Qass L^ ^__ 
 
 Book ^ ^- ^ 
 
 ^f^^ K 
 
c-*^ 
 
ADDRESSES 
 
 AT THE 
 
 DINNER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 BY THE 
 
 CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON 
 
 UNDER THE AUSPICES OF 
 
 THE BOARD OF TRADE 
 
 AND 
 
 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 
 
 SATURDAY EVENING, MAY EIGHTH 
 NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINE 
 
 A ' 
 
 "-J 
 
 PRESS OF w. F. Roberts Company 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 

 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Introductory Address of Mr. Edson - 5 
 
 Address of Honorable Wendell Phillips 
 
 •Stafford . - . . . 9 
 
 Address of The President - - - 27 
 
 Reproduction of Contents of Souvenir - 35 
 
By transfer 
 he White Houso 
 larch 3rd, 1913 
 
introductory address of 
 Mr. John Joy Edson 
 
 CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE 
 
 WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE AND THE 
 
 WASHINGTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 
 
 Mr. President : 
 
 Your presence ,here to-night is keenly 
 appreciated, and great pleasure and value are attached to 
 the occasion. 
 
 It is the first time in the memory of any of our people 
 that the President has accepted an invitation to dinner, to 
 meet and confer with the citizens of Washington upon 
 District matters. The interest you have shown at this 
 early date in your administration is unprecedented, and 
 quickly inspires the citizens of Washington with the 
 belief that a clearer and a more correct understanding 
 will be brought about as to the true relation of the Fed- 
 eral and local governments. While the nation, we are 
 sure, feels a great pride and interest in the nation's 
 Capital, the administration of purely municipal domestic 
 affairs has often not been understood by the country, 
 nor even by Congress. 
 
 Our present government has been, in the main, the 
 most successful municipal government in this country. In 
 the thirty years of its history not a single instance of 
 scandal has occurred, nor a hint of corruption, nor of the 
 existence of rings. Practically every dollar expended by 
 
the District authorities shows value received, a striking 
 contrast, we believe, to the experience of other cities 
 throughout the country. 
 
 Yet with this good record, the defect referred to exists, 
 which is growing more complicated as our population and 
 importance increase, and that is, in not fixing a demarca- 
 tion between what is properly intended to be a Federal 
 control and what should properly and wisely be accorded 
 the people of Washington, in the administration of the 
 government, in purely local affairs, such as hospitals^ 
 penal institutions, police and fire regulations, and espec- 
 ially schools and charities. 
 
 Whenever it is apparent that any improvement can be 
 made in any branch or in any detail of the machinery of 
 the government, it will be wise to make the change, 
 unless it is plain that the effort to do so is, for the time 
 being, likely to endanger the main structure. 
 
 Mr. President, this dinner was tendered to you by the 
 Board of Trade and the Chamber of Commerce on 
 behalf of and representing all the citizens of the District 
 of Columbia. The Board of Trade was organized about 
 twenty years ago, and the Chamber of Commerce has had 
 several years of activity. It was soon found, after the 
 establishment of the present government, that there was 
 no way in which the people of Washington could 
 collectively voice their sentiments on local public matters. 
 Several ineffectusl methods were adopted, and, finally, 
 the Board of Trade was organized. It is not a trade 
 body, as its name would imply. It has proved almost 
 wholly to have been engaged in civic effort. It numbers 
 over seven hundred public-spirited citizens, embracing 
 practically all reputable professions and business 
 occupations. 
 
 It has always been the purpose of the organization to 
 consider carefully all questions arising in civic matters, 
 and never to declare itself on any subject until certain 
 that its position was right. The effect has been that the 
 organization enjoys the confidence of the general and 
 
local governments and the public. It has done splendid 
 constructive work and secured many good results. 
 
 The Chamber of Commerce, with a larger number of 
 members, was organized more particularly to correct a 
 really neglected branch of public effort in the commercial, 
 manufacturing, and business interests of the District, 
 and it also engages in many civic activities. In the short 
 time since its organization much has been accomplished 
 by its efforts, and the city's material business interests 
 and importance thereby have made substantial progress 
 and improvement. It has made intelligent and compre- 
 hensive plans for the future, and these plans, we feel 
 confident, will prove valuable and successful. 
 
 We feel sure, Mr. President, that we have in both these 
 bodies and in the citizenship of Washington, a people 
 who, in character, culture, public spirit, patriotism, and 
 philanthropy, will compare favorably with the citizenship 
 of any city in the nation. 
 
 So impressed are we with this innovation, and the 
 fruitful results that are certain to follow, that I venture 
 to suggest that this happy occasion may establish an 
 annual function, where the people may meet The President 
 and confer about what has been accomplished and what 
 is the best way to accomplish the most in the coming of 
 each year. It should be the yearly mile-stone in the 
 progress and welfare of the District of Columbia. 
 
 I believe, if this suggestion is carried out, it will be 
 looked forward to each year with the greatest possible 
 pleasure, as the greatest event of the year to the citizens 
 of Washington, and in the best interest of the Nation's 
 Capital. 
 
 The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has 
 Federal and local jurisdiction. In this respect it differs 
 from any other court in the United States, and therefore, 
 it has become the custom to appoint jurists, part from the 
 States and part from the District of Columbia. 
 
 Justice Wendell Phillip Stafford was appointed from 
 Vermont by President Roosevelt May 1, 1904 — just five 
 years ago. 
 
In this time he has become well acquainted with the 
 people of Washington and with District affairs— more so, 
 probably, than any of his predecessors or associates in the 
 same length of time. 
 
 We have learned to respect and esteem him as an able, 
 upright judge ; a scholarly, cultured gentleman ; a splen- 
 did citizen, and an ideal neighbor and friend — 
 Justice Stafford. 
 
ADDRESS OF 
 
 Hon. Wendell Phillips Stafford 
 
 ASSOCIATE Justice supreme Court of the district of Columbia 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States, 
 
 AND YOU, MY FELLOW-CITIZENS : 
 
 I pledge you in a sentiment that is almost a prayer: ' 'May 
 this prove a fortunate day for the District of Columbia." 
 Without doubt the people of the District look upon the 
 occasion that has drawn us here as a most happy augury. 
 The Chief Magistrate of the nation, not more respected 
 than beloved, has signified his willingness to sit at their 
 board, to break their bread and taste their salt. It is a 
 proof of interest and kindness that has touched all hearts. 
 We who are seated around these tables are only a hand- 
 ful out of many thousands who in thought and sympathy 
 are with us at this feast. Presidents have come and 
 gone, doing their duty by the District as they saw it, but 
 in the press and throng of larger duties too often pre- 
 vented from giving to local matters the attention they 
 deserved. Never before has a President at the beginning 
 of his term thus held out the hand of friendship to our 
 people. Our President has seen much of Washington. 
 But more than that, he has traveled far and wide, he has 
 studied the capitals of other countries, their institutions 
 and their laws. And thus he adds to the true promptings 
 of a generous heart the wisdom of a ripe experience. 
 Those are the qualities that are needed here and now. 
 It is the hour for a statesman. The population of the 
 
District has increased so rapidly, it is growing so in 
 wealth and beauty, the greatness of its future is already 
 so assured, that the time has come when the true rela- 
 tions between the District and the nation must be clearly 
 conceived and accurately defined, and when an ideal must 
 be formed for the District of Columbia — an ideal to be 
 worked for through generations, true enough and grand 
 enough to claim the attention and the devotion of all the 
 land. 
 
 The men who made the Constitution were absolutely 
 certain of one thing, and that was that this Federal gov- 
 ernment must have a home of its own. "Over such a 
 district," the Constitution in so many words declares, the 
 Congress shall "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases 
 whatsoever." So far as general legislation is concerned, 
 there is no power in Congress to delegate this authority. 
 It must legislate itself. When it attempted once to 
 bestow upon a Territorial legislature for the District 
 the authority to make general laws, the court declared 
 the attempt unconstitutional and vain. The utmost it can 
 do in this direction is to authorize the enactment of local 
 regulations. No attempt to legislate for Washington will 
 be worth the making unless it is made in the same spirit 
 in which the founders worked. It was said of an Eastern 
 temple, "It was designed by Titans and finished by 
 jewelers." The tribute is capable of a double meaning. 
 A great work should be grandly conceived and then 
 executed with minutest pains. We wish as much for 
 Washington. But the jeweler must not meddle with the 
 architect's design. If he does, men may say: "It 
 was planned by Titans; it was finished by pygmies." 
 Less than half a century had elapsed from the found- 
 ing of the Capital before a congress was found pusillani- 
 mous enough to surrender and cede back thirty square 
 miles of Federal soil, and the noble patrimony the nation 
 had received from the Father of his Country was broken 
 in two, and the Virginia portion cast away. Our task 
 to-night is to put the Washington of our day to 
 the test of the great principles that controlled the 
 
 10 
 
founders of our government, to view the work they left 
 us in the light of all that has developed since, and to plan 
 for the future as men of their vision would have planned 
 in our surroundings. 
 
 What do we mean when we say the District of Col- 
 umbia? There are at least three meanings in which the 
 expression may be accurately used. It may mean the 
 mere territory, the seventy square miles of land and 
 water. It may mean the municipal corporation which has 
 been created by the act of Congress. It may mean the 
 political community, which may be called, and by the 
 Supreme Court has been repeatedly called, for certain 
 purposes, a State. In this third sense it is not a mere 
 municipal corporation, but is filled with the sovereignty 
 of the United States of America. It is of the utmost 
 importance to distinguish betv/een these meanings, 
 especially between the second and the third, if we would 
 keep our thinking clear. Let us take a moment to 
 trace this distinction in the transactions of a century. 
 
 When the United States, in 1800, took possession of this 
 territory it found local self-government here. For two 
 generations it left it undisturbed. "Prior to 1871," said 
 Mr. Justice Bradley, in a case before the court of last 
 resort, *' the government of the United States, except so 
 far as the protection of its own public buildings and 
 property was concerned, took no part in the local govern- 
 ment. The officers of the departments, even the President 
 himself, exercised no local authority in city affairs." In 
 1871 the Congress created here a new government ex- 
 pressly for "municipal purposes." It had its governor 
 and its legislature — the latter, of course, elected by the 
 people. It had also a board of public works, whose 
 members, including the governor as its head, were 
 appointed by the President and Senate. This board 
 laid out the money raised in taxes, and assessed 
 the owners benefited by improvements. The court 
 held that its acts were binding on the District, 
 and that, in spite of its appointment by the Presi- 
 dent, it was only a branch of the municipal government. 
 
 11 
 
Thus matters remained until 1874, when Congress tore 
 down all it had previously done, and started new. The 
 governor and the board of public works were abolished, 
 and the power which they had exercised was intrusted to 
 a commission of three, to be appointed by the President 
 and Senate. Four years later, in 1878, the new arrange- 
 ment was made permament. 
 
 Nevertheless, the contention was made before the 
 Supreme Court of the United States that the effect 
 of the new act was to destroy the District of 
 Columbia as a municipal corporation, except in name, and 
 to make it nothing more than a department of the na- 
 tional government. The contention was ruled down. 
 The fact that its officers were appointed by the Presi- 
 dent, said the court, did not make the District of Colum- 
 bia any less a municipal body corporate. Recognizing the 
 general desirableness of local self-government, it held 
 that the principle of representative government was 
 legally satisfied when the appointment of local officers 
 v/as made by other officers who themselves had been 
 elected by the people, saying: "The people are the recog- 
 nized source of all authority, and to this authority it must 
 come at last, whether immediately or by a circuitous 
 process." 
 
 Whether a flaw is to be found in this reasoning as 
 applied to the situation before the court, inasmuch as the 
 people of the District of Columbia, the people to be gov- 
 erned, never did have a share in electing the President 
 and Senate, who were the appointing officers, I will not 
 stop here to inquire; for my present purpose is to point 
 out the separation that has always been recognized be- 
 tween the District of Columbia, as a mere municipal cor- 
 poration, and the District of Columbia as a quasi state. 
 
 There is only one sovereign in the District of Columbia: 
 Indeed, in respect to sovereignty, the situation is precisely 
 the same as if there were no other domain affected by the 
 central government; as if all its functions were performed 
 here. Why, then, it may be asked, should there be such a 
 municipality as the District of Columbia at all ? Why 
 
 12 
 
should not the general government take direct control and 
 administer all the affairs of the District through its own 
 bureaus? It would not be so easy to answer that question 
 if two facts were other than they are: First — If there 
 were no citizens of the United States except those 
 who live in the District. Second— If the District elected 
 the national officers. But there are 350,000 people 
 here, and there are some 90,000,000 outside, and 
 all are citizens of the United States; and the 350,000 
 who live here have some interests which they do not 
 hold in common with the 90,000,000 who live outside. 
 It is, in part at least, for the recognition and protection 
 of these separate and peculiar interests that a municipal 
 government exists and is required. All the more is it 
 needed by reason of the fact that there is no suffrage. 
 Let us picture what might be. The streets and public 
 works might all be put under the War Department, the 
 public health under the Surgeon General, the charities 
 made a bureau in the Department of Commerce and 
 Labor, or perhaps of the Interior, and the schools turned 
 over to the Commissioner of Education. And so it might 
 go on, until the local government was completely bureau- 
 cratic — until the rod of national administration, turned 
 serpent, had swallowed up all the little rods of local 
 administration and was left alone upon the floor. 
 
 In the meantime the city, growing by leaps and bounds, 
 has doubled and trebled its present population, and we 
 have here a million people, without a word to say, in theory 
 or fact, directly or indirectly, about the streets they walk, 
 the water they drink, the light they burn, or the education 
 of their children— everything done for them, and done by 
 officers in whose selection they had no voice and who have 
 been selected with no particular reference to their opin- 
 ions or their needs. To some of us that is not a pleasing 
 spectacle. 
 
 Certainly we must not forget that this is a national 
 city. There is little risk of that. But there are institu- 
 tions, many and important, which are not national in 
 their aim or character. They are exactly such institu- 
 
 13 
 
tions as the same numerical population would require 
 were this not the nation's Capital. That is true of the 
 institutions of charity and punishment. We should need 
 to have schools, recording- offices, post-offices and courts; 
 we should need streets and bridges, and a thousand 
 things beside, by reason of the fact that we are a city. 
 Institutions that answer the needs of the community 
 merely as a community, without reference to the national 
 government, should not these be treated as local institu- 
 tions? Should they not be administered as a part of the 
 municipal government and officered by men identified 
 with the District? 
 
 Those courts of the District which deal not exclusively 
 with local controversies, but in large measure with dis- 
 putes to which the nation is a party, may perhaps be 
 fairly made up, one-half of members drawn from the 
 locality and one-half from the nation at large. This 
 seems the more appropriate, inasmuch as those who hold 
 these offices hold them during g-ood behavior, and when 
 they come here come hoping to behave well enough to 
 remain through life! 
 
 But many offices relate exclusively to this community, 
 at least as much so as the offices of any community can 
 be said to relate to itself alone, and why should not these 
 be filled by local citizens? Even if there should be no 
 statute thus restricting the selection, ought not such a 
 course be pursued as a permanent policy? Why should 
 the people of the District have their deeds recorded 
 by a man from California? Why should Washington be 
 the only city in the land that cannot have a postmaster 
 appointed from among its citizens? If we are to keep 
 up the form of municipal government at all, does not a 
 fair consistency demand that we should treat it as 
 municipal, as existing, among other purposes, to care for 
 all that is peculiar and local in the interests and needs of 
 the community? Will it not be wisdom to treat it so? 
 Let us not forget that there are thousands upon thou- 
 sands here who have no other abiding place. Their roots 
 have struck deep into the soil. They love the city with 
 
 14 
 
all the national pride we share with them, and with that 
 tender sentiment which we call "the love of home" be- 
 sides. Is it wise to treat them as aliens in the house of 
 their fathers? Others have lived here till all ties with 
 other places are dissolved and they expect their children 
 will live here when they are gone. These people, so 
 completely and irrevocably identified with the place, 
 constitute an element not wisely to be overlooked when 
 one is considering how local affairs may be most pru- 
 dently and loyally administered. 
 
 Who knows? Perhaps we have come already to the 
 parting of the ways. Little by little the local hold is lost. 
 Here a hospital is drawn under the control of a depart- 
 ment. There the jail slips out of the hands of the District 
 into the hands of the Attorney General. Now it is pro- 
 posed that the schools be placed under a bureau; and 
 now, that the city shall be officered on the principle 
 of efficiency alone, by any one who can be found who is 
 most competent, though he never saw Washington before. 
 It would be something to assume that among 350,000 
 such as we find gathered here, not a single man could be 
 found capable of conducting the business of the city. 
 But if it could be conjectured that in some far off place a 
 commissioner might be found somewhat more efficient, 
 would that difference in efficiency make up for the sacri- 
 fice of one more bond— sometimes it seems as if it were 
 the last— between the government and the locality? 
 
 The problem of city government is not altogether, I 
 venture to think, a matter of perfecting the machinery. 
 Men are not altogether machines. They have sentiments; 
 they have hearts. And if there had not been sentiment 
 and heart, as well as brain, there would be to-day no 
 Washington. 
 
 As far as the municipal government is concerned, the 
 people of the District seem to have settled down to the 
 arrangement that there should be no suffrage. 
 They accept it— very much as Lord Dundreary's brother 
 Sam accepted his embarrassment in being born and 
 especially in being born bald-headed. "You see 
 
 15 
 
Sam, he wasn't consulted; and there he was, 
 and it was too late to do anything about it." But 
 suffrage or no suffrage in municipal affairs has nothing 
 to do with the principle of which I speak. I believe 
 it should be the policy of the government, along- 
 side of the national spirit that inspires all hearts, to 
 foster and perpetuate a sturdy local patriotism, a local 
 and peculiar civic pride; and, to this end, that all such 
 institutions as are purely local in their character should 
 be scrupulously retained under the District government, 
 and that all offices of this kind should be filled by 
 those who have become residents of Washington for 
 good and all. 
 
 Sir, I am not inclined to discuss to-night the various 
 proposed changes in the constitution of the city govern- 
 ment. These concern a possible increase of efficiency in 
 the municipal machine. In what I am yet to say I prefer 
 to dwell upon a broader question. But no one ought to 
 refer to the form of government that has given shape to 
 our affairs since 1874 without doing justice to the splendid 
 advanecs that have been made under its direction. In 
 1878 the plan was adopted of raising upon the ratable 
 property here a tax of 1| per cent, and of matching that 
 with an equal amount from the national Treasury. 
 
 Up to that time the District had carried the burden 
 year by year, almost or quite alone, and was sinking 
 under a debt of many millions. Under the new arrange- 
 ment Washington has sprung to her feet. Parks have 
 been laid out, avenues extended, bridges built, public 
 buildings erected, grade crossings abolished, railway ter- 
 minals improved, a magnificent new station built, the 
 sewerage and water systems practically made over, mil- 
 lions upon millions spent toward making the city in health 
 and beauty what it ought to be. Meantime absolute fidel- 
 ity in the discharge of duties, no stain or hint of corrup- 
 tion, scarcely a dishonest transaction even charged. 
 Surely that is a record for any city to cherish and for 
 those who have had a share in making it to look back 
 upon with pride. 
 
 16 
 
Some forbidding obstacles have been encountered and 
 are met with still. One is, this being compelled to pay 
 for permanent improvements out of the current income. 
 What other city is expected to pay for its great works, to 
 last for generations, out of its ordinary receipts, mean- 
 while taking it out of its schools and scrimping its legiti- 
 mate expenses? Any other city would raise the money on 
 bonds and pay them a little at a time. Washington 
 need not be bonded, since the national treasury 
 can supply it with a loan and let it be paid back 
 at a reasonable rate; but the principle is sound It is 
 enforced by the late Secretary of the Treasury in his able 
 report for 1908, where he sets forth with great lucidity 
 the need of a national budget to bring about an adjust- 
 ment between disbursements and receipts, with a rigid 
 separation between expenditures for the ordinary service 
 of the government and those for permanent public works, 
 the latter to be met by bond issues. 
 
 But there are obstacles of graver import, and they con- 
 stitute defects radical and without remedy in the present 
 relation between nation and District. They can be 
 removed only by a change in that relation itself. We 
 shall all agree that to legislate wisely requires two things 
 — first, a lively interest in the object of legislation; sec- 
 ond, a clear intelligence touching the subject in hand. 
 There being no representative from the District itself in 
 either branch of Congress, it becomes necessary to com- 
 mit the interests of the District, and the interests of the 
 nation in the District, to hands unfamiliar with the sub- 
 ject and without any lively interest therein. 
 
 The Congress as a whole cannot be expected to supply 
 these requisites. No one pretends it does. It is engaged 
 upon a thousand subjects, many of which appear to its 
 members to be vastly more important than any that con- 
 cerns the District. We cannot wonder at it; it is in the 
 nature of things that it should be so. The step logically 
 required by this condition is next taken. 
 
 A committee in the House and a committee in the Senate 
 are specially charged with these affairs. Not that their 
 
 17 
 
word is accepted as final. If it were, some difficulties 
 would be escaped. But in the end their report must run 
 the gantlet of the whole House or Senate. Here ignorance 
 of District affairs has often shown itself so egregious and 
 glaring that it could excite nothing but laughter, if tears 
 were not often a more fitting recognition of the folly. 
 And when that occurs there is no representative of the 
 District to meet the ignorant, unfounded claim. Three 
 hundred and fifty thousand people are voiceless in that 
 hall. The committees cannot meet the emergency. To 
 expect it would be to expect more than mortal men can 
 do. Who are the members of the committees? Are they 
 Senators and Representatives set apart for this work 
 and free to devote themselves entirely to such business? 
 By no means. They have their own constituencies to 
 serve, and they have, besides, their share of responsi- 
 bility for the general legislation, like all their fellow- 
 members. They are appointed; they do the best they 
 can; and if they give sufficient time to our affairs to 
 understand our problems, they run the risk of losing 
 their seats entirely by being thought at home to have 
 neglected their own States or districts. I am credibly 
 informed that the risk has turned into a certainty in 
 more instances than one. But, more than that, the 
 membership of the House and Senate changes and the 
 membership of the committees changes, too. Hardly has 
 a member become reasonably acquainted with our sub- 
 ject than he is called away, another takes his place, and 
 the whole process of education must be begun again. 
 That is the radical and incurable defect of the present 
 system. Keep your three Commissioners if you will, or 
 substitute for them a single head, improve the mach- 
 inery of municipal administration all you can, until it 
 runs with the regularity of a Swiss watch— you have 
 not touched the trouble. What is needed is, two men in 
 the House and one man in the Senate; real live men 
 with blood in their arteries and brains in their heads; 
 men who have lived long in the District of Columbia and 
 belong to her; men who know her needs and her capac- 
 
 18 
 
ity, who know the history and condition of her insti- 
 tutions, her charities, her prisons, the views and 
 aspirations of her people; men who are proud of their 
 connection with her, and proud that to her soil has been 
 committed the ark of civil and religious liberty. What 
 we need is members of these bodies, with the prestige that 
 belongs to members; not figureheads, not lobbyists, not 
 delegates, but a member of the Senate and two members 
 of the House, able, enlightened, informed, fit to represent 
 the will and judgment of 350,000 citizens gathered within 
 these bounds. 
 
 But that requires an amendment of the Constitution! 
 So it does. An amendment in strict accord with the 
 principles of the Constitution, made necessary by the 
 changed conditions of 120 years, made unavoidable and 
 inevitable by the changes that will take place in the fifty 
 or one hundred years to come. Do you imagine that when 
 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 shall be swarming in our borders 
 they will be the only people in this broad domain to have 
 no hand in the government of this magnificent republic, 
 no word in the election of its President, no tongue in the 
 national assembly? 
 
 When 1,000,000 men are here, when they ask why they 
 alone can have no part in a republican form of government, 
 do you imagine they will call it a sufficient answer to be 
 told "Because you live in Washington? If you lived in 
 Pumpkin Hook or Bloody Gulch, you might, but not while 
 you live here." 
 
 Bear in mind, I am not speaking of municipal suffrage. 
 I am speaking of the right of a million of simple American 
 citizens to have a share — less than a one hundreth part, 
 it would be — in the legislation that concerns their country 
 and its Capital. Suppose they have no more right than 
 the same number of people who live anywhere else in 
 the United States. Have they not as much? And that 
 is all the right of which I speak. 
 
 But I hear it said, "The people of the District do not 
 care for suffrage." Well, all I can say to that is this: If 
 the people of the District of Columbia do not really care 
 
 19 
 
to have a part in the government of this splendid country, 
 they do not deserve to have it, and nobody need fear that 
 it will be thrust upon them. But I cannot believe that 
 statement. 
 
 "Say, seignors, are the old Niles dry ? " 
 
 I cannot believe that the human heart has changed. I 
 cannot believe that principles have lost their power. I 
 cannot believe that the deep instincts that built up 
 this wonderful fabric of free government have died out 
 here in the very seat of its majesty, and that here alone 
 the "bright consummate flower" of liberty has gone to 
 seed. There is no doubt that they need quickening. 
 There is no doubt that they have sunk into the torpor of 
 faculties disused. But hold before their eyes the hope 
 of what I am describing, and you shall see whether self- 
 respect and the desire for self-government are dead. 
 
 Sir, if I had it in my power to-night to dispose of this 
 matter as I would, do you know what I would do? I would 
 not change the constitution. I would not give the people 
 of the District suffrage. What I would do is this : I 
 would set to their dry hearts the flame of that old 
 Promethean torch, the love of liberty. I would fill them 
 with divine unrest at their condition. I would set beside 
 that condition, a picture of the dignity and power they 
 might enjoy as real citizens of their country. I would 
 move them first to desire and then to demand their por- 
 tion of our heritage. I would nerve them to toil for it and 
 fight for it through years of bitter opposition— and then 
 at last, when the agitation had created a new Washing- 
 ton, when 400,000 or 500,000 people were calling as with 
 one mighty voice for the great prize of representative 
 government— then, then, I would bestow it on them. And, 
 sir, I believe that is exactly what the god of time will do. 
 
 A city of the dumb! Mr. Chairman, I have heard you 
 speak of a little village on an island off the New England 
 coast inhabited entirely by deaf mutes. They live unto 
 themselves. They marry and intermarry and rear 
 children who are dumb as they. They go about their 
 tasks, but speak no word. The busy hum of life goes on 
 
 20 
 
around them; the shuttles of the world's activities fly to 
 and fro, but into the growing web they weave no strand. 
 Sir, I will not extend the parallel. It is too obvious and 
 too painful to be drawn. 
 
 But that is not the Washington that shall be. Only let 
 the agitation begin. Let it start here to-night. Why 
 not make the occasion historic? Let every true son of 
 Washington, native, or adopted, go out from this feast 
 strengthened and heartened for a long enlistment. Let 
 him know for once in his life the glory of being possessed 
 by a grand idea— the sublime enthusiasm of being lost in 
 absolute devotion to a great cause. Let them meet and 
 join hands and stir one another's hearts, quicken one 
 another's minds, and sustain one another's courage. Let 
 it go on. It will meet with opposition; it will meet with 
 ridicule; it will meet with censure; it will take years; it 
 may take many— but it can have but one possible outcome 
 if the sons of Washington are worthy of the name they 
 bear. 
 
 Again I say, I am not speaking now of municipal suf- 
 frage at all. Let the present arrangement, or some im- 
 proved substitute for it, be continued if you please. 
 What has that to do with the broad and fundamental 
 fact that the hundreds of thousands here should have 
 their due and proportionate representation in the Na- 
 tional Assembly— should have the same right that other 
 citizens enjoy of giving their votes in the election of the 
 Chief Magistrate of the republic? 
 
 The republic! It is not alone for the District of Col- 
 umbia that I bring the proposition forward. The inter- 
 ests of the nation would be served as well. They would 
 be served first of all by the increased efficiency and pro- 
 priety of the laws that would be enacted; in the next place, 
 by the fact that the members from the District, being 
 familiar with the local situation, and serving on the 
 local committees, would relieve the members from other 
 States of much of their present burden, leaving them 
 freer to perform the duties for which they were specially 
 selected. Further, it would serve the nation by adding to 
 
 21 
 
Congress men of weight and influence in national con- 
 cerns. We should have here a constituency peculiarly- 
 rich in material for representatives. 
 
 But, more perhaps than all the rest, the change would 
 serve the interests of the whole nation by recognizing the 
 grand principle of representative government here, in the 
 most conspicuous position in the country, where hitherto 
 it has been cast aside. Men could no longer point the finger 
 of scorn at us, and say : ' ' Washington gives the lie to your 
 pretentions. Look! In the very seat of national greatness 
 you acknowledge by your acts that your form of govern- 
 ment is a failure. " Until we are honest enough to live up 
 to our principles, we shall deserve all our troubles; and, sir, 
 from the bottom of my heart I do believe that the greatest 
 troubles we have spring from this very fact, that we have 
 turned our back upon those principles. We shall never 
 find peace or safety until we return to them again. 
 
 Shall we say we fear the suffrages of ignorance and 
 vice— the ignorance and vice that we ourselves are to 
 blame for— that could not last a generation if we did our 
 duty by our fellow-men? Shame on the race or the com- 
 munity that holds in its hands the wealth of the continent 
 and carries in its brains the accumulated culture of the 
 centuries and yet refuses to lift that ignorance and vice 
 to the level of enlightenment and virtue! Tear down your 
 shacks and shanties. Let in the sun upon your noisome 
 alleys. Build decent habitations for the poor to dwell in. 
 Make your prisons moral hospitals instead of breeding 
 cells for crime. Spread education broadcast in the streets. 
 Let us do the work of Christians at our doors before we 
 admit that our fathers were fools and that democratic 
 government is all a dark mistake. Never until the men 
 of wealth and education have spent their last surplus 
 dollar and exhausted the ingenuity of their brains in the 
 effort to make their fellow-men worthy to be sharers in 
 the government, never until then will they have a right 
 to hide behind an excuse like that. 
 
 I admit that an ignorant and degraded class armed with 
 the ballot is a menace to the safety of the state; but I 
 
 22 
 
deny that it is a greater menace in the end than that same 
 class, robbed of its rights, thrust down into the dark, and 
 left as no longer necessary to be regarded or assisted 
 because no longer having any part in the affairs of state. 
 Strip men of the ballot and you take away from society 
 the most powerful inducement that can prompt selfish 
 human nature to educate and elevate its helpless and its 
 poor. 
 
 We must find fault with the Creator if we wish to com- 
 plain that wealth, virtue, and culture cannot be safe in 
 the neighborhood of poverty, ignorance and vice. He 
 means that it shall be so. He sees Blagden's alley as well 
 as Dupont Circle, and He has made it certain by the laws 
 of nature, by every wind that breathes across the city, by 
 every tiny insect that takes its unregarded flight from 
 home to home, that Dupont Circle shall not be safe while 
 Blagden's alley is rotting with disease and filth. The laws 
 of nature are democratic. It is just the same in govern- 
 ment. A community that has the power to lift ignorance 
 and vice to its own level and will not stretch out its 
 hand to do it, deserves to be endangered by ignorance and 
 vice; and eternal justice will see to it that it is so. We 
 cannot escape our duties; let us face them, then, like 
 men. 
 
 If Franklin or Jefferson were here to-day and saw this 
 mighty population with no voice in its affairs, he would 
 lay his finger, like a wise physician, on the body politic 
 and say: "Here — here is where you are ailing. Have 
 faith in the principles that brought us through." Let 
 us take up the stitch our fathers dropped. Let us apply 
 to our situation the rules of government they applied to 
 theirs. If you should say to Jefferson, "Why should we 
 be disturbed? Will it give us more interest on our 
 money?" Jefferson would answer you, "That I cannot 
 tell, but this I know, that the man who loves freedom 
 for anything but freedom's self was made to be a slave!" 
 
 Even if we should fail, men would write over our 
 graves the profound saying of Guizot, "The struggle 
 itself supplied in some measure the place of liberty." 
 
 23 
 
But we cannot fail. Is this an hour to doubt or question 
 the principles of free government? Now, when those 
 principles, encouraged by their success upon this con- 
 tinent, are shaking every throne upon the globe? When, 
 on the shores of the Bosphorus, Young Turkey is making- 
 good its claims to constitutional government ? When 
 Persia is starting from her reverie, and old China is turn- 
 ing from the slumber of 4,000 years? Now, when in the 
 Islands of the South Pacific we ourselves are reaching out 
 a hand to lead a strange race into the ordered paths of 
 Anglo-Saxon freedom? Let the sons of Washington 
 beware lest the little brown men of the Philippines enter 
 the kingdom of representative government before them. 
 If the people of Columbia prefer to take their ease, no 
 rude reformer will disturb their rest. But when we have 
 passed away, men will describe us as the dying patriarch 
 in his prophetic vision pictured the most degenerate of his 
 tribes: "Issachar is a strong ass, couching down between 
 two burdens; and he saw that rest was good, and the land 
 that it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and 
 became a servant unto tribute." 
 
 Sir, the danger to this country lies not, as we sometimes 
 think, in the poor immigrant who flees to us from afar, 
 still smarting from the lash of tyranny— ignorant and 
 low-minded though he be. The prize of citizenship will 
 appeal to him. He will clutch it and hold it fast as ' ' the 
 immediate jewel of his soul." The danger lies in him 
 who, "like the base Judean, throws a pearl away richer 
 than all his tribe," in the man who will share the blessings 
 of liberty without bearing its burdens; in the man who is 
 willing that impudence and theft shall sit in the seat of 
 power, so long as he is left free to pile up his millions or 
 scatter them like a lord on the playground of Europe. 
 
 The Capital of the United States— what is it? It is not 
 marble palaces nor lofty domes nor splendid obelisks. If 
 it is anything, it typifies a great idea. The deepest word 
 that was ever uttered to interpret that idea was wrung 
 from lips that trembled between hope and despair upon 
 the field of Gettysburg— "of the people, for the people, by 
 
 24 
 
the people." Can Washington typify that idea while it 
 stands as it does to-day ? It cannot be. It must be changed. 
 It will be changed. The time will surely come when he 
 who stands in the shadow of these majestic structures, 
 and of the prouder ones that shall arise, will have no 
 cause to hang his head for shame at any violation of our 
 principles, but will feel that here —here more truly than 
 anywhere else on the face of the whole earth— he is stand- 
 ing in their august and visible presence. 
 
 And now, Mr. President, at the end as at the begin- 
 ning, we turn to you, not to express the hope that you may 
 discharge the new duties with clearer sight or firmer 
 fidelity than you discharged the old — for that would be 
 impossible— but that in your more exalted station you 
 may find a wider field for your beneficent endeavors, 
 cheered, as you will be, by the personal love of millions of 
 your fellows and supported by the unwavering faith of 
 all America. 
 
 25 
 

 address of 
 The President of the United States 
 
 Mr. Chairman, and the 
 
 Solid Men of Washington : 
 
 I wish to thank you from the bottom of my heart for 
 the courtesy that you have extended to me this evening 
 in this magnificent banquet, and in your coming here to 
 take part in this occasion. I am proud of it, if it be the 
 case, and I must beheve it from the assurances given to- 
 night, that this is the first time that a President of the 
 United States has ever had the pleasure of meeting on 
 such an occasion and under such circumstances, the busi- 
 ness men of Washington. I hope for close intimacy; I 
 hope that we may come together and we may discuss 
 these things, because certainly we need it. I take the 
 utmost personal pride in the city of Washington. It 
 thrills my heart every day to look out of the back win- 
 dows of the White House — for the short time I have been 
 there — and whenever I get the opportunity, to see 
 this beautiful city in which we are permitted to live — 
 these avenues and streets, constructed on a magnificent 
 plan, looking forward for centuries; these trees, planted 
 with great foresight to make every part of Washington a 
 park; these vistas into which always creeps unbidden that 
 beautiful shaft that marks the memory of the founder of 
 this city. 
 
 I have not been here very long in the city of Washing- 
 ton, as some men count it long. I was here two years, 
 
 27 
 
between 1890 and 1892; four years, from 1904 to 1908- 
 but that is a little bit longer than Justice Stafford. I 
 have been a taxpayer; I have invested some money in 
 land in Washington and have not seen a dollar come out of 
 it; I have sent my children to the public schools; I have 
 hung to straps in street cars, going both ways to the 
 Capitol; I have bathed in the Potomac mud — in a bath 
 tub; I have lunched at Harvey's on those steamed 
 oysters, and I have been a fan with my friend "Sunny 
 Jim" at the base-ball park, and have had a love, and 
 cultivated it with him, for tail-enders. And therefore I 
 claim that I have been through experiences that ought to 
 give me some of the local atmosphere and some of the 
 local feeling of Washington. And yet, with all that, 
 gentlemen, as I look about here into these smiling faces, 
 these somewhat rotund forms that give evidence of pros- 
 perity, it is a little difficult for me to realize that it was 
 about those caitiffs and these slaves that Mr. Justice 
 Stafford spoke. 
 
 In spite of that experience, with respect to Washington 
 I am a nationalist. This city is the home of the govern- 
 ment of a nation and when men who were just as 
 much imbued with the principles of civil liberty as 
 any who have come after, Washington at the head, 
 put into the constitution the provision with reference to 
 the government of the District of Columbia, they knew 
 what they were doing and spoke for a coming possible 
 eighty millions of people who should insist that the home 
 of the government of that eighty millions of people should 
 be governed by the representatives of that eighty mil- 
 lions of people; and that if there were in that eighty 
 millions of people men who desired to come and share in 
 the grandeur of that capital and live in a city of magnifi- 
 cent beauty as this was, and enjoy all the privileges, 
 then they come with their eyes open as to the character 
 of the government that they were to have, and they must 
 know that they must depend not upon the principles 
 ordinarily governing in popular government, but that they 
 must trust, in order to secure their liberty— to get their 
 
 28 
 
guaranties— they must trust to the representatives of 
 eighty millions of people selected under that Constitution. 
 
 Now I want to say, with deference to this discussion, 
 that if this meeting, or subsequent meetings, are to be 
 devoted to securing an amendment to the Constitution, by 
 which you are going to disturb the principle of two 
 Senators, from every State, and you are going to abolish 
 the provision that was put in there ex-industria by George 
 Washington, you will not get ahead in the matter of 
 better government in Washington by such meetings. I 
 do not want to seem to be abrupt, but I believe it is possi- 
 ble by such meetings as this to arouse the interest of Con- 
 gress, and the Executive, to the necessity of consulting 
 the people of Washington, to let them act as Americans, 
 act when they don't have the right of suffrage— let them 
 act by the right of petition, and are they not exercising 
 that right all the time? Isn't it possible to determine on 
 the part of the committees of the House and the Senate 
 what the attitude of the Washington citizens is? Why, the 
 government that we have today in Washington everybody 
 admits is a good government. Has it not been brought 
 about through the aid of those very committees in the 
 House and Senate who you say know nothing about 
 Washington, and who make their knowledge, or lack of 
 knowledge, ridiculous by showing it? We are all imper- 
 fect. We cannot expect perfect government, but what 
 we ought to do is to pursue practical methods, and not, I 
 submit with deference to Judge Stafford, make it seem as 
 if the people of Washington were suffering some great 
 and tremendous load and sorrow, when as a matter of 
 fact they are the envy of the citizens of other cities. 
 
 Washington intended this to be a Federal city, and it is 
 a Federal city, and it tingles down to the feet of every 
 man, whether he comes from Washington State, or Los 
 Angeles, or Texas, when he comes and walks these city 
 streets and starts to feel that "this is my city; I own a 
 part of this Capital, and I envy for the time being those 
 who are able to spend their time here." I quite admit 
 that there are defects in the system of government by 
 
 29 
 
which Congress is bound to look after the government of 
 the District of Columbia. It could not be otherwise under 
 such a system, but I submit to the judgment of history 
 that the results vindicate the foresight of the fathers. 
 
 Now, I am opposed to the franchise in the District; I 
 am opposed, and not because I yield to anyone in my sup- 
 port and belief in the principles of self-government; but 
 principles are applicable generally, and, then, unless you 
 make exceptions to the application of these principles, you 
 will find that they will carry you to very illogical and 
 absurd results. This was taken out of the application of 
 the principle of self-government in the very Constitution 
 that was intended to put that in force in every other part 
 of the country, and it was done because it was intended 
 to have the representatives of all the people in the coun- 
 try control this one city, and to prevent its being con- 
 trolled by the parochial spirit that would necessarily 
 govern men who did not look beyond the city to the 
 grandeur of the nation, and this as the representative of 
 that nation. 
 
 I have got over being frightened by being told that I am 
 forgetting the principles of the fathers. The principles 
 of the fathers are maintained by those who maintain them 
 with reason, and according to the fitness of the thing, and 
 not by those who are constantly shaking them before the 
 mass of the voters for the purpose of misleading them. 
 
 Now, the question arises : What shall we do with the 
 government of Washington? Shall we have the present 
 board of three; shall we have one or shall we have some 
 other form? I confess I do not know. My predecessor 
 has recommended a change of the present form so as to 
 give the responsibility to one, with the view of visiting 
 that one with the responsibility. On the other hand, it 
 is said that three have worked well; that it gives more 
 opportunity, possibly, for counsel, and that it takes away 
 the bureaucratic character of the government. As I have 
 said, I have reached no conclusion as to what recommenda- 
 tion I shall make to Congress on the subject. I fully con- 
 cur with Justice Stafford in thinking that it would be most 
 
 30 
 
unwise to introduce into the District what I understand to 
 be a bureaucratic form of government That is right. A 
 bureaucratic form of government is one which, as he very- 
 well described it, would make the War Department look 
 after the streets; Dr. Wiley, possibly, look after the 
 health— the Agricultural Department through him— and 
 the Treasury Department look after the finances. And 
 so as to each branch of the government you should go to 
 the head of that particular department in the general 
 government. I think that would be a very burdensome, a 
 very awkward, a very clumsy system of government. I 
 am strongly in favor of retaining the municipal form, so 
 that everything which shall effect the city of Washington 
 shall be done under the chief executive of that city, and 
 by that chief executive. In other words, I would give an 
 entity to the city of Washington, or the District of 
 Columbia, and take all of that entity out of the operation 
 of the bureaus of the general government. That is what 
 I understand to be the government today, and the only 
 question that has been noted is really whether one man 
 should be put at the head of that government as a mayor, 
 or whether you should have three. I agree that probably 
 three men are better, where you have real legislative func- 
 tions to perform. I am inclined to think that, where the 
 legislative functions are reduced to a minimum and con- 
 sist in little more than mere executive regulation, that 
 possibly the one-headed form is the better, for executive 
 purposes and to fix the responsibility; but I am only think- 
 ing out loud, and only because we are here talking right 
 out in meeting I am telling you the reasons as they have 
 been brought to me. 
 
 Now, I want to talk about the future. And the future of 
 Washington! What an enormous development is before 
 us! Why, I am not an imaginative man, but I would like 
 to come back here a hundred years hence and see the 
 beauties of which this city is capable, right here, under 
 our noses for a time, under our very eyes, are those 
 beautiful Potomac flats that are going to make as fine 
 parks and parkways as there are in the world. 
 
 31 
 
These parks ought to be connected with the Rock Creek 
 Park by means of the mouth of Rock Creek, or other- 
 wise; and then through them all there ought to be car- 
 ried a park clear around, including the Soldiers' Home, 
 and completing the circuit with Rock Creek at the other 
 end. Then, too, there is the development in Anacostia 
 and along the Eastern Branch. Then, the opportunities 
 for playgrounds that there are in Washington! It just 
 makes my mouth water for my poor city of Cincinnati 
 when I look out and can see clear down to the Potomac 
 and can see six and seven base ball matches going on with 
 all the fervor of Young America, and nobody to say them 
 nay! And to think — to think, that we had a genius a 
 hundred years ago, almost, in his way, as matchless as 
 Washington, to make the plan for a great Capital, like 
 the Frenchman whose remains were buried here the other 
 day, and whose plans were hardly changed in the new 
 plan made by Burnham and his associates. I know there 
 has been discussion as to that plan. There has been a 
 feeling that perhaps it was slipped onto us at one time 
 and slipped in at another; but we all know, even my dear 
 friend, good old Uncle Joe, knows that we are going to 
 build up to that plan some day. It is not coming at once, 
 but we ought to thank God that we have got a plan like 
 that to build to, so that when we go on with the im- 
 provement every dollar that we put in goes to make 
 Washington beautiful a hundred years hence. 
 
 Then, Justice Stafford, in his very eloquent remarks, 
 called attention to the fact that in 1846 — I am sorry to say 
 it ought to be characterized, at least as far as that is con- 
 cerned, as a day of small things — when the Congress 
 could have recited this : ' 'Whereas, no more territory 
 ought to be held under the exclusive legislation given to 
 Congress over the District, which is the seat of the 
 general government, than may be necessary and proper 
 for the purposes of such a seat. Therefore, we give 
 back all that we get from Virginia". It is true the early 
 statute said that no buildings should be put on anything 
 but the Maryland side of the river, and perhaps they felt 
 
 32 
 
that as we were not going to use that side for buildings, 
 they did not need it at all. I have never been able to sat- 
 isfy myself that that retrocession was within the power of 
 Congress to make. They did attempt to settle it once in 
 the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court has a facility 
 in avoiding the main question, born of long practice. And 
 when a gentleman who is paying taxes on this side asks 
 that they be extended to the other side, on the ground 
 that that retrocession did not carry Virginia, so that he 
 might have his taxes reduced, the Supreme Court said that 
 he could not do it in a collateral way; said that, as both 
 parties to the transaction seemed to be satisfied up to this 
 time they did not intend to investigate or seek any bur- 
 dens that their salaries did not require them to meet. We 
 have never had that question tested. I believe we ought 
 to look forward to a great city of Washington, and while 
 the Anglo-Saxon— and especially the Anglo-Saxon in 
 Virginia — holds on to territory as long as he can, it might 
 be possible by agitating the question in a legal way to 
 induce another settlement by which we should get the 
 only part of that that we really would like to have, the 
 part that we own now in fee, the eleven hundred acres of 
 the Arlington estate, and a great deal that is unoccupied, 
 leaving Alexandria out, and Falls Church, and taking in 
 only that that is inhabited, so that we may have in this 
 District, under our fostering control, where we can build 
 roads and make the District still more beautiful, that 
 bank of the Potomac on the other side, as you go up 
 towards Cabin John Bridge. We will need it; the city 
 will continue to grow. It may be, as Justice Stafford has 
 said, that there will be inaugurated a protest by the peo- 
 ple living here that they have not political power; but, I 
 think that the Justice will find, when he comes to looking 
 into the hearts of the American people, that they will not 
 be convinced when they come to Washington that the 
 Washingtonians are suffering to that degree that requires 
 a reversement of the policy adopted, with entire clearness 
 of mind, by the framers of the Constitution. Washington, 
 who doubtless inserted that particular provision in the 
 
 33 
 
Constitution, through his influence, also had L'Enfant 
 draw the plans of Washington— and the plans of Wash- 
 ington were not adapted to a village like Alexandria and 
 the village that was in the District at the time we came 
 here— that was adapted to a city of significant distances, 
 and to a city of millions of inhabitants; and therefore the 
 clause was adopted, knowing that just such a city we 
 would have here, and just such a city would have to get 
 along, relying upon the training in self-government of the 
 representatives of eighty millions of people to justice by it. 
 Now my dear friends, I want to say to you that I have 
 got into a constitutional discussion here that I did not 
 anticipate, but I hope it has not clouded my meaning, 
 which I intended to make as clear as possible, that I am 
 deeply interested in the welfare of the District, I am 
 deeply interested in securing good government to every 
 man, woman and child in this District, and to secure so 
 far as is possible, with the original plan under the Con- 
 stitution, such voice as the people of the District may 
 require in their local matters. But, when it comes to 
 defining how that is to be given, I can not be any more 
 explicit than to say it must rest ultimately on the right 
 of representation and petition. I do not see how you 
 can do anything else. I am sure that if you will con- 
 stantly agitate, and if you will have as eloquent an orator 
 as Justice Stafford talk to the committees of the House 
 and Senate every year, he will rouse them to such a 
 desire to save you from the "slavery" that he has pic- 
 tured that you will get the attention you deserve. 
 
 34 
 
THE SOUVENIR 
 CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING 
 
DINNER TO THE 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 BY THE 
 
 CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON 
 
 UNDER THE AUSPICES OF 
 
 THE BOARD OF TRADE 
 
 AND 
 
 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 
 
 SATURDAY EVENING, MAY EIGHTH 
 NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINE 
 
'^r 
 
GUESTS 
 
 The Vice-President of the United States 
 
 The Speaker of the House of Representatives 
 
 Hon. Philander Chase Knox 
 
 Hon. Franklin McVeagh 
 
 Hon. Frank Harris Hitchcock 
 
 Hon. Charles Nagel 
 
 Hon Henry B. F. Macfarland 
 
 Hon. Henry L West 
 
 MAJ. WM V JUDSON 
 
 Hon. Wm. O. Bradley 
 
 Hon Morgan G Bulkeley 
 
 Hon. Elmer J. Burkett 
 
 Hon. Thomas H. Carter 
 
 Hon. Spephen B Elkins 
 
 Hon. Duncan U. Fletcher 
 
 Hon. Thomas H. Paynter 
 
 Hon Nathan B. Scott 
 Hon. Benjamin R. Tillman 
 
 Hon. Eaton J. Bowers 
 
 Hon. Albert S. Burleson 
 
 Hon Philip P. Campbell 
 
 Hon. Wm. J. Gary 
 
 Hon Julius Kahn 
 
 Hon J. Van Vechten Olcott 
 
 Hon. George a. Pearre 
 
 Hon. Thetus W. Sims 
 
 Hon. Samuel W. Smith 
 
 Hon. Edward Livingston Taylor. Jr. 
 
 Hon. Edward B. Vreeland 
 
 Colonel Spencer Cosby 
 
 Captain Archibald Butt 
 
PROGRAM 
 
 introductory address 
 Mr. John Joy Edson 
 
 CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE 
 
 WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE AND THE 
 
 WASHINGTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 
 
 address 
 Hon. Wendell Phillips Stafford 
 
 ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBI, 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 The President of the United States 
 
MENU 
 
 PINEAPPLE. NEW WILLARD 
 
 OLIVES RADISHES SALTED NUTS 
 
 CLEAR GREEN TURTLE 
 
 BROOK TROUT, SAUTE MEUNIERE 
 
 HOT HOUSE TOMATO 
 
 RACK OF LAMB EN CASSEROLE. BOURGEOISE 
 
 FRESH WHITE ASPARAGUS, HOLLANDAISE 
 
 TERRAPIN. MARYLAND 
 
 SORBET FANTAISIE 
 
 SQUAB CHICKEN, ROASTED 
 
 SALAD DE SAISON 
 
 SNOWBALLS, SAUCE CHANTILLY 
 
 ASSORTED CAKES 
 
 OSashinaton 
 
 MARTINI COCKTAILS St)f >'eto lHUIatfi 
 
 Sauterne 
 
 Champagne 
 
 Mineral Water 
 
 Cigars 
 
 Cigarettes 
 
MUSIC 
 
 United States Marine Band Orchestra 
 
 LIEUT. W. H. SANTELMANN. LEADER 
 
 2. overture merry wives of windsor nlcoual 
 
 3. excerpts from rigoletto verdi 
 
 4. waltz the bachelors santelmann 
 
 5. sextette lucia donizetti 
 
 6. southern sketch myddleton 
 
 way down upon the suwanee river 
 
 7. First waltz durand 
 
 a. SCENES FROM The MERRY WIDOW LEHAR 
 
 THE FAIREST OF THE FAIR 
 
PARTICIPANTS 
 
 Mr. Byron S. Adams 
 Mr. Milton E. Ailes 
 MR. Allen D. Albert. Jr. 
 Mr. DwiGHT. Anderson 
 MR. R. P. Andrews 
 Mr. Wm. H. Baldwin 
 Mr. B F. Barnes 
 Mr. Lester A. Barr 
 MR John Barrett 
 Mr. Charles J. Bell 
 Mr. Claude N. Bennett 
 Mr. Ira E. Bennett 
 Mr. John G. Bennett 
 MR. W. Berens. jr. 
 Mr. H C. Bergheimer 
 Mr. Emile Berliner 
 MR. Frank H. Bethell 
 Mr. Gist Blair 
 Mr Henry P. Blair 
 Mr. W. J. Boardman 
 Mr. Scott C. Bone 
 HON. George m. Bowers 
 Mr. Morgan Bradford. Jr. 
 Mr. Alexander B.ritton 
 Mr. Chapin BpowN 
 Mr. Percival M. Brown 
 Mr. T. Janney Brown 
 Mr. Alois B. Browne 
 Mr. Charles S. Bundy 
 
 MR. ACHILLE E. BURKLIN 
 
 Mr. p. G. Burton 
 
 L. White Busbey 
 
 D. J. Callahan 
 Mr. David S. Carll 
 Mr. Fred. w. Carpenter 
 Mr. Albert Carry 
 Mr. Tileston F. Chambers 
 Mr. W. W. Chiswell 
 Mr. W. A. H. Church 
 Mr. Appleton p. Clark. Jr. 
 Mr. Murray A. Cobb 
 Dr. Horace B. Coblentz 
 Mr. Myer Cohen 
 Mr. F. G. Coldren 
 
 Mr 
 Mr 
 
 Mr. Robert Cook 
 
 Mr. James C. Courts 
 
 Mr. William V. Cox 
 
 Mr. A. P. Crenshaw 
 
 MR. H. H. Darneille 
 
 Mm. Henry E. Davis 
 
 Mr. Wm. H. DeUacey 
 
 Mr. Thomas J. Donovan 
 
 Mr. J. Maury Dove 
 
 Mr. p. a. Drury 
 
 Mr. G. E. Dunkum 
 
 Mr. George J. Easterday 
 
 Mr. John Joy Edson 
 
 Mr. John Joy Edson. jr. 
 
 Mr. Joseph R. Edson 
 
 Mr. F. B. Eichelberger 
 
 Mr. George W. Engel 
 
 Mr. William J. Eynon 
 
 Mr. Henry H. Flather 
 
 Mr. Wm. J. Flather 
 
 Mr. G. W. Forsberg 
 
 Mr. W. H. Franklin 
 
 Mr. Daniel Fraser 
 
 MR. George H. Gall 
 
 Mr. W. T. Galliher 
 
 Mr. Isaac Gans 
 
 Mr. Julius Garfinkle 
 
 Mr. S. Gassenheimer 
 
 Mr. E. Gerstenberg 
 
 Mr. Henry H. Glassie 
 
 Mr. C. C. Glover 
 
 Mr. M. Goldenberg 
 
 Mr. R. H. Golosborough 
 
 Mr. Philip F. Gormley 
 
 Mr. E. C. Graham 
 
 Mr. Thomas Grant 
 
 Mr. Benjamin S. Graves' 
 
 Mr. Gilbert h, Grosvenor 
 
 Mr. a. Gude 
 
 Mr. William F. Gude 
 
 Mr. Benjamin W. Guy 
 
 Mr. George E. Hamilton 
 
 Dr. W. S. Harban 
 
 MR. Robert n. Harper 
 
PARTICIPANTS 
 
 Mr, Carl A. Droop 
 Mr. Edward H. Droop 
 Mr. William A. Easterday 
 Gen. George H. Harries 
 Mr. A. K. T. Harvey 
 Mr. Giles F. Heilprin 
 Mr. James B. Henderson 
 Mr. R. W. Henderson 
 Mr. Wm. G. Henderson 
 Mr. James S. Henry 
 Mr. J. William Henry 
 Mr. Alexander T. Hensey 
 Mr. J. Whit Herron 
 Mr. Christian Heurich 
 Mr. W. B. Hibbs 
 Adml. Philip F. Highborn 
 Mr. Wm, a. Hill 
 Mr. Joel Hillman 
 Mr. Walter E. Hilton 
 Mr. W. B. Holtzclaw 
 Mr. James C. Hooe 
 Mr. Wm. D. Hoover 
 Mr. Lewis Hopfenmaier 
 Mr, Thomas S. Hopkins 
 Mr. George Howard 
 Hon. George F. Huff 
 Mr. J. e. Hurley 
 Mr. Hennen Jennings 
 Mr. C. a. Joerissen 
 Gen. John a. Johnston 
 Mr. O. h. Perry Johnson 
 Mr. Sigmund Kann 
 Mr, Simon Kann 
 Mr. Rudolph Kauffmann 
 Mr. D. J. Kaufman 
 Maj. L. M. Kelley 
 Mr. George A. King 
 Mr. Harry King 
 Dr. Richard Kingsman 
 Mr. L. H. Kinnard 
 Mr. D. E. Kleps 
 Mr. Wilton J. Lambert 
 Mr. Charles C. Lancaster 
 Mr. James lansburgh 
 
 Mr. John B. Larner 
 Mr. Ralph W. Lee 
 Mr. Charles Linkins 
 
 Mr. a. LISNETR 
 
 Mr. Alvin M. Lothrop 
 Mr." Otto Luebkert 
 Mr. John G. Luke 
 Mr. a. B. Lyon 
 Mr. William W, McClench 
 Mr. John McElroy 
 Mr. Frederic D. McKenney 
 Mr. Edward McLean 
 Mr. John H. Magruder 
 Mr. Arthur D. Marks 
 Mr. S. J. Masters 
 Mr. L. H. Mattingly 
 Mr. Wm. F. Mattingly 
 Mr. Wm. a. Mearns 
 Mr. Samuel W. Meek 
 Mr. Robert L, Middleton 
 Mr, Frank P. Milburn 
 Mr. Fred W. Miller 
 Mr, John H. Miller 
 Mr. Lewis M. Miller 
 Mr, Wendell W, Mischler 
 Mr, Lester D. Moore. Jr. 
 Mr, Samuel h. Moore 
 Mr. Arthur C. Moses 
 Mr. Wm. H. Moses 
 Mr. Edward S. Munford 
 Maj, Edwin H. Neu.meyer 
 Mr. H, T. NEWCOM6 
 Mr. W. W. Norman 
 Mr. Clarence F. Norme« 
 Mr. Harry Norment 
 Mr. Theodore w. Noyes 
 Mr. Thomas C. Noyes 
 Mr. Howard S. Nyman 
 Capt. James F. Oyster 
 Mr. E. Southard Parker 
 Mr. Myron M. Parker 
 Mr. James L. Parsons 
 Maj. D. C. Phillips 
 Mr. Robert A. Phillips 
 
PARTICIPANTS 
 
 Mr. Arthur G. Plant 
 
 MR. D. S. Porter 
 
 Mr. a. d. Prince 
 
 Mr. Frederick B. Pyle 
 
 Mr. Arthur T. Ramsay 
 
 Mr. a. E. Randle 
 
 Mr. George C. Rankin 
 
 Mr. E. E. Rapley 
 
 Mr. W. H. Rapley 
 
 Mr. Charles Rauscher 
 
 Mr. Albert m. Read 
 
 Mr. Frank M. Reed 
 
 Mr. Frank P. Reeside 
 
 Mr. Benjamin W. Reiss 
 
 Mr. Clarence B. Rheem 
 
 Mr. Max M. Rich 
 
 Dr. Chas. W. Richardson 
 
 Dr. J. J. Richardson 
 
 Mr. W. F. Roberts 
 
 Mr. Wm. L. Robbins 
 
 MR, CuNO H. Rudolph 
 
 Mr. Joseph I. Saks 
 
 Mr. F. R. Sale 
 
 Mr. F. T. Sanner 
 
 Mr. B. F. Saul 
 
 Mr. Ewald Schneider 
 
 Mr. George F. Schutt 
 
 Mr. Charles W. Semmes 
 
 Mr. J. Albert Shaffer 
 
 Mr. Wm. E. Shannon 
 
 Mr. Edgar d. Shaw 
 
 Mr. n. H. Shea 
 
 Mr. Wm. Morgan Shuster 
 
 Mr. Henry K. Simpson 
 
 Mr. John C. Simpson 
 
 MR. A. Leftwich Sinclair 
 
 Mr. John B. Sleman. Jr. 
 
 Mr. J. H. Small 
 
 Mr. B. f. Smith 
 
 Mr. Emmons S. Smith 
 
 Mr. E. Quincy Smith 
 
 Mr. George Linville Smith 
 
 Mr. Odell S. Smith 
 
 Mr. Thomas W. Smith 
 
 Mr. t. Towson Smith 
 Gen. Ellis Spear 
 Mr. E. B. Spence 
 Mr. p. G. Staples 
 Mr. E. J. Stellwagen 
 Mr. Joseph Strausburoer 
 Mr. G. w. F. Swartzell 
 Mr. j. Selwyn Tait 
 Mr. Alfred P. Thom 
 Mr. S. Percy Thompson 
 Mr. W. B. Thompson 
 Mr. John M. Thurston 
 Mr. Charles E. Tribbey 
 Mr. George Truesdell 
 Mr. Perry B. Turpin 
 Mr. Wm. p. Van Wickle 
 MR. F. H. Walker 
 Mr. John H. Walker 
 Mr. W. H. Walker 
 Mr. E. J. Walsh 
 Mr. Thomas F. Walsh 
 Mr. Harry Wardman 
 Mr. B. H. Warner 
 Mr. John L. Weaver 
 Mr. Joseph I. Weller 
 Mr. M. I. Weller 
 Mr. Hylas T. Wheeler 
 Mr. Geo. W. White 
 Mr. H. K. Willard 
 Mr. Louis c. Wilson 
 Mr. Simon Wolf 
 Mr. Levi Woodbury 
 Mr. S. W. Woodward 
 Dr. Wm. C. Woodward 
 Mr. Geo. Y. Worthington 
 MR. O. B. Zantzinger 
 Dr. a. K. p. Harvey 
 Mr. Alfred P. Thom. Jr. 
 Percy S. Foster 
 Mr. J. E. Defebaugh 
 Mr. Snowden Ashford 
 Mr. Thomas P. Bones 
 Mr. E. b. Grandin 
 Mr. J. Harry Cunningham 
 
Committee on Dinner 
 
 Mr John Joy Edson. chairman 
 
 Mr. Charles J. Bell, treasurer 
 
 Mr. D J Callahan, secretary 
 
 Mr. Allen D. Albert. Jr 
 
 Mr. Scott C Bone 
 
 Mr. Wm F. Gude 
 
 Gen. George H. Harries 
 
 Mr. Edward McLean 
 
 Mr. Arthur C. Moses 
 
 Mr. Theodore W. Noyes 
 
 Capt James F Oyster 
 
 Mr. J H Small. Jr 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 006 147 372 5