens," the very opposite of the social condition from which they had fled. But, to obtain that equality before the law, they had to fight for it. The shot which was fired at Lexington, we are told, "was heard around the world." It was the beginning of another uprising of 140 California Society manhood, of men as against privilege and caste, and as against the games that are played in the Old World; the formation of a nation which should exist for the people, composed of the people, being managed by the people, as against a nation which owns its citizens, a nation in which the people exist for the sake of a nation, for the sake of the King and nobility, who control the nation. In later years we had another war, which had at bottom the very- same idea, the idea that men should not be assigned before they were bom to a lower place, just because of their ancestry, or, to put it another way, that no body of men should grow rich out of the degradation of another body of men. Lincoln said that "every drop of blood that was drawn by the lash must be drawn again by the sword." And this was indeed the ease. I was thinking but just this evening that it was fifty years ago since John Brown was hung. Many things happen in fifty years. I am almost afraid to have history go ahead, because so many things, and all kinds of things, come to us in half a century. As a boy of eight years I remember very well the death of John Brown, and how he rose upon the fioor of the armory, in Harper's Ferry, wounded, and said, "No man sent me here. I acknowledge no master in human form. I pity the poor in bondage who have none to help them. That is why I am here. You may dispose of me very quickly. I am nearly disposed of already. But this question is still to be settled, this negro question I mean. The end of that is not yet. I have yet to learn that God is a respecter of persons." I remember just fifty years ago, when my brother told me that Lincoln was nominated, and, little boy that I was, I wondered who Lincoln was. He made up some humorous story as to who and what Lincoln was. Three years after that, that brother was stricken down not far from the White House in Washington. He knew better then who Abraham Lincoln was. So many things happen in fifty years — we cannot tell what fifty years hence may bring forth. The last time we were in this room, three years ago, we were not looking forward to seeing it a center of the greatest scene of desolation, the greatest wreck of the works of man, the blind elements have ever wrought. The essence of Washington's address is, after all, an appeal for peace. The reason for avoiding entanglements with other nations was that we might hold our peace, because a nation of men living for their own sake, a nation of farmers, of fishermen, of workmen and hunters and woodmen, and all that, had no occasion to go into the entangling troubles of Europe. He advised us, too, not to be unduly excited against England, because we had once been at war with her. In the same breath he advised us not to be so grateful Sons of the American Revolution 141 towards Prance as to sink our own identity in the interests of France. He looked forward in those days to trouble on the Conti- nent. It was not very long after that three million and seventy thousand of the youth of the continent of Europe were destroyed in the bloodiest wars the world has ever known, wars that have done more to set back the civilization of the world than any other single incident ; the killing off of millions of the best type of men in the world, and in many ways, leave the nations to fill up from the children of inferior stock. Washington looked forward to this. We know he did from let- ters which he wrote to Lafayette and to other friends in France and other countries. He wished to keep his nation out of that kind of trouble. He wished that it might go on with its development until it became great, even as great as England and France. There were not very many people in this country in Washington's day. It was said by Franklin that in a hundred years he would not be surprised if there were half as many Englishmen in the United States as there were in England. One hundred years has given to the United States to-day half more of Englishmen than there are in all Great Britain. Even the most optimistic of those people did not realize how a nation would grow, in peace, and what energy and enterprise would do in a rich and unworn land. The civilization of the nineteenth century has largely come be- cause people have grown tired of fighting, of putting all their strength and energy and spirit, all they are worth, into the horrors of war. Washington wanted the United States to become a home power, powerful in the strength of its citizens, and not a world power, showing its strength by its lavish wastefulness. You know how easy it is for a man to cease being a home power, cease devoting himself to his family, and to go out and attempt to be a world power on exchange, or around the race course, or in some other place where he can make himself conspicuous while he burns his money. That is what nations do who are world-powers — they burn their money and become conspicuous. England was in those days and to some extent is yet, the abode of aristocracy and militarism. Those were the two things against which Washington most particularly wished to warn us. It was not against the aristocracy of a man who makes himself prominent by greatness. Washington was one of that class himself. It was not necessarily against the aristocracy of comparative wealth. Washing- ton was one of the richest men of his time, although he was not loved or famous on account of his wealth. It was against the aris- tocracy that is arrayed beforehand — the aristocracy in which a man is great, on the strength of a decision which is made long before he is 142 Caufoenia Society born. In Europe, some very little men are accorded greatness in that way. It is said that in Asia you will know a genuine lord, because he always loves a cheerful giver. (Laughter.) I said just now that Washington was committed absolutely to the doctrine of peace. I have extracts here from two or three of his letters. "My first wish," he says, "is to see this plague of man- kind, this plague of war, banished from the earth, and the sons and daughters of this world employed in more pleasant and innocent amusement than in preparing implements and exercising them for the destruction of mankind." In the same vein he wrote several times to Lafayette, "Would to God the harmony of nations were an object that lay nearest to the hearts of sovereigns, and that the in- centives to peace, of which commerce and facility of understanding each other are not the most inconsiderable, might be daily in- creased!" And again: "There seems to be a great deal of bloody work cut out for this summer in the north of Europe. If war, want and plague are to desolate those huge armies that are assembled, who, that has the feelings of man, can refrain from shedding a tear over the miserable victims of regal ambition? It is really a strange thing that there should not be room enough in the world for men to live without cutting one another's throats." That shows very clearly (and I have other extracts here) what Washington had in mind in speaking of "entangling alliances." He wras sure that alliances with any part of Europe would bring us sooner or later into war. In going out of our field into the field of somebody else makes us vulnerable, because it takes us away from the strength which we have in living on our own property, in gov- erning our own property for ourselves, and takes us into the pre- carious ground on which other nations stand. For the strongest government in the world is the one which de- pends solely upon the people it governs. It was left for Abraham Lincoln to show how republics live, not by a single life, but the right divine of man, the million trained to be free. It happened that, in one of the most critical periods of our history, the bravest and strongest man of all of us was ruthlessly slain. But this calamity did not jar the government of the United States. I know how much it stirred our hearts, but it did not disturb the stability of the or- ganization. If now, to-day, every official in the United States, down to the humblest Justice of the Peace, or the humblest pound-keeper, and beginning with the President, should suddenly die, leaving the nation without an official, what would we do? The nation would be then — the government would endure, for it is our govern- ment. We would get together and some veteran of the Civil War, or some schoolmaster, would take the chair, and we would proceed Sons of the American Revolution 143 to the election of officers. Then all would start over again. (Ap- plause.) There is no other nation could do it. Suppose that thing should occur in Germany or Italy or Russia ; what would be the re- sult? No one could tell, without government then would be an- archy. When people are held in their position by force, the bond is a weak one. Not so with the bond that holds good citizens to- gether. The greater number of troubles that the United States has to-day comes from the fact that there are so many i^eople who have come from the nations of Europe, who have been held in order by force, and who have come here and found this a free country, and so have established saloon dominion and saloon polities, is the center and heart of the whole matter of corruption in the United States. (Applause.) We had envy and jealousy and passion and the like in our politics before we had this domination of the slums of Europe, but we did not have the form of political corruption that we have known since that time. Look at the names of the leaders of cor- ruption, bosses, small politicians, saloonkeepers, and you will find nine in every ten, even ninety-nine out of every hundred were born in some other country. I had occasion a while ago to visit the little city of Novara, in the northwestern part of Italy. To the southward of the town of Novara there is a little valley, sown to wheat. In this wheatfield men have plowed up the skulls of men who have been superficially buried there. Those skulls have been carried to the north end of the field and piled up in the form of a pyramid, some ten or fifteen feet high. Over this pyramid some one has put up a canopy to keep out the rain. That pile of skulls represents what is left of a good many thousands of young men between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five, young men without blemish, so far as may be, young men from the farms and work-shops, part of them from Prance, part of them from neighboring parts of Italy, and part of them from Austria. Those young men had met there to decide whether Charles Albert should sit on his throne or whether he should step aside and make way for some one else. History records the decision as she records a great many things of less moment. But the only thing that is real in the history of that part of the world is the fact that here are so many men, physically without blemish, as far as may be, at any rate the best they had — so many of these young men that were thrown out of existence. And besides these, all of those who ought to have been their descendants are thrown out of existence at the same time. In other words, the people that are born in their towns, wherever they may be, are bom for the most part from an inferior stock. The best were taken, and the weaker, physically, were left at home. 144 Calipobnia SociETy "We know perfectly well what would happen with a herd of cattle or a stud of horses or a flock of sheep if we should, for even a very- short time, destroy a large number of the best, and then proceed to breed from inferior stock. We know that it would take but a little time to materially change the character of the herd. Just as Mr. Burbank, by selecting the best, the finest, and doLug that for only a short time, is able to develop all sorts of finer plants, finer flowers, and better fruits, just so it is possible to reverse this process of selection, to cheek even the finest stock, and make it weak and poor. Now, if the battle of Novara stood all alone, perhaps the loss to Italy, the loss to France, and the loss to Austria would be something that could be overlooked in history. But Novara does not stand alone. You go along the railway down the River Po, and you will find scarcely a station that does not have its pile of skulls — skulls of the sons of Italy, the sons of France, and the sons of Austria. France has suffered most in modern times, and Italy in earlier times. You follow along, and you come to a town called Magenta. You know what the color of magenta is — the color of the blood that flowed under the orange trees. You come to the town of Lodi, where, under the bridge, the river flowed red. You come to the town of Solferino — Solferino scarlet was once the name of the color on their candle fringes, and the color of the blood that flowed out under the olive groves. The pyramids are the skulls of brave men, young men eighteen to thirty-five years old, young men who were the flower of their country in the physical way, and better than the average in moral ways, because strength of one kind goes with strength of another, as a rule, while there were left at home the weaker, the idiot, the cretin, the man with the goiter, and the man with the hoe, who thus became the parents of the oncoming generation. You can start out from Paris, and you will find many piles of these skulls around the walls of Paris. Follow on to the region around Metz, to Sedan, where the flower of the farms of P'ranee, imtrained and courageous, were slaughtered by the Germans as we kill rabbits in our Fresno fields. You can follow these skulls across to Liitzen and Bautzen, to Jena and Austerlitz and Leipzig and Ulm and Wagram and Hohenlinden, and the rest of the battle- fields that I might think of if I should stop for a moment, and follow them on to Moscow, where perhaps the finest army ever gathered together was absolutely destroyed, only a few men here and there escaping to go back into France. And with those men who were thus destroyed were destroyed also the millions of the strong who should have been their descendants. Sons op the American Eevolution 145 Franklin said once that "wars are not paid for in wartime — the bills come later." Wars are not paid for in the suffering of men. They are not paid for in the sorrows of women, in the destitution of children — they are not paid for in all of the horrors of murder and pillage, not paid for in the enormous sums of money blown into flame with the discharge of every cannon. It was pointed out long ago by Charles Sumner that a single battleship, the "Ohio," had cost more than Harvard University, and yet one single week at Harvard University does more to strengthen this country than all the battleships that ever were made. (Applause.) We find in the same way that the great University of Tokyo has not cost any more than a single battleship, and yet such strength as Japan has centers around that university, where her strong men have been trained. Without that university, Japan would be as helpless as China, or as Burmah, or as any other country which education has not yet welded into a nation. Though the actual cost of war is so great, those are small items, after all. The cost of war is in the fact that the nation which indulges in it breeds ever after in greater or less degree from the inferior stock which is left at home. Of course, not by any means all the brave men are destroyed, but a very large proportion are. So the nation that has had a great many glorious wars has had to pay for it with inglorious days for a long time to come — inglorious days of weakness and most likely of corruption. I am not going to point to France as the special sinner above all others, although France was so unfortunate as to have a great Napoleon. Napoleon, as was said in his day, "peopled hell with the elite of Europe." Three million and seventy thousand of them were destroyed, and of these more than a million were young Frenchmen. There is in Brussels a gallery that to me is a very remarkable one. Among the paintings in this gallery is one that represents Napoleon in hell. It represents the great Marshal with imperturable countenance stepping down to the lower regions, and before him are all the men, so far as the painting can show, that he sent before him — marred with wounds and disfigurements. Behind these men we can imagine those that ought to be in our day, the sons and daughters of those three million and seventy thou- sand that were taken out of the heart's blood of the best part of the world; taken from the good of Europe, out of England, out of Germany, out of France, out of Italy — it matters not from which nation, so far as the future is concerned, for they are all brothers in all these countries, or ought to be, and the destruction of one country is to the injury of all the others. ]46 California Society We hear very many times of the fall of Rome, and very many reasons why Rome fell. There is only one fundamental reason, and tliat is, Rome fell when the Romans were mostly dead. In the early days the Romans had their republic when they were equal. Rome was filled with men who looked up to none as superior to them, who looked down on none as their inferiors, who knew no want that they could not themselves satisfy. In those days it was impos- sible to conceive even of any power dominating those Romans. In later days it was said, "There was a Brutus once who would have brooked the eternal Devil to take his seat in Rome as easily as a king." But bye and bye the Romans were scattered all over the world in the various wars. At home they brought in whole tribes to do their work for them. Those tribes filled up Rome. You remember, as Benjamin Franklin once said, "a hen-coop is always full, whatever the original number of hens or whatever the character." So Rome was always full, even after the Romans were largely gone. At the time of Julius Cffisar, it was recognized that the nation was failing, for the city, the State, was full of sons of slaves and stable-boys, scullions and sutlers, with men of all sorts, but not the original type of Romans. It was inevitable, as time went on, that as the people went down the emperor went up. Greater and greater was his power, and more and more was he worshipped. Because a king is a barometer that indicates the strength of the people. As the king goes up in impor- tance, the people are failing. Just in proportion as the king seems strong, just in that proportion are the people weak. And when the people become stronger, then it is true of them, as Senator Bayard once said, "they are too self-willed and too independent and too self-centered to be ruled over by anybody but themselves." It is not the power of the emperor that makes an empire. It is the weak- ness of the people. It was said, for instance, that "the little finger of Constantine was stronger than the loins of Augustus Csesar." Rome died be- cause the Romans died. Bye and bye the barbarians, who were not skilled in the arts of war as were the Romans, simply came in and filled up the unoccupied spots. All the other reasons for the fall of Rome are matters of very little consequence. The reasons for the relative fall of France, as compared with the former position she held, are due to the wars, and wars only. The only remedy for those things is found in peace, breeding from the best instead of breeding from the worst. The fall of Spain has gone in the same way. And I might go over the nations of Europe. We are especially interested in two nations, because we are Eng- lish people who have had some additional experience and have tried Sons of the American Revolution 147 to escape from some of the faults of our Mother Country. Let us look at conditions in England. The effects of emigration run parallel with the effects of war, but with this enormous difference : the strong men who emigrate are not lost to the world. The loss of one region is the gain of another. But the losses in war can yield no corresponding gain. The effects of emigration can be well studied in England. From Devon and Somerset arose the colony of Massachusetts Bay. Prom the loins of old England arose New England, and from the germ of self-governing New England arose the United States. The coun- ties of Devon and Somerset have no importance in the England of to-day comparable with the part they played in the days of Queen Elizabeth. Their influence is over the seas, with the young men who carried with them the names of Plymouth and Dartmouth, of Exeter and Barnstable. If we could imagine this New England stock in all its ramifica- tions restored to its old home in Devon and Somerset, what a won- derful storehouse of active life these sleepy old counties would become ! Prom every county of England strong men have gone out to conquer and populate the world. The influence of this greater England on the movement of civilization in our day far exceeds that of England at home. "What does he of England know who only England knows?" No stronger line than this was ever written in definition of Eng- land's greatness. As Americans we are more deeply interested in the fate of our Mother Country than in that of the other nations of Europe. What shall we say of England and of her relation to the reversed selection of war ? Statistics we have none and no evidence of tangible decline that Englishmen will not indignantly repudiate. To one who travels widely through the counties of England some part of the cost is plain. "There's a widow in sleepy Chester Who mourns for her only son; There's a grave by the Pabeng Eiver, A grave which the Burmans shun." This is a condition repeated in every village of England, and its history is recorded on the walls of every parish church. Everywhere can be seen tablets in memory of young men — gentlemen's sons from Eton and Rugby and Winchester and Harrow, scholars from Oxford and Cambridge, who have given up their lives in some far-off petty war. Their bodies rest in Zululand, in Cambodia, in the Gold Coast, in the Transvaal. In England only they are remembered. In the 148 California Societt parish churches these records are numbered by the score. In the cathedrals they are recorded by the thousand. Go from one cathe- dral town to another — Canterbury, Winchester, Chichester, Exeter, Salisbury, Wells, Ely, York, Lincoln, Durham, Litchfield, Chester (what a wonderful series of pictures this list of names calls up!), and you will find the same story, the same sad array of memorials to young men. What would be the effect on England if all of these "unreturning brave" and all that should have been their descendants could be numbered among her sons to-day? Doubtless not all of these were young men of character. Doubtless not all are worthy of the scant glory of a memorial tablet. But most of them were worthy. Most of them were brave and true, and most of them looked out on life with "frank blue British eyes." Rudyard Kipling is the poet of imperialism; and as to the cost of it all, we may well heed his testimony. This he says of the rule of the sea : We have fed our sea for a thousand years, And she calls us, still unfed; Though there's never a wave of all her waves But marks our English dead. We've strewed our best to the waves' unrest, To the shark and the sheering gull. If blood be the price of Admiralty, Lord God, we ha' paid it in full! Again, referring to the dominion on land, Kipling warns the Brit- ish soldier: Walk wide o' the widow at Windsor, For 'alf o' creation she owns: We 'ave bought her the same with the sword an' the flame. An' we've salted it down with our bones. (Poor beggars! — it's blue with our bones!) Through all this we have the same refrain, the minor chord of victory, the hidden lesson of war. "The brightest are gone before us, The dullest are left behind." "The living are brave and noble, The dead are bravest of all!" "The kindly seasons love us, They smile over trench and clod; Where we left the bravest of us There's a deeper green of the sod." Sons of the American Revolution 149 In the stately "Ave Imperatrix" : Set in this stormy northern sea, Queen of these restless fields of tide, England! what shall men say of thee, Before whose feet the worlds divide? And thou whose wounds are never healed. Whose weary race is never won, O Cromwell's England! must thou yield For every inch of ground a son? What profit that our galleys ride. Pine-forest-like, on every main? i Euin and wreck are at our side, I Grim warders of the House of Pain. Where are the brave, the strong, the fleet? Where is our England's chivalry? Wild grasses are their burial-sheet. And sobbing waves their threnody. Peace, peace! we wrong the noble dead To vex their solemn slumber so: Though childless, and with thorn-crowned head, Up the steep road must England go. We have here the same motive, the same lesson, vehich Byron applies to Rome : The Niobe of Nations — there she stands, Crownless and childless in her voiceless woe. An empty urn within her withered hands, Whose sacred dust was scattered long ago! It suggests the inevitable end of all empire, of all dominion of man over man by force of arms. More than all v^ho fall in battle or are wasted in the camps, the nation misses the "fair women and brave men" who should have been the descendants of the strong and the manly. If we may personify the spirit of the nation, it grieves most not over its "unretuming brave," but over those who might have been, but never were, and who, so long as history lasts, can never be. It was at Lexington that "the embattled farmers" "fired the shot heard round the world." To them life was of less value than a principle, the principle written by Cromwell on the statute-book of Parliament: "All just powers under God are derived from the consent of the people." Since the war of the Revolution many patriotic societies have arisen in the United States. These may 150 California Society be typified by the association of the "Sons of the Revolution," and of the "Sons of American Wars," societies which find their inspira- tion in the personal descent of their members from those who fought for American independence. The assumption, well justified by facts, is that revolutionary fathers were a superior type of men, and that to have had such names in our personal ancestry is of itself a cause for thinking more highly of ourselves. In our little private round of peaceful duties we feel that we might have wrought the deeds of Putnam and Allen, of Marion and Greene, of our revolu- tionary ancestors, whoever they may have been. But if those who survived were nobler than the mass, so also were those who fell. If we go over the record of brave men and wise women whose fathers fought at Lexington, we must think also of the men and women who shall never be, whose right to exist was cut short at this same battle. It is a costly thing to kill off men, for in men alone and the sons of men can national greatness consist. But sometimes there is no other alternative. War is sometimes inevitable. It is sometimes necessary, sometimes even righteous. It happened once in our history that for "every drop of blood drawn by the lash another must be drawn by the sword." Lytle, soldier and bard, And the EUets, sire and son, Eansom, all grandly scarred. And Eedfield, no more on guard (But Altoona is won!) Bayard, that knew not fear (True as the knight of yore). And Putnam, and Paul Revere, Worthy the names they bore. Allen, who died for others, Bryan, of gentle fame, And the brave New England brothers That have left us Lowell's name. Wainright, steadfast and true, Eodgers, of brave sea-blood. And Craven, with ship and crew Sunk in the salt sea-flood. And, a little later to part. Our Captain, loved and dear — (Did we deem thee, then, austere? Drayton! — pure and kindly heart! Thine is the seaman's tear.) ; Sons of the American Kevolution 151 TerriU, dead where he fought, Wallace, that would not yield. And Sumner, who vainly sought A grave on the foughten field, (But died ere the end he saw, With years and battles outworn). There's Harmon of Kenesaw, And Ulric Dahlgren, and Shaw, That slept with his Hope Forlorn. You remember what John Hay said of Colonel Shaw : "With his eye like a Boston girl's. And I saw the light of heaven that shone In tririch Dahlgren's curls." "All such and many another — Ah, list how long to name!" Those were the names of the officers that were worth while. There were many officers that were not worth while, men whose "fames were bought and sold by the stroke of a politician's pen," as was said, as you will remember, in those days. And the men in the ranks were just as strong as the men who were officers. The other day I was talking with a professor of the University of Cambridge, in England. He said to me that the one thing that impressed him most in a visit to the United States, the most remark- able thing of all the things that he saw or heard, was a casual remark of some friend in Boston in regard to the One Hundred and Thir- teenth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers. That there should be 113,000 men go as volunteers from the State of Massachusetts, with less than a million people, and that so large a percentage, one out of ten persons, should be men in the army as volunteers in the war, of their own accord, and men who went at a loss of property, a loss to their business, a loss of life, a loss of everything, should venture everything for the great prize of death in battle — that was to him the most remarkable thing that had come to his attention in the United States. Has this cost the United States anything ? Suppose we had to-day the sons and daughters of those 650,000 men among us, doing their work among us, instead of the whole tribes that we brought in from other parts of the world to do our work, just as Rome brought them in, just as the other nations of the world have brought them in, to do the work that could not be done without them, after the terrible loss of their own. Has it cost us anything? Might it not be that if there had been no Civil War, there would be produced different results from those that have come about, for instance, by some of 152 Califoenia Society the officials that we have tolerated in San Francisco and in other great cities of the country? Guizot once asked James Russell Lowell, "How long will your republic last?" Lowell said, "It will last just as long as the prin- ciples of the fathers are in the hearts of the people," that is, just so long as the people think of themselves as superior to none, as inferior to none, as capable of taking care of themselves. A republic must be made up of men who can take care of themselves, and each one can contribute something to the welfare of the whole. There was a time when our fathers fought against taxation without representa- tion. Some time we will have to take up more seriously the ques- tion of representation without taxation — a representation of men who have nothing to lose, who care nothing for our institutions, and who know nothing of what our fathers fought for or what this country stands for. (Applause.) I would add a question to Lowell : "How long will the principles of the fathers be in the hearts of the people?" Just so long as the blood of the fathers runs in the veins of the people; just so long as the great body of our people are free-born men, as our fathers were, men who will not stand any kind of domination, either by kings or lords, or priests or princes, or by the riff-raff that we call politicians in the various parts of the United States. There has quite lately been a libel suit brought against McClure's Magazine for calling a man a politician, and I can understand that there are circumstances which would make that libelous. Just so long as the blood of free men, and I do not mean the blood of the men from Devon and Somerset alone, nor of the Puri- tans, nor of the Pilgrims, nor of the Anglo-Saxons. I mean free-bom men from anywhere — from France, from Germany, from Italy, from Switzerland, from Scandinavia, from Japan ; free-bom men any- where are the parents of free-bom men. And there is no kind of free institution which will last while any other kind of men constitute the body of the people. Our institutions will last so long as the principles of the fathers are in the hearts of all the people; they will last so long as the character of our people as a whole is typified by the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution. (Applause and renewed applause.) Mr. Sargent: I think the second applause was the most sincere of all. It has always been a theory of mine, that a man should be allowed to talk about the thing he wants to talk about. I think we have an instance in point here this evening. There is a great moral lesson in what Dr. Jordan has told us. We have all of us read more or less about wars, but I do not think any of us ever realized before the frightful cost that we pay for them. Sons op the American Eevolution 153 There is a part of Washington's farewell address which we have systematically ignored, but that is, "In time of peace, pre- pare for war" — prepare in order that you may not be forced to pay this frightful price. The wars of the present time are fought out with the fighting units in existence at the time that the war com- mences. There is no war that lasts as long as it takes to build a battleship. The result is, that you go into the war, and you go through the war, and you conclude it, with the fighting units in existence at the time the war commences. It, therefore, behooves the nation that does not wish to pay this frightful price, the sacrifice of its bravest and best, to so prepare itself that no one will attack it. That is the correlative lesson of what Dr. Jordan has given us this evening. I hope you will permit me to offer that as an adden- dum to his most interesting address. It only remains to say that these little books are still in my hands, to thank you for your attendance here to-night, and to say that those who wish to come forward and contribute to this Washington monument may do so now. I thank you for your attendance here to-night. (Applause.) 154 California Society MEMORIAL SKETCHES. By Thos. A. Perkins, Historian. Andros. Milton Andros was born in Berkeley, Massachusetts, February 9, 1823, and died in San Francisco, Cal., April 23, 1908. His father, Thomas Andros, served in the Revolutionary War and afterwards became a Congregational minister. He was educated in the common schools of Massachusetts, ad- mitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1847, and for a time was assist- ant United States district attorney in that Sta.te. In 1865 he came to California for his health and practiced law in San Francisco until the time of his death. He was a lawyer of the old school. He made a specialty of maritime law. He leaves a widow, whose maiden name was Sarah A. Oilman, and one daughter, Helen Hengstler. Anuistead. Cecil Miller Armistead, son of Sarah A. Armistead and James H. Armistead, was born near Lynchburg, Va., July 7, 1867, and died in San Francisco, Cal., Feb. 7, 1908. He was a descendant of "William Armistead of Virginia troops, Captain Robert Cobbs of Virginia militia, and Frank Thornton of Lee's Battalion of Light Dragoons. He graduated from the medical department of the University of California in 1896, and was clinical instructor in tha,t institution up to April 18, 1906. His genial manner and ability in his profession won him a large practice and a host of friends. The hardships which he endured performing relief work in 1906 brought on the illness which caused his death. He gave his life for his fellow men. He was unmarried. Ayer. Leonard Barnard Ayer was born in West Cambridge, Mass., March 30, 1835, and died in Sacramento, Cal., May 24, 1907. He was the son of Lucy M. and Leonard Ayer, and great-grandson of Wil- liam Ayer of the Massachusetts militia. He came to California and settled in Marysville in 1859, where he attained a prominent position and was one of the best known and most popular men in northern California. He engaged in farm- ing and later was a lawyer, an editor, and a merchant successively. From 1865 to 1875 he was register of the United States Land Office Sons op the Ameeican Revolution 155 in Marysville. His last years were spent in the oiHce of the Secre- tary of State at Sacramento. "Of amiable disposition, generous to a fault, Mr. Ayer counted his friends by the thousands and his death is the occasion of wide- spread regret." — Sacramento Union, May 25, 1907. Booth. Lucius Anson Booth, son of Sally Wooster and Anson Booth and grandson of Walter Booth, sergeant Continental Army, Con- necticut Line, was born in Oxford, New York, May 15, 1820. He came to California via Mexico in 1849 and was one of the original incorporators of the Central Pacific Railroad. He and his cousin, Newton Booth, Governor of California,, were founders of the well-known firm of Booth, Adams & Co. of Sacramento. He was a successful merchant and figured prominently in the early history of California. He was one of the leading members of the Society of California Pioneers. He removed to Oakland, Cal., in 1871, where he died July 18, 1906. Buckingham. Aurelius Eynaud Buckingham, the son of Ellen Proctor Smith and A. A. Buckingham, was born in San Francisco, Cal., April 4, 1855. He died in San Francisco, November 2, 1907. He was the great-great-grandson of Daniel Smith of Dedham, Mass., private in Col. Heath's Regiment, which marched on the Lexington Alarm, April 19, 1775. He was a life-long resident of San Francisco. A wife and three sons survive him. Catlin. Alexander Donaldson Catlin, son of Ruth A. C. Donaldson and Amos P. Catlin and great-grandson of David Catlin, First Lieutenant of Connecticut Militia, was bom in Sacramento, Cal., January 2, 1869, and died in Searchlight, Nevada, January 9, 1908. Compatriot Catlin was of a roving disposition ; he lived in many parts of the world and had been a miner and prospector in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. He was unmarried. Dennis. John Hancock Dennis was born in Concord, Massachusetts, May 28, 1835, and died in Reno, Nevada, March 21, 1907. He was elected a member of the California Society of the Sons of the American Rev- olution. His applications were destroyed in the San Francisco fire before one was sent to Washington, D. C. 156 Califoenia Society Friend. Roger Berry Friend, general manager of the Pacific Coast agency of the Providence Insurance Company, died at his residence in Oakland February 22, 1908, from nervous prostration. He was bom in Oakland, Cal., December 8, 1873, and was the son of Emma R. Babson and William H. Friend and grandson of John Low, Lieu- tenant-Colonel of Massachusetts Militia,. Mr. Friend was one of the most prominent fire insurance men in California. His ability and personality won him high recognition and hosts of friends. He was prominent in the Masonic fraternity. His father, mother, and brother, Rev. William Nat. Friend, survive him. Hindes. George Whitney Hindes, son of Arminta Fuller and James Hindes and great-great-grandson of Abraham Fuller, Captain Con- necticut Militia, was bom July 18, 1829, at Plattsburg, New York. He entered the United States service November 1, 1861, as acting First Lieutenant, 96th New York Infantry; was promoted to Cap- tain, Major, and commissioned Lieutenant Colonel April 22, 1865. Joining the Army of the Potomac, he took part in the siege of Yorktown and the battles of Williamsburg, Fair Oaks, White Oak Swamp, and Malvern Hill, Kinston, Whitehall, Goldsboro, Little Washington, Newberne, and Plymouth; Bermuda Hundred and Drury's Bluff, Fort Harrison, Petersburg, and before Richmond, and entered that city with his regiment April 3, 1865. He commanded posts at Dover Mines, Huguenot Springs, City Point, Culpepper, etc., and was honorably mustered out of service February 6, 1866, at City Point, Va. After the close of the Civil War he engaged in the fire insur- ance business at Burlington, Vt., where he remained until 1888, when he came to San Francisco and associated himself in business with his son. He was of a genial nature, a thorough business man, scru- pulously upright, and greatly beloved by his comrades of the G. A. R. and the Loyal Legion. He died in San Francisco March 12, 1908. A wife and children survive him. Hosmer. John Allen Hosmer was born in Toledo, Ohio, September 15, 1850. He was the son of Mary Daniels and Hezekiah L. Hosmer, first chief justice of Montana, and great-grandson of Titus Hosmer who signed the Articles of Confederation and was a member of the Continental Congress. Sons ob' the American Revolution 157 He came to California in 1872 and located in Stockton, where lie worked as a printer. He was self-educated and read law in Montana and California outside of working hours. In 1873 he was admitted to the bar in California, a,nd in 1875 he was elected district attorney of San Joaquin County ; after two years he resumed practice in Stockton, where he remained till he came to San Francisco in 1882, where he spent the rest of his life. In 1886 he was appointed assistant district attorney of San Francisco. He held that position till 1898, being first assistant most of the time. He was appointed Judge of the Superior Court in San Francisco February 6, 1906, to fill an unexpired term. On Janu- ary 7, 1907, he was a.gain appointed to fill a vacancy on the Superior bench, which office he held at the time of his death. He died of pneumonia May 1, 1907. He was a prominent Mason and was presi- dent of the California Society of the Sons of the American Revolu- tion at the time of his death. He was one of the best read criminal lawyers in Ca.lifornia. He was conscientious, of a quiet, retiring disposition, and always courteous to his opponents. In 1884 he married Lucie Brewster, daughter of John A. Brew- ster, surveyor-general of California. His wife, two sons, Allen B. and Irving T., and one daughter, Mary M., survive him. Hume. Robert Deniston Hume was born in Augusta, Maine, October 31, 1845, the son of Elizabeth Webber and William Hume and grandson of John Hume of Massachusetts Militia. He received a common school education in Maine, came to Cali- fornia in 1864, with his brothers, George W. and William R., and engaged in salmon fishing in California, Washington, and Oregon. Later he located at Wedderburn on Rogue River, Curry County, Oregon, and established a salmon cannery and was known as the "Salmon King." He owned steamboats, timber lands, practically all the town of Wedderburn and much property in California, including a home in San Francisco and one in Piedmont. He was a member of the legislature of Oregon and edited and published a newspaper in Wedderburn. He was a student all his life and a recognized authority on salmon. After he was fifty years old he read law and was admitted to the Oregon bar a few years ago. His first wife and children died. His second wife was Mary Duncan, who survives him without issue. He died in Wedderburn, Oregon, November 25, 1908. He was a prominent Mason and Knight Templar. He left an estate valued at more than two millions. 158 Califoknu Society Hush. Valentine Goldsmith Hush was born near Newmarket, Licking County, Ohio, December 15, 1842, and died at his home in Pruitvale, Cal., February 18, 1908. He was the son of Louisa Beall and Peter Hush and great-grandson of Nathaniel Lrish, a Captain of Pennsyl- vania Volunteers. Mr. Hush was a prominent citizen in all communities in which he lived. Before coming to California in 1886 he had been president of a bank and a director in many commercial organizations. He served in the U. S. army during the Civil War. He was a member of the legislature of Minnesota in 1884. He was admired for his sterling integrity, geniality and kind- heartedness. He was engaged in the real estate business in this State. Litchfield. Joseph Miller Litchfield, son of Mary Stanford and Samuel Litch- field and grandson of Noah Litchfield, private on Lexington Alarm, was born in Lewiston, Me., February 19, 1848, and died in San Fran- cisco, Cal., October 4, 1908. He entered the service in the Civil War on September 10, 1862, at Portland, Me., as a private in Company A, Twenty-third Kegiment of Maine Infantry Volunteers, and was dis- charged on July 15, 1863. He re-enlisted February 29th, 1864, as hospital steward in the Thirty-second Eegiment of Maine Volunteer Infantry and was discharged December 12, 1864. At the blowing up of a mine near Petersburg he lost the entire hearing of one ear and had the other badly affected. He came to San Francisco, Cal., in 1865, where he spent the rest of his life. He served as railroad commissioner and bank commissioner of California, also as a member of the board of super- visors of San Francisco, and was also Lieutenant-Colonel on the Governor's staff. He was engaged in business in San Francisco from 1870 until April 18, 1906. A wife and several children survive him. Loop. Sidney Joseph Loop, son of Phebe Hill and Augustus Loop and great-grandson of Seth Strong, Connecticut Militia, died in Berkeley, Cal., July 29, 1908. He was bom in Alburg, Vt., November 22, 1829, educated in Burlington, Vt., and came to California via Cape Horn, in 1850 and soon after settled in Alameda County, and engaged in merchandise. He was a member of the Vigilantes Com- mittee, volunteer fire department of San Francisco and the Vet- eran Firemen's organization, and was president of the Associated Veterans of the Mexican War, and one of the directors of the Yount- ville home at the time of his death. He married Harriet N. Redman October 22, 1857. Two children survive him, Frank Sumner and Mrs. J. K. Hamilton. Sons of the Amebican Revolution 159 Manley. James Sewell Manley was bom in Augusta, Maine, April 15, 1854, and died of heart failure at his home in San Francisco, Cal., January 28, 1908. He was the son of Caroline G. Sewell and James S. Man- ley, a brother of Joseph Manley, late of Augusta, Me., and a great- grandson of Captain Henry Sewell, of York, Maine, who served in a Massachusetts regiment during the Revolution. The Manley family and the Sewell family have always been prominent in Maine. Compatriot Manley was educated in the schools of his birthplace, and for two years was in the United States Naval Academy in the class of 1873. He came to San Francisco and entered the service of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company in 1874. He remained in this company's service until 1875, reaching rank of third officer. From 1875 to 1879 he acted as a temporary clerk of the U. S. District Court at San Francisco. In 1879 he was promoted to deputy clerk of the U. S. District Court and in 1883 he was appointed United States commissioner, and in 1885 was made chief deputy clerk, which two last-named offices he held at the time of his death, after a continuous service of nearly thirty years, the longest of any official in San Francisco connected with the Federal courts. He was the best informed official in admiralty practice in San Francisco, and attorneys who practiced in that court will long remember and appreciate his kindness and courtesy. He was ever ready to give assistance and advice to those unfamiliar with the pro- cedure of that department. In 1882 he married Mary Seliek, who with his two sons, Warren and Joseph Sewell, survive him. He served on the Board of Managers as Marshal and at the time of his death had just been elected Junior Vice-President of the California Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. Mr. Manley represented a high type of patriotic American citi- zenship. He was a faithful, conscientious public official; a just, upright and honest man; an affectionate, indulgent husband and father; and a genial, whole-souled, helpful friend to all. Marwick. David Bailey Marwick, son of Caroline L. Bailey and Albert Marwick and great-grandson of James Pray, private Massachusetts Militia, was born in Pittston, Maine, September 19, 1853, and died in Palo Alto, Cal., December 28, 1907. Compatriot Marwick was a resident of Grass Valley, Cal., since the early seventies. He was one of its most highly honored and respected citizens. He leaves a wife and two daughters. 160 Calitoenia Society Mead. William Henry Mead, son of Sarah and Bradley Mead and great- grandson of John Paulding, one of the captors of Major John Andre, was born in New York City, April 1, 1834, and died in Oakland, Cal., May 14, 1906. He was one of the organizers of the California Society of the Sons of the American Revolution and its first treasurer. For many years he was the secretary of the Contra Costa Water Company of Oakland. Olney. Edward Olney, son of Caroline Dayton and Charles C. Olney and descendant of Samuel Snow, Captain Rhode Island Artillery, was bom in Oakland, Cal., August 3, 1870, and died in Monrovia, Cal., June 14, 1908. He attended the public schools of Oakland, Har- mon Gymnasium, and entered the University of California in 1889, where he remained three years. He was a mechanical engineer. He married Frances D. Jackson June 14, 1902, who survives him. Paul. Almarin Brooks Paul, son of Phebe Brooks and Hiram Paul, was born in Bridgtown, N. J., September 13, 1823, and died in San Fran- cisco, Cal., January 12, 1908. He was a grandson of Almarin Brooks, Lieutenant in Continental Army, New Jersey Line. He came to Cali- fornia in 1849 and was a prominent member of the Society of Cali- fornia Pioneers and New Jersey Society of the Order of Cincinnati. He was a mining engineer and was in active business till his death, which was caused by a street car accident a few weeks before. He is survived by two daughters, Jane A. and Florence K. Rees. Samuel Irving Rees, son of Mary J. Williams and David F. Rees, Jr., and great-great-grandson of Zephaniah Williams, Maryland Troops, was born in Brooklyn, N. T., August 15, 1877. Compatriot Rees was a soldier in the Spanish-American War and was awarded a medal and Service Certificate by the National Society, S. A. R., for patriotic service in the war. He died in Oakland, Cal., September 21. 1906. Rutherford. John Charles B. Rutherford was born in Newburyport, Mass., September 7, 1824. He was the son of Mary Wadleigh and John Rutherford, who served in Massachusetts Militia and on ship "Glas- gow" in the Continental navy. He learned the trade of house and sign painter; went to Texas and served as commissary in the Mexican War. He located in San Antonio, Texas, and was architect of the Sons of the American Revolution 161 first State House of Texas. On July 9, 1851, he started for California, traveled on horseback through Mexico to Mazatlan, and took passage on a ship bound for San Francisco where he landed October 4, 1851. He was in business in Sonora till 1861 when he removed to Oakland, where he spent the rest of his life. He opened the first paint store in Oakland. He served as public administrator of Alameda County and city wharfinger. In 1867 he married Ellen J. Travers of Albany, N. T. He was a prominent member of the Masons, Odd Fellows and Order of the Eastern Star. He died at his home in Oakland May 21, 1908, leaving a widow, one son and four daughters. Shafter. William Eufus Shafter, son of Elizabeth Sumner and Hugh M. Shafter, and grandson of James Sha|ter, of Vermont Militia, was born in Galesburg, Mich., October 16, 1835. He entered the Civil War August 22, 1861, as First Lieutenant of the Seventh Michigan Infantry; commissioned Major of the Nine- teenth Michigan Infantry September 5, 1862; Lieutenant-Colonel, June 5, 1863; Colonel of the Seventeenth U. S. Colored Infantry April 19, 1864; Brevet Brigadier-General U. S. Volunteers, March 13, 1865 ; and honora,bly mustered out of volunteer service November 2, 1866. In the regular army of the United States he was commissioned Lieutenant-Colonel of the Forty-first U. S. Infantry July 28, 1866 ; Brevet-Colonel U. S. A. March 2, 1867 ; Colonel of the First U. S. Infantry March 4, 1879. In the Civil War he served in the Army of Potomac from Ball's Bluff to Harrison's Landing; was wounded at Fair Oaks, May 31, 1862; captured at Battle of Thompson's Station, Tenn., March 5, 1863 ; exchanged May 5, 1863. He was a member of the Military Or- der Loyal Legion, and Past Department Commander, G. A. R., Cali- fornia and Nevada. After the Civil War he served in Texas, 1867-1879; Dakota, 1880; Texas, 1881-1882 ; Arizona, 1884-1886. He served as Brigadier-General in the Spanish-American War in Cuba. He was retired October 16, 1899, as Major General U. S. A. He died November 12, 1906, at his ranch near Bakersfield, Cal. One daughter, wife of Captain McKittrick, survives him. Spear. Joseph Sweetser Spear, Jr., son of Charlotte Whipple and Joseph Sweetser Spear, was born in Charlestown, Mass., January 7, 1844. He was a great-grandson of Joseph Spear of Massachusetts Militia. He was educated in Chauncy Hall School, Boston, and came to San Francisco in 1864. 162 California Society He was interested in and took a prominent part in politics and served two terms as surveyor of port in San Francisco. He was connected with the firm of Edward S. Spear & Co., auctioneers, from 1864 till his death. He died in 1908, leaving a wife, Anna B., and a son, Arthur W. Spencer. George Willig Spencer, son of Caroline M. Starr and Asa Spencer and great-grandson of Daniel Starr of New London, Conn., First Lieutenant U. S. Frigate Trumbull, was born in Philadelphia, Pa., September 17, 1843. At the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 he enlisted as private in Company D, 15th Pennsylvania Cavalry. He was promoted to Color Sergeant, August 16, 1864. He served in the Army of the Cumberland and participated in the battles of Stone River, TuUahoma Campaign, Chattanooga, Chicka- mauga. Missionary Ridge, the Atlanta Campaign, and nearly all of the cavalry engagements; was ordered back with the command of General Geo. H. Thomas and took part in the battles of Franklin and Nashville, and the pursuit of Hood's routed army. He was hon- orably discharged from the service June 21, 1865. He was a member of the Military Order of Loyal Legion of the United States, having been elected by right of inheritance from his elder brother, and was ex-Commander of the order for the State of California. He was one of the old members of this Society, served on the Board of Managers and reached the position of Senior Vice-Presi- dent, but declined the Presidency. After the close of the war he engaged in business in Tahiti, but in 1868 removed to San Francisco and entered the fire insurance business with the JEtna Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn. In 1880 he became manager of the insurance business of Balfour, Guth- rie & Co., but in 1896 he returned to the ^tna, with which ofBee he was connected for the past twelve years as associate manager. In the fire insurance business in San Francisco he was one of the foremost men. Immediately after the conflagration of April 18, 1906, he took the stand that every insurance company nmst pay its losses in full and with the backing of a number of other honorable managers he succeeded in persuading nearly all of the companies rep- resented in San Francisco to prove that the San Francisco managers and the companies they represented were strictly honorable. As chair- man of the General Committee of Managers of Fire Insurance Com- panies, great honor is due him for the position he took. Sons op the Americvn Revolution 163 He was one of the best known of our Compatriots ; a strictly up- right business man and a soldier who won a most enviable record during the four years of active service in the field. He stood at the head in the insurance business, and was uni- versally respected and beloved. In Loyal Legion, Grand Army of the Republic, insurance, business and club circles no death has been more regretted. A widow and son survive him. Stafford. William Gardner Stafford died at his residence in San Francisco August 16, 1908. He was bom in Baltimore, Md., December 18, 1855, the son of Caroline E. Gardner and Wm. J. Stafford and great- grandson of Abraham Whipple, Commander in Colonial Navy of Rhode Island. Stafford came to San Francisco from Baltimore in 1875 as mate on a sailing vessel. On arriving here he gave up the sea and entered the firm of McDonough & Co., coal dealers. At his death he was president of the W. G. Stafford Coal Company. His career in San Francisco was marked by a deep interest in public and civic affairs. He served as a member of the board of education and as a member of the board of supervisors, was a direc- tor in the Hopkins Art Association, and was a member of the Bohemian and Pacific Union clubs. He was a prominent Mason. The following tribute prepared by C. A. Murdock and ordered spread on the minutes of the board of supervisors best shows his standing in the community : "The members of the board of supervisors would express their sincere respect for the memory of their late associate, William G. Stafford. In him they found a man of genial spirit, but firm in adherence to the right as he saw it. Bringing to public affairs the thorough training gained through the successful administration of a large business, his services were of great value to the city. Un- pretentious, straightforward, open to conviction, he presented to every question that arose an intelligent and careful consideration. Reaching his conclusions without prejudice, no suggestion of popu- larity or of personal concern ever influenced him. He was capable of standing alone when occasion demanded, while he bore no ill will to those who differed from him. His integrity no one ever ques- tioned. He was absolutely loyal to his friends, and just and cour- teous to all. He not only commanded respect, but won the warm regard of those who knew him. He bore suffering uncomplainingly and even with cheerfulness. His memory will always be pleasant to us as of a comrade who dropped from the ranks on the onward march, with a smile on his face. 164 Califoenia Society "To his family we extend our heartfelt sympathy, and in loving regard we place this testimonial on the minutes of the board, and when we adjourn it shall be in respect to his memory." He leaves a wife and a daughter, Marjorie. Upham. On the 17th day of August, 1908, Isaac Upham was accidentally killed by an automobile in San Jose, Cal. For many years Mr. Upham was identified with the business progress of San Francisco and was one of the best known merchants on the Coast. He was born in Union, Me., May 22, 1837, the son of Julia Hodg- kins and Benjamin P. Upham and great-grandson of Jabez Upham of Massachusetts Troops. He went to Newburyport, Mass., where he attended school for one year, supporting himself by carrying news- papers. Returning to Union, he lived on his uncle's farm, and attended high school at Lincolnville. During the winters of 1856 and 1857 he taught school, and in the spring of 1857 entered the Maine Wesleyan Seminary, graduating from the scientific depart- ment in 1859. Then he sailed for California, and was first employed as a clerk in a store near Hansonville, Yuba County, at $25 a month. Later he taught a district school in Butte County, now known as the "Upham district." He was county superintendent of schools for Butte County four years and served as First Lieutenant of "Home Guards" in Oroville. In 1870 he took up his residence in San Francisco. The next year he purchased a half interest in the firm of Henry Payot & Co. Payot, Upham & Co. was incorporated in 1899. He occupied many positions of trust and honor. He was presi- dent of the Board of Education of Oakland from 1885 to 1890, presi- dent of the San Francieso Board of Trade, president of the San Francisco Traffic Association, and director in the San Francisco and San Joaquin Valley Railroad Company till sold to the Santa Fe. He was a member of the Republican State Central Committee, and at the time of his death he was president of the Board of Managers of the Agnews State Hospital, having been a member of the board since 1893. He was associated with many charitable institutions. He was a Mason, a Knight Templar, and a member of Islam Tem- ple of the Mystic Shrine. He also belonged to the Bohemian Club and to the Pacific-Union Club, and was a member of the State of Maine Association of California for thirty years. He owned the business house of the Isaac Upham Co. and left a large estate. He married Nancy R. R. Delzelle. Two sons survive — Isaac Oliver and Benjamin Prince. Sons op the American Revolution 165 Waite. Lieut. Henry De Hart "Waite, U. S. A., retired, died at his home in Berkeley, Cal., November 26, 1908. He was bom in New York in 1855, the son of Sarah and Theodore Waite and great- grandson of Jacobus de Hart, Second Lieutenant Pennsylvania Infantry. He leaves surviving him his mother, Mrs. Sarah Waite, a sister. Miss Leonora, of Berkeley, Cal., and a brother, George T., of Scranton, Pa. He graduated from West Point in 1879, and was assigned as a second lieutenant to the Third Infantry, and was trans- ferred to the Fifth Cavalry September 4, 1879. Prom that time until 1893 he served at various posts, most of the time in the West. He was retired from active service June 6, 1894, for disability incident to the service, received in Oklahoma, and began to practice law in Toledo, Ohio. In 1898 he was appointed a captain of the Ohio Volunteers and served through the Spanish-American War. In 1900 he was appointed commandant of the cadets at the University of California at Berkeley, which detail he relinquished in 1904. Since that time he has been practicing law in San Francisco. Warfield. Richard Henry Warfield, son of Rachel B. Hill and Richard N. Warfield and great-grandson of Whitney Hill, sergeant Massa- chusetts Troops, was born June 15, 1843, at Rushville, Yates County, New York. After leaving college he entered the Civil War as a private in the Fiftieth New York Volunteer Engineers and was promoted to First Lieutenant. He was with the Engineer Corps of the Army of the Potomac and participated in the battles of the Wil- derness, Spottsylvania, Cold Harbor, siege and capture of Peters- burg, and surrender of Lee. He came to California in 1876 and lived in Healdsburg for a short time. He removed to San Francisco and was manager of the Baldwin Hotel, lessee and manager of the California Hotel, Hotel Rafael, and Mount Tamalpais Tavern successively. He was Department Commander of the G. A. R., California and Nevada division and Brigadier-General of the National Guard of Cali- fornia, and a member of the police commissioners of San Francisco at the time of his death. He was killed in a railroad accident in Mill Valley, Cal., July 16, 1906. A widow and two sons survive him. ^%Cm1 ^l^r'^'/Ki^Vw/" ^^1^, fk-tijii' ^'^'^-^^^