LAW, BUSINESS, AND LETTERS
Columbia Law School--Impressions of the faculty--I begin law
practice--Early partnerships--A $10,000 fee--Founding of the Young
Men's Hebrew Association in 1874--The "dissipations" of a law
partner--The Hepburn Committee on railway rates; my partner Simon
Sterne represents the Chamber of Commerce--On the bridle-path with
Joseph H. Choate--I become a member of L. Straus & Sons,
manufacturers and importers--My marriage to Miss Sarah
Lavanburg--My debut in politics--The Cleveland-Blaine campaign--The
"rum, Romanism, and rebellion" episode--"Origin of the Republican
Form of Government," my first book--Recommended as minister to
Turkey; Henry Ward Beecher writes the President--Cleveland
nominates me minister to Turkey.
Columbia Law School in 1871 was at Lafayette Place. The course covered
two years, at the end of which a successful examination entitled a
student to admission to the bar without a further State examination, and
for those who gave serious attention to the course it was an easy matter
to pass this finishing examination.
Particularly worthy of mention with regard to the school are Professors
Theodore W. Dwight and Francis Lieber. Professor Dwight, the able
director of the school at that time, well deserved his great reputation
as the most distinguished teacher of law in the country. He was not only
a master of his subject, but had a marvelous gift for imparting his
great knowledge.
Professor Lieber, whose lectures we attended once a week, taught us
political science. He was a Prussian veteran who fought in the Battle of
Waterloo. At the close of the Napoleonic Wars he had returned to his
studies in Berlin, and thereafter was arrested several times for his
outspoken liberal views. After frequent persecution and even
imprisonment, he fled to England, and in 1827 came to America.
He was author of many books on legal and political matters, among them
"Civil Liberty and Self-Government," which was adopted as a textbook in
several of our universities. In 1863 he prepared "Instructions for the
Government of Armies of the United States, in the Field," which Lincoln
promulgated as Order No. 100 of the War Department. It was a masterly
piece of work, embodying advanced humanitarian principles, and it later
formed the basis of several European codes.
As a rule, egotism and real merit negate one another rather than
cooerdinate; Lieber was the exception. He had both, and combined them to
a marked degree, sometimes in a manner that afforded amusement to his
students. For instance, he referred continuously to "my Civil Liberty"
as a book of extraordinary erudition, new in its field and the last word
on the matter. He was so full of his subject that he was apt to lose
himself and stray off, with his distinctly German accent, into the vast
field of his profound philosophical and historical knowledge. A
veritable encyclopaedia of information, he was really more of an
expounder than a teacher. As his course was optional, those who came to
listen came to learn, and we received a larger view of the function of
law in civil society than we derived from all our studies of municipal
law.
* * * * *
I was graduated from law school in June, 1873, and immediately entered
the offices of Ward, Jones & Whitehead, one of New York's prominent
firms. John E. Ward, the senior member, who presided over the Democratic
National Convention that nominated Buchanan, and later served for two or
three years as Minister to China, was a friend of my brother's, and he
took me into his office largely out of friendship for Isidor.
I remained with this firm only a few months. Later in 1873 I formed a
partnership with James A. Hudson, a man about ten years older than I,
who had also been associated with the Ward firm. As Hudson & Straus we
opened offices on the fourth floor of 59 Wall Street.
On the same floor in this building was the office of Charles O'Conor,
then the acknowledged head of the American Bar. He had practically
retired, but retained a small office of one or two rooms, with one
clerk. He came in only two or three times a week. Often when he felt
fatigued he would rest on a lounge in a room set apart as library in our
office. For a young lawyer like myself it was an unusual privilege to
have such pleasant personal relations with so able and wise a leader in
the profession. Incidentally I think O'Conor was instrumental in sending
us our first important case, the collection of an old debt of
considerable size. We were so successful for our client that, of his own
accord, he sent us a check for ten thousand dollars, saying he would
make it larger if we regarded it insufficient. The fact was, the amount
was larger than we had thought of charging, and we frankly told him so.
With five thousand dollars in reserve I felt rich and independent. My
wants were naturally simple and our general practice was encouraging.
* * * * *
At about this time I first became active in public-spirited
undertakings. The Young Men's Christian Association a few years before
had opened its Twenty-Third Street Branch at the corner of Fourth Avenue
and Twenty-Third Street, and the movement on the whole was getting much
publicity and proving very successful in its work among young men. But
it was an institution for Christians, and it occurred to several of
us--as I remember it, there were two of my fellow members of the bar,
Meyer S. Isaacs and Isaac S. Isaacs; Dr. Simeon N. Leo, Solomon B.
Solomon, and myself--that it would be a useful undertaking if we
organized a Young Men's Hebrew Association for the cultural and
intellectual advancement of Jewish young men. After a few preliminary
meetings we launched our project early in 1874. We rented a house in the
vicinity of Nineteenth or Twentieth Street and began in a very modest
way. Our first entertainment was of a purely literary nature, and I
recollect on that occasion addressing the members of the infant
enterprise on the subject of literary clubs, ancient and modern, from
the time of Socrates and Plato to the days of the coffee houses of
Addison, Steele, and Goldsmith. The Y.M.H.A. subsequently had its years
of struggle for existence, but to-day its place in our cities as an
influence for the development of culture and patriotism is assured, as
well as that of its sister organization of later birth, the Young
Women's Hebrew Association.
I had chosen the law as my profession, but I still wrote verse, and in
the decade following my graduation published several pieces. At one
memorable event I was invited to deliver an original poem. It was in
1875, at a large fair in Gilmore's Garden, the predecessor of the
present Madison Square Garden. The fair was held to raise funds toward
the erection of a new building for the Mount Sinai Hospital, and the
immense auditorium was crowded. Samuel J. Tilden, then Governor of New
York and also prospective Democratic nominee for President, made the
opening address. My poetic possibilities, however, rested more upon
aspiration than inspiration, and my craving for versification was but a
passing phase of my literary activities.
About 1876 we removed our office to the New York Life Building, then, as
now, at 346 Broadway, corner of Leonard Street. Our clientele was
mostly commercial and this neighborhood seemed more convenient. Our
neighbors at the new location were Chamberlain, Carter & Eaton, a
prominent commercial law firm of which Charles E. Hughes subsequently
became a member.
A few years later we took into our firm Simon Sterne, then one of the
brilliant younger members of the bar, and our firm became Sterne, Hudson
& Straus. But Hudson wanted to devote himself to patent law, in which he
had specialized somewhat, so the firm soon changed again to Sterne,
Straus & Thompson. Daniel G. Thompson had been our managing clerk. He
had an attractive personality and a philosophical temperament, but was
more a psychologist than a lawyer. He was author of several works on the
science and history of psychology which were favorably received and
commended by such men as Herbert Spencer and other high authorities in
both Europe and America. These qualities made him a target for the
sarcasm of Sterne, who, on the other hand, was thoroughly the lawyer. On
one occasion I remember Sterne asking me whether I knew Thompson was
dissipating. I expressed surprise, and Sterne went on: "Certainly he is,
for when he goes home he works till all hours of the night writing
psychology, and naturally next day he comes with an exhausted brain to
his legal work. He might better go on a spree, for one gets over that.
But when one buries one's self in such an exacting science he is lost
for the law, which is a jealous mistress and will not bear a rival."
* * * * *
Under the name of Sterne, Straus & Thompson we had a practice that
ranged all the way from the collection of debts to questions affecting
street railways and public utilities. Our old firm had a business like
that of most young lawyers, but Sterne's practice was much more
important, his field being mainly banking and railroads. Sterne, in
fact, was rapidly achieving a reputation as an authority in the State on
railways and railway legislation. At that time there was no Interstate
Commerce Commission. Many New York merchants were complaining, through
the New York Chamber of Commerce and the New York Board of Trade and
Transportation, that the railroads were discriminating and giving to
certain shippers much lower rates than to others, also giving preference
to some in the moving of freight. In 1879 the Legislature finally
appointed a committee of eight men to investigate these charges. A.
Barton Hepburn, member of the Assembly from St. Lawrence County, was
made chairman, causing the committee always thereafter to be referred to
as the Hepburn Committee. Sterne represented the Chamber of Commerce and
the Board of Trade in this investigation.
The committee sat intermittently for about nine months. The railroads
had a brilliant array of legal talent, but Sterne elicited testimony
from them which proved the charges of the merchants. Sterne then drafted
the report of the committee, which included several recommendations for
legislation. It was the first impressive and well-directed attempt to
deal with the regulation of transportation companies, and resulted in
the passage, in 1880, of the bill creating the first Board of Railroad
Commissioners. Later, in 1887, the influence of this work was still
alive in connection with legislation for the creation of the Federal
Interstate Commerce Commission. The business of our firm did not exactly
benefit by this public service of Sterne. As a result of his public
activities and settlement of litigation, such railway clients as we had
were lost to us at about this time.
At this point in my career I have the fond recollection of a dear and
intimate friendship, which continued for several years, with Joseph H.
Choate, of the firm of Evarts, Southmayd & Choate. We used to ride
horseback together in the park before breakfast. This intimacy naturally
was very valuable to me. We discussed all manner of topics, not only
affecting our profession, but touching many public matters and the
philosophy of life and living in general. In these morning hours, with
the exhilaration of our ride, Mr. Choate was always full of fun and good
humor. He was the most sought after person for addressing all important
public functions, and frequently he would outline the substance of his
addresses. Speaking one day of the many demands upon him as a speaker,
he remarked that he appeared to be in the fashion just then, but, like
wall-paper, fashions change, and it was not likely to last long. In his
case, however, the fashion lasted, even increased, until his death in
1917.
My major law work was in the most exacting and nerve-racking branch, the
trying of cases. My general physical condition, though never robust, was
none the less good, but I had not learned what one is more apt to
acquire later in life: to conserve my energies. The result was that the
wear and tear of court work reduced my weight to one hundred and five
pounds. My physician strongly advised me to do less exacting work, and
especially to stop trying cases. As this branch of the law appealed to
me most, it was a grave disappointment to have to abandon it. Rather
than continue in the profession with such an inhibition, therefore, I
yielded to the advice of my father and brother to join their firm.
* * * * *
I took a vacation of several months, and upon my return early in 1881 I
became a member of L. Straus & Sons, who had become large manufacturers
and importers of china and glassware. On account of the growing business
they really needed my services, and my transition from professional to
business man was made as acceptable and agreeable as possible. As was to
be expected, I continued for some time to long for "the fleshpots of
Egypt," for I was much attached to my profession. As a compensation, and
to satisfy my intellectual longings, I devoted my evenings and spare
time to historical reading and study.
Having embarked on a business career, I reversed a decision that I made
while practicing law. As a lawyer I had taken very seriously and
literally the saying that "the law is a jealous mistress." I was her
devoted slave, quite willingly so, and I determined never to marry. I
was economically independent as a single man and could devote my time to
the law for its own sake. This I preferred to do, as the idealist that I
was, rather than pursue the law for economic reasons first and for its
own sake as much as possible secondarily, which I felt would have to be
the case if I married. But as a business man things were different, and
I decided now to marry.
* * * * *
On January 22, 1882, I became engaged to Sarah, only daughter of Louis
and Hannah Seller Lavanburg, and we were married on the 19th of April
following, at the home of her parents on West Forty-Sixth Street, near
Fifth Avenue. At the wedding dinner, to which had come hosts of our
friends and acquaintances, Joaquin Miller, poet of the Sierras, as he
was called, read a poem which he composed for the event. The manuscript
I think is still in my possession.
In the year of my marriage I also made my debut in politics. I was
secretary of the Executive Committee of an independent group organized
for the reelection of William R. Grace as mayor of New York. The
distinguished lawyer, Frederick R. Coudert, was chairman of that
committee. Grace had been a Tammany mayor and given the city a good
business administration--so good and so independent that Tammany refused
to nominate him for a second term. On the independent ticket Grace had a
large Republican as well as the independent Democratic support, and was
duly elected.
* * * * *
I next took part in the Cleveland-Blaine campaign. In 1884 we formed in
New York City the Cleveland and Hendricks Merchants' and Business Men's
Association, of which I was secretary of the executive committee, and we
cooperated with the Democratic National Committee, Senator Arthur P.
Gorman, chairman, whose headquarters were at the old Fifth Avenue Hotel,
corner of Fifth Avenue and Twenty-Third Street. We organized a parade
and marched forty thousand strong from lower Broadway to Thirty-Fourth
Street. It was the first time business men had ever been organized along
political lines.
All who remember this campaign know what an exciting and close battle it
was. The dramatic event which doubtless put the balance in Cleveland's
favor was the speech of the Rev. Dr. Samuel D. Burchard, a Presbyterian
minister of New York, at Republican headquarters. A few days before the
election the Republican managers had called what they termed a
ministers' meeting, to which came some six hundred clergymen of all
denominations to meet Mr. Blaine. Dr. Burchard, noted as an orator, was
to speak, followed by Mr. Blaine. In concluding his address, Dr.
Burchard evidently lost control of his dignity, for he stigmatized the
Democratic Party as the party of "rum, Romanism, and rebellion." In the
face of the great efforts the Republican Party had made, with some
measure of success, to secure the Roman Catholic vote, this denunciation
gave a big opportunity to the Democrats. Furthermore, Blaine, keen a
politician as he was, failed immediately to repudiate the remark.
I was present at Democratic headquarters when the reporter who had been
sent to this meeting returned. Senator Gorman asked him to read from his
shorthand notes, and when he came to the expression, "rum, Romanism, and
rebellion," Gorman at once said, "Write that out." The Democratic
managers saw their chance. Quickly the whole country was placarded with
posters headed "R.R.R.," with all sorts of variations and additions of
the original phrase. In the end it was the New York vote that determined
the victory for the Democrats, and doubtless because of the influence
the words of Dr. Burchard had had upon Roman Catholic voters.
When the election returns were in, Cleveland had won by only 1047 votes.
Because of the closeness of the vote in New York the Republicans did not
at first concede the victory. Among the Democrats, on the other hand,
there was a great feeling of bitterness and nervous apprehension lest an
effort be made to make it a Republican victory, as was the case in 1876
when the uncertain returns were decided by an electoral commission,
which, to the disappointment of many, made its decision on party lines.
Jay Gould, who controlled the telegraph lines, was accused by the
Democrats of holding back returns.
The Merchants' and Business Men's Association promptly organized a large
meeting in the Academy of Music, to proclaim and celebrate Cleveland's
election. August Belmont, Sr., as chairman, presided, and I, as
secretary, presented the resolutions. We had invited the most prominent
speakers we could get, and there were Henry Ward Beecher, Daniel
Dougherty of Philadelphia, Algernon S. Sullivan, among others. I
distinctly recall a humorous and cryptic remark of Beecher's address
that day: "If the chair is too small, make it larger"--referring to
Cleveland's avoirdupois and the claim that he did not fit in the
presidential chair. The note of victory, and the determination to stand
by that victory at all costs, had a reassuring effect throughout the
country.
When the campaign was over I was told by a member of the National
Committee that if there was any political office to which I aspired, the
Committee would be glad to further any ambition I might have; but I
replied my only wish was that Cleveland live up to the political
principles which had brought him the support of so many independent or
"mugwump" voters and so made possible his election.
* * * * *
During the winter of 1883-84 the Young Men's Hebrew Association invited
me to speak in their course of lectures. I was to choose my own subject.
They had hired Chickering Hall, at Fifth Avenue and Fifteenth Street, a
large lecture hall in those days, and as great importance was being
attached to the occasion I naturally put my best foot forward in the
preparation of my material. I chose as my theme "The Origin of the
Republican Form of Government." In it I traced the rise of democracy, in
contradistinction to monarchy, from the Hebrew Commonwealth as expounded
in the Old Testament and interpreted by the early Puritans of New
England, especially in their "election sermons," which were of a
politico-religious character and were delivered annually before the
legislatures of the various New England colonies.
There was a huge audience, and the next morning the press gave very
generous reports of the address. It attracted the attention of various
ministers in Brooklyn, and subsequently I was asked to repeat it before
the Long Island Historical Society, in that city. There I had an amusing
experience. In the course of the talk I quoted ideas similar to mine
that had been advanced over a hundred years before by Thomas Paine in
his "Common Sense," and I referred to the high estimates of Paine held
by Washington, Monroe, Dr. Rush, and others of the time. I refrained
from expressing opinions of my own, contenting myself with a reference
to those of the fathers of the Republic. Suddenly, however, several
ministers left the hall, protesting that they had not come to hear a
eulogy on Paine.
Later I developed this address, under its original title, and published
it in book form. The first edition came out in 1885. The appearance of a
first book is quite an event in one's life, especially when it is well
received among critics and by the press. At any rate, it seemed like a
landmark in my own life. Historical writers referred to it as a distinct
contribution to our historical literature, and I felt that so far as the
pen was concerned I had discovered this branch of writing to be my forte
rather than poetry. After all, historical writing is no less imaginative
than poetry. Without the use of imagination history is lifeless and a
dry record of facts instead of literature.
A second impression of the book was issued in 1887, and in 1901 a second
and revised edition was published. A French edition had appeared
simultaneously in Paris and Brussels, 1890, translated by M. Emile de
Laveleye, eminent Belgian publicist and professor at the University of
Liege, and containing an introductory essay by him. This essay was
translated into English and embodied in the 1901 American edition. Since
then additional impressions of this revised edition have appeared. I
might mention that on the strength of this book I was admitted to
membership in the Authors' Club, in 1888.
* * * * *
In the fall of the year following the original publication of my first
book I chanced to meet Senator Gorman of Maryland in the Palmer House,
Chicago, where we both happened to be stopping--he on his return from a
trip to the Far West, and I on an important business errand. He told me
he and his son had read my book on their trip, and that he had not in a
long time read a book with so much valuable information in it and giving
such a clear view of the sources and early growth of our form of
government. We naturally talked of matters political, and he reminded me
of an earlier conversation he had had with me since Cleveland's
election, stating that Mr. Cox--S.S. Cox--our minister to Turkey, had or
was about to resign, and that he would like to recommend me to President
Cleveland for appointment in Cox's place. He thought at the same time it
might enable me to make further studies along the lines of my book.
The idea was a complete surprise to me. As I have mentioned, I had no
thought of entering public life. My political activities had been
limited to the part I took in the re-election of Mayor Grace and the
Cleveland-Blaine, campaign. Even had I been ambitious for a political
position I should never have ventured application for a diplomatic post,
for I had never given much attention to our foreign relations. Besides,
I had been in business only a few years, I was married and had two small
daughters; everything considered, I felt I could not afford to leave my
affairs to go abroad.
Upon returning to New York I conferred with my father and brothers, and
their attitude changed my views somewhat. They generously offered to see
that my interests should not suffer, and gave me every encouragement to
entertain Senator Gorman's suggestion. I could not possibly have further
considered the subject without this generosity on their part. My
obligations to my family did not permit the expenditure of several times
my salary, required in a position of this kind. The salary of minister
to Turkey had been reduced to seven thousand five hundred dollars,
though it was subsequently restored to ten thousand; and in order to
live properly he had to rent a winter house in the capital and a summer
house outside, or live in hotels as Mr. Cox, and his predecessor,
General Lew Wallace, did. General Wallace was restricted to his salary
and felt compelled to decline the invitations of his colleagues because
he was not in position to reciprocate. (His "Ben Hur," by the way, he
had written before his sojourn in the East, and not afterward as is
often supposed.)
Senator Gorman was not finally able to make the recommendation he had
proposed. His relations with the President became strained, so that
recommendations for appointments coming from him were not regarded with
favor by Cleveland. Gorman told me as much when we met subsequently, but
advised me to use such influence as I might command in other directions.
I presently spoke of it to an old friend of my days in the law, B.
Franklin Einstein, who was counsel for the "New York Times" and the
personal adviser of George Jones, its proprietor. Einstein suggested
that I speak with Jones about it, and this I did. Jones encouraged me
and said he would be glad to help. He said he had read my book and felt
sure I would give a good account of myself and be a credit to the
administration; that he had never asked any favor of the administration
and felt justified in asking Cleveland to make the appointment. The
"Times" had been an independent Republican paper, but in the campaign of
1884 it came out for Cleveland.
I also conferred with Carl Schurz, with whom I stood on intimate terms,
and with John Foord, another friend. In the early eighties we used to
have a lunch club that met about once in two weeks at a little French
restaurant, August Sieghortner's, at 32 Lafayette Place, now Lafayette
Street, in a house that had been a former residence of one of the
Astors. We used to discuss various political and reform matters--the
"mugwump" movement, the Cleveland campaigns, or what not. There were ten
or twelve of us, and Carl Schurz was one; the late Charles R. Miller,
who was for many years the leading editorial writer of the "Times," was
another; and John Foord, whose death by accident occurred in Washington
only a few days ago as I write, was another. Foord was then
editor-in-chief of the "Times." He took up my appointment with both
President Cleveland and Secretary of State Bayard. Schurz encouraged me
and said he would speak to Oswald Ottendorfer about having me appointed.
Ottendorfer, proprietor of the "New Yorker Staatszeitung," was a client
of our law firm and knew me well. Subsequently I saw him and he wrote to
Cleveland strongly recommending the appointment.
Cleveland was favorably enough impressed, but he hesitated. He said our
chief concern in Turkey was the protection of American missionary
interests, and he would not like to appoint any one to this particular
mission who might be objected to by the two principal missionary
bodies--the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions and the
Presbyterian Board of Missions.
It happened that on a return trip from Washington about this time my
brother Isidor met A. S. Barnes, prominent textbook publisher and a
member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, to
whom also I was quite well known. He had been in frequent consultation
with our law firm when we represented the City of Brooklyn in its suit
against the Atlantic Avenue Railroad to compel the road to sink its
tracks, in which suit, as one of Brooklyn's public-spirited citizens, he
was much interested. He was sympathetic toward me and brought the
subject of my appointment before his missionary board, with the result
that its Prudential Committee wrote a letter to the President expressing
fullest approval of my appointment, suggesting only that I be asked not
to hold receptions on the Sabbath, as one of my predecessors had done to
the great disapproval of the missionaries and all Protestant Christians
in Constantinople. Even without this intimation I would quite naturally
have refrained from offending the religious sensibilities of my
nationals at that post.
The representatives of all the Protestant churches who had interests in
Turkey were most generous in favoring the appointment when they learned
that I was being considered for that mission. The most admired and best
beloved American preacher of his time, Henry Ward Beecher, of Plymouth
Church, Brooklyn, heard of it through Mr. O. A. Gager, one of the
trustees of his church; also that there was some diffidence about my
actual selection because of my religion. He immediately wrote the
President a beautiful and characteristic letter, urging my appointment.
The original of this letter, now in my possession, was given to me by
Governor Porter, first assistant Secretary of State.
With my wife I had gone to Atlantic City for a few days, to recuperate
from a cold, when on March 24, 1887, I received telegrams from friends
all over the country congratulating me on my appointment as minister to
Turkey. The papers of the day announced it, and the "New York Times"
published the Beecher letter just referred to.
To the press of the country my appointment was of added interest because
of the Keiley incident of two years before. A. M. Keiley, of Virginia,
was nominated by Cleveland as minister to Austria-Hungary, but objected
to by that country because Mrs. Keiley, being of Jewish parentage, was
_persona non grata_. As a matter of fact this excuse for the rejection
of Keiley was supposedly made because the Austro-Hungarian Government
thought it might be acceptable to us in lieu of the truth.
The real reason lay much deeper. Keiley had earlier been nominated as
minister to Italy. The Italian Government, through its representative at
Washington, made known to our Department of State that Keiley would be
_persona non grata_ because it was remembered that in 1870 he had made a
public speech in Richmond violently denouncing King Victor Emmanuel for
his treatment of the Pope. The nomination was therefore withdrawn. And
when a few months later Keiley was appointed minister to
Austria-Hungary, that country, being a member with Italy in the Triple
Alliance, did not want to run the risk of displeasing Italy by accepting
a representative not satisfactory to her; but not wishing to admit this,
based its excuse on religious grounds.
[Illustration: Hand written letter page 1]
[Illustration: Hand written letter page 2]
[Illustration: Hand written letter page 3]
[Illustration: Hand written letter page 4]
This so incensed our Administration that Secretary Bayard rebuked the
Austro-Hungarian Government with the statement:
It is not within the power of the President nor of the Congress,
nor of any judicial tribunal in the United States, to take or even
hear testimony, or in any mode to inquire into or decide upon the
religious belief of any official, and the proposition to allow this
to be done by any foreign Government is necessarily and _a
fortiori_ inadmissible.
And Mr. Cleveland made reference to the episode in his First Annual
Message to Congress:
The reasons advanced were such as could not be acquiesced in,
without violation of my oath of office and the precepts of the
Constitution, since they necessarily involved a limitation in favor
of a foreign government upon the right of selection by the
Executive, and required such an application of a religious test as
a qualification for office under the United States as would have
resulted in the practical disfranchisement of a large class of our
citizens and the abandonment of a vital principle of our
Government.
These statements contain a clear exposition of one of the fundamental
principles of our laws and system of government; they form one of the
most illuminating and inspiring chapters of our diplomatic literature.
Following the Keiley incident, my appointment was a silent but effective
protest against such illiberal views as those expressed by
Austria-Hungary; and to me personally it meant something to be sent as
the representative of my country to the power whose dominion extended
over the land that cradled my race, Palestine.
Leaving Atlantic City, we soon proceeded to Washington, where I called
on Secretary Bayard, who received me with characteristic cordiality and
referred me to John Bassett Moore, now our famous authority on
international law, compiler of the International Law Digest, American
judge of the Court of International Justice by vote of the Council and
Assembly of the League of Nations. At the time I met him, thirty-five
years ago, he was third assistant Secretary of State, and I could not
have wished for a better instructor in the intricate matters that
involved our relations with the Ottoman Empire.
Alvey A. Adee, veteran of our Foreign Office, then as now the second
assistant Secretary of State, was another man who gave me most helpful
advice. His encyclopaedic knowledge of our foreign relations for more
than forty years is remarkable, and our diplomatic appointees for years
have been indebted to him for much helpful guidance.
* * * * *
Later in the day we called on the President. Our conversation during
this call was purely of a general nature, and as I was leaving Mr.
Cleveland expressed pleasure at my promptness in calling and hoped that
I would start for Turkey as soon as personal convenience permitted. When
I told him I hoped to sail at the end of a week, he answered, "That is
businesslike; I like that," and he asked me to call again before leaving
Washington.
Two days later, by appointment of Colonel Lamont, the President's
secretary, Mrs. Straus and I, accompanied by brother Isidor and E. G.
Dunnell, "New York Times" correspondent, called on Mrs. Cleveland in the
Green Room of the White House. I vividly recall this visit. Mrs.
Cleveland came into the room with a sprightly and unceremonious walk,
very friendly, with charm of manner and a sufficient familiarity to put
us entirely at our ease. She was a very handsome woman, with remarkable
sweetness of expression, and her appearance symbolized beauty and
simplicity.
What most impressed me about the Clevelands, after these two visits,
was the simple, unassuming manner that was so in keeping with the spirit
of our laws and the democracy of our institutions. Verily, I thought in
the words of Cleveland himself, "a public office is a public trust," and
while administering office we are indeed servants of the people.
Before leaving Washington we again called on the President as agreed.
His entire conversation and attitude showed satisfaction with my
appointment. He said he understood the missionaries were doing good
work, and he felt sure from what he had learned of me that they would
receive impartial and just treatment at my hands. He commented on the
fact that the press of the country had been so unanimously in favor of
my appointment. "I wished they would go for you a little; I have
something to give them," he said. From Mr. Dunnell later I learned the
meaning of this remark. He had received a letter from the Prudential
Committee of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions,
highly approving of his appointing me as minister to Turkey and
endorsing me of their own accord in unqualified terms. This letter he
was holding to give to the press should any unfavorable comment be made
because a member of the Hebrew race was being sent to a post where the
Christian mission interests were so large. Mr. Cleveland's parting
remark to me was: "I know you will do well; I have no trepidation--none
at all."
On Saturday, April 9th, at 6 A.M., we--my wife, Aline, the younger of
our little daughters, and myself--sailed out of the harbor on the S.S.
Aurania. My one prayer in bidding farewell to my home was that I might
find no vacant seat at my table upon my return, and that I might
discharge my high trust with credit and honor. For this no sacrifice
would be too great.