HARRISON, CLEVELAND, AND McKINLEY
One function of ex-diplomats--Russian refugees in flight to
America--President Harrison remonstrates with Czar against
persecutions--"A decree to leave one country is an order to enter
another"--Grover Cleveland's fight for sound money--His letters to
me--"The Little White House"--Cleveland under fire for Van Alen
appointment--Cleveland's theatrical tastes--A midnight supper of
delicatessen and beer--Cleveland's first meeting with Charles F.
Murphy, of Tammany Hall--The final confidences of an
ex-President--A pilgrimage in England to the school attended by
Roger Williams--I join the fight for election reforms--President
McKinley summons me to Washington to discuss plan to avert war with
Spain--A proposal to "rattle the Sultan's windows"--McKinley urges
me to again accept the Turkish post--"Secretary of State for
Turkey."
Had diplomacy been a career, nothing would have pleased me more than to
continue in such service of my country. On the whole I cannot say that I
advocate changing our system as to a more permanent service for the
heads of missions. Our President is now unhampered to select men who are
best qualified to deal with the problems in hand at the various posts.
This is an advantage over a system that tends to keep in office
ministers and ambassadors who are ill equipped to bring statesmanlike
qualities to their work, though they may be past-masters in routine and
social requirements. But it would be well if, on a change of
administration, removals of heads of missions were the exception rather
than the rule. Of course, after four or eight years, the return of our
diplomatic chiefs from foreign fields to the various parts of our
country has the advantage of enabling these men, by reason of their
experience and standing, to inform and in a measure guide public opinion
on questions concerning international affairs.
On my return to New York I reentered business, but continued to take a
deep and active interest in public affairs. I spent much of my spare
time lecturing on public questions and historical matters.
* * * * *
Waves of Russian-Jewish immigrants were pounding our shores in the
spring of 1891. In Russia, pogroms and other forms of mob persecution
had become so persistent that refugees were arriving in pitiful droves
at our ports. Sinister circumstance had hurled them from one country
into another. Many had been compelled to abandon their employment or
even their own established businesses in Russia, owing to the
enforcement of the Ignatieff laws and the consequent prohibitions,
restrictions, and persecutions.
Determined to make a strenuous protest, a small committee was formed of
prominent Jews from New York, Cincinnati, and Chicago, to lay before
President Harrison the pitiable conditions day by day presented by the
arriving refugees, many of whom had been stripped of all their
possessions.
Our committee was headed by Jesse Seligman, and among the others I
recall Jacob H. Schiff, of New York, and General Lewis Seasongood, of
Cincinnati, besides myself. The President listened to our story with
sympathetic interest, and then turned to me and asked what, in the light
of my international and diplomatic experience, I thought should be done.
I told him that we had a right to remonstrate with any nation with which
we were on friendly terms, as we were with Russia, for committing an
unfriendly act if that nation by special laws forced groups of its
people, in pitiable condition, to seek refuge in another country and
that country our own.
The President agreed, but suggested that our Government ought to have
before it an official report or statement of facts. I replied that this
could easily be obtained by sending a competent commission to Russia to
make inquiry. Promptly Colonel John B. Weber, immigration commissioner
at Ellis Island, admirably qualified because of his experience in office
and his sympathetic interest, together with Dr. Walter Kempster, a
physician known for his studies of the pathology of insanity, were sent
abroad to make an investigation and report. Their investigation was
thorough, and they embodied their findings in a report that is a model
of its kind. It was the first authentic and official report on these
Russian restrictions and persecutions, and when published it aroused
great interest in all enlightened parts of Europe as well as at home.
The distinguished English historian, Lecky, refers to it in his own
work, "Democracy and Liberty."
George Jones, of the "New York Times," also had an investigation and
report made by his London correspondent, Harold Frederic. These findings
the "Times" published as articles and syndicated them to several other
papers of the country, and later Frederic brought them out in book form
under the title "The New Exodus."
President Harrison was much impressed with the report of the commission,
and through diplomatic channels brought the matter to the attention of
the Russian Government. His reference to this action in the Annual
Message of December, 1891, is such a clear and convincing recognition of
humanitarian diplomacy, that I quote it:
This Government has found occasion to express, in a friendly
spirit, but with much earnestness, to the Government of the Czar,
its serious concern because of the harsh measures now being
enforced against the Hebrews in Russia.... It is estimated that
over one million will be forced from Russia within a few years....
The banishment, whether by direct decree or by not less certain
indirect methods, of so large a number of men and women is not a
local question. A decree to leave one country is, in the nature of
things, an order to enter another--some other. This consideration,
as well as the suggestions of humanity, furnishes ample ground for
the remonstrances which we have presented to Russia, while our
historic friendship for that Government can not fail to give the
assurance that our representations are those of a sincere
wellwisher.
The President's Message was largely quoted and favorably commented upon
in this and many European countries. All of this had a reaction in
Russia itself. No matter how autocratic a government may be, as Russia
then was, it cannot free itself from "a decent respect to the opinions
of mankind." For the time being conditions in Russia for the Jews were
ameliorated.
* * * * *
In the fall of 1891 I was a delegate to the Democratic State Convention
at Saratoga and was a member of the platform committee. One of the
questions to be solved was: What should be our position regarding
silver? Cleveland's statement of his position during his first term had
lost him the Presidency.
Quite purposely Cleveland had boldly accentuated, while in office, the
outstanding issues then before the country--the tariff and sound
money--without any regard to political consequences. His friend, Richard
Watson Gilder, has said of him in this connection:[1]
[Footnote 1: _Grover Cleveland_, _A Record of Friendship_, p. 33.]
Every once in a while Cleveland "threw away the Presidency," and I
never saw him so happy as when he had done it; as, for instance,
after the tariff message, and now again after the silver letter.
Cleveland, while not a scholar, was ultra-conscientious and had an
honest and logical mind that dealt with fundamentals. He would "mull
over" (that is the very phrase I have heard him use) a question until
he got to the bottom, and there he would start to build up his premises
and arrive at his decisions. Because of the surplus accumulating in the
Treasury he had been impressed more and more with the fact that the
taxes and the tariff should be reduced. He realized, during the spring
and summer of 1887, that the rapid increase of this surplus was becoming
a menace to the stability of our financial system, and he felt it his
duty to provide some means for averting commercial disaster. At the
opening of Congress that year, instead of a message covering all of the
Government activities as was the invariable custom, he prepared one
devoted exclusively to the revenue system and to the necessity of
reducing the tariff. He gave much care and deliberation to this message,
but none to the political consequences.
Again later, when the free coinage of silver became a topic of
prominence, the Reform Club of New York invited him to attend a banquet
at which this question was to be discussed. Many of his friends advised
that he remain silent on the subject, in order not to mar his chances
for reelection. Cleveland, however, accepted the invitation and boldly
announced his position regarding "the dangerous and reckless experiment
of free, unlimited and independent silver coinage." That was too much
for the machine men of the party; the note of Cleveland's doom was
sounded from one end of the country to the other.
After his retirement partisan bitterness largely disappeared, and it
soon became a foregone conclusion that he would again have to stand for
the Presidency. Although he had occupied the President's chair only one
term, I doubt whether any ex-President of our time, with the exception
of Roosevelt, carried with him into private life a deeper interest or a
higher esteem on the part of the great body of the people. His rugged
honesty of purpose and determined stand for the best principles in our
public life were more and more appreciated and valued. During the entire
period between his defeat and his reelection he was the most
distinguished representative of his party.
When the silver question came up in the State Convention at Saratoga, a
few others and myself contended for a sound money plank. We met with
opposition from a majority of the platform committee. Richard Croker,
boss of Tammany Hall, had not up to that time bothered much about the
subject. I laid before him the reasons underlying the question and got
him to throw his powerful influence and help on our side, and we
succeeded in the end in incorporating a strong sound money plank.
Cleveland expressed his satisfaction with that accomplishment in the
following note to me:
_Sept._ 27, 1891
MY DEAR MR. STRAUS:
I have a suspicion that you had much to do with the formation of
the silver plank in the platform adopted at Saratoga. I am so well
satisfied indeed that you thus merit my thanks as a citizen who
loves the honor of his country and as a Democrat who loves the
integrity of his party, that I desire to tender them in this frank
informal manner.
Yours very truly
GROVER CLEVELAND
I may add here that upon his retirement in 1889 Cleveland came to New
York to live, and the pleasant relations I had had with him in office
became close and intimate.
Early in July, 1892, I wrote Cleveland regarding his position on the
tariff, and after the Chicago convention which nominated him for the
Presidency, I received the following communication from him:
GRAY GABLES
BUZZARDS BAY, MASS.
_July_ 25, 1892
MY DEAR SIR:
I wish to thank you for your letter of July 12, and to express my
disappointment that while in New York last week I did not have the
opportunity to converse with you on the suggestions which your
letter contained. You cannot fail to see by some expressions in my
address in reply to the notification committee, that thoughts quite
similar to yours have occupied my mind in regard to the tariff
plank in our platform. I am exceedingly anxious that there should
be no misrepresentation of our true position, and I regret
exceedingly that there should have been any form of expression
adopted which makes us liable to that danger.
I shall continue to give the subject earnest thought and when I
write my letter of acceptance if it should then seem to be
necessary I shall not hesitate to pursue the subject further. I
have heard of your labors at Chicago and of your constant and
earnest devotion to my cause, and while your previous conduct and
our relations have been such as to lead me to expect such things of
you, I am none the less gratified and beg to thank you from the
bottom of my heart.
With the kind remembrances of Mrs. Cleveland to you and Mrs.
Straus, in which I heartily join, I am
Very truly yours
GROVER CLEVELAND
In 1888 his position on these two questions caused his defeat; in 1892,
his position still the same, these very issues were the dominant factors
that brought about his renomination and election.
* * * * *
During the winter before his second term of office, in order to get some
rest and be freer than was possible in New York from the constant stream
of visitors and place-hunters, he and his family accepted the invitation
of my brother Nathan to occupy a little frame house which my brother
had bought from a New Jersey farmer in connection with the property on
which stands the Lakewood Hotel. The little two-story house, surrounded
by pines, simple as could be, was renovated and painted white, and
became known as "the little White House." To it from time to time
Cleveland summoned the people with whom he wished to confer--the leaders
of his party with regard to policies and the make-up of his Cabinet, and
personal friends. He had no secretary and wrote all letters with his own
hand.
During his stay at "the little White House" he sent for me several times
to talk over things with him. On one of these occasions he proposed
connecting me with the Administration in some way that might be
agreeable to me. While I appreciated highly his intention, I told him I
felt I owed it to my brothers to stick to business for the next few
years. He answered that he would have to have one of the brothers in his
Administration. I learned later that in his mind he had reserved the
ministership to Holland for Isidor. At about this time Isidor had been
nominated, and was subsequently elected, to fill a vacancy in Congress,
and Cleveland purposely did not fill the Dutch post until after that
special election. He afterwards remarked to a friend he and Isidor had
in common, William L. Wilson, of West Virginia, chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee and responsible for the Wilson Tariff Bill, that he much
preferred Isidor in Congress where he could have the benefit of his
wisdom and knowledge in financial and tariff matters. Indeed, my brother
was largely responsible for Cleveland's calling the extra session of
Congress for the repeal of the Sherman Silver Coinage Act.
Among my letters from Cleveland at this period I have one concerning a
subject that caused a great deal of stir and unfavorable comment: the
appointment of James J. Van Alen, of Newport, Rhode Island, as
ambassador to Italy. Van Alen was a very rich man. He was the son-in-law
of William Astor and the personal friend of William C. Whitney, the real
manager of the Cleveland campaign, whose appointment as Secretary of the
Navy was not liked by the "mugwump" wing of the party, headed by Carl
Schurz and others. When Van Alen was appointed a hue and cry arose from
the idealists, and Cleveland's enemies alleged that the appointment was
nothing more than a reward for the very large contribution Van Alen had
made to Whitney for the campaign, for which Whitney had promised this
position. Schurz, as editor of "Harper's Weekly," wrote a savage
editorial against Cleveland on this subject, and in a letter to me he
stated that he felt Cleveland's prestige would never recover from the
blow he had struck against himself in making that appointment. I wrote
to Cleveland about the matter and how it was regarded by some of his
friends, mentioning Schurz among others. The President sent me the
following reply:
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON
_Oct._ 29, 1893
MY DEAR MR. STRAUS:
Your letter was received to-day.
I need not tell you how much I value your friendship; and I hardly
need confess how touched I am by the manifestation of affection
afforded by the solicitude you evince in the Van Alen matter. I am
amazed by the course pursued by some good people in dealing with
this subject. No one has yet presented to me a single charge of
unfitness or incompetency. They have chosen to eagerly act upon the
frivolous statements of a much mendacious and mischievous
newspaper, as an attempt to injure a man who in no way has been
guilty of wrong. I leave out of the account the allegation that his
nomination was in acknowledgment of a large campaign contribution.
No one will accuse me of such a trade and Mr. Whitney's and Mr.
Van Alen's denial that any such thing existed in the minds of any
one concerned, I believe to be the truth. I think it would be a
cowardly thing in me to disgrace a man because the New York World
had doomed him to disgrace. Since the nomination was sent in I have
left the matter entirely to the Senate, and I hear that the
nomination was confirmed to-day. This ends the matter. I am
entirely content to wait for a complete justification of my part in
the proceeding.
I am sorry you regard this matter as so unfortunate, and if
anything could have induced me to turn away from a course which
seems to me so plainly just and right, it would be my desire to
satisfy just such good friends as you have always proved yourself
to be.
I shall be glad to see you at all times.
Yours very sincerely
GROVER CLEVELAND
Van Alen was confirmed by the Senate, but on November 20th he sent in
his resignation, which Cleveland reluctantly accepted, but urged Van
Alen to reconsider his decision, as his (the President's) preference was
emphatically that Van Alen accept the post and by the discharge of his
duties vindicate the wisdom and propriety of his selection.
* * * * *
During the second term I saw little of the President. I was very much
tied to business and went to Washington only when summoned there to
discuss a few international questions as they arose. But while I am
reminiscing about my relations with Mr. Cleveland, I shall jump ahead
about ten years and speak of a visit he paid me for three days during
March, 1903. He was to deliver an address at the Henry Ward Beecher
Memorial in the Brooklyn Academy of Music on Sunday evening, and he
arrived from Princeton on Saturday. He was like a boy out of school.
We were going to the theater on Saturday evening and I suggested Justin
McCarthy's "If I Were King," played by Sothern.
"I hope it is not sad," Cleveland said. "I want to see it from start to
finish"; and with a smirk he added, "for I am a hayseed." I discerned
afterward that he would rather have seen a comedy or vaudeville.
When we arrived at the theater, many in the audience recognized
Cleveland and heads were constantly turning in the direction of our box.
I mentioned it to him, but he said: "Oh, no, they don't know me any
more." After the theater we had a supper of delicatessen and beer at
home, which I knew he would like, and he amused us with several funny
stories and mimicry. My wife remarked that he might have made a success
on the stage, and he replied that his friend Joe Jefferson had often
deplored his having missed that profession.
Cleveland gave an imitation of the humorous Congressman Campbell, of New
York, who used to come to the White House and, pointing to the room
occupied by Cleveland, ask the clerk: "Is His Royal Nibs in?" And
sometimes Tim Campbell made requests that Cleveland had to deny as
unconstitutional; then Tim would come back with "Oh, I wouldn't let the
Constitution stand between friends!"
At dinner on Sunday we were joined by Mr. and Mrs. John G. Carlisle, my
brother Isidor, his wife, and his business associate, Charles B.
Webster. Carlisle had been one of the most distinguished Senators in
Congress, former Secretary of the Treasury, and a close friend of
Cleveland. When the champagne was served my wife said to the
ex-President:
"Does Mrs. Cleveland let you drink this? You know it is bad for your
rheumatism!"
"No, but I won't tell her," answered Cleveland.
They compromised on one glass.
After dinner the conversation turned to the bond loans during
Cleveland's second Administration--the first made through J. P. Morgan &
Company and the subsequent popular loans--to keep the gold in the United
States Treasury. The ex-President referred to his fight against the
silver craze and said he had been compelled to abandon the fundamental
issue, the tariff reform, to combat that dangerous heresy.
When the guests had gone, Cleveland wanted to know whether we would like
to hear the speech he was to deliver that evening, and of course we
assured him we should be delighted. This led to conversation about
Beecher, and I showed him the original letter that Beecher wrote him in
1887 recommending my appointment to Turkey. He said he remembered it
perfectly, and it was the thing that turned the scale while he was
considering whether or not he could properly appoint a person of my race
to a post largely concerned with the protection of Christian missions. I
made bold to request the manuscript of his Memorial Address to file with
my Beecher letter, and he kindly consented with the words: "Yes,
certainly; they are kind of cousins."
After a light supper we drove to Brooklyn. Cleveland liked to be
punctual and I took care that we should arrive at the appointed hour,
7.45. It was pouring rain, and Cleveland anticipated that most people
would be kept away; but when we entered the hall it was packed from pit
to dome and several thousand persons were turned away. At the close of
the meeting hundreds crowded onto the stage to greet the ex-President,
showing that the love and admiration of the people had in no degree
waned.
The next morning we prevailed upon him to stay another day. He said he
knew I had a speech to make at Brown University and that its preparation
would engage my time. But I assured him the speech was all prepared and
the subject was "Brown in Diplomacy." He asked me to read it to him, and
I did. He pronounced it appropriate and fine, which gave me some
confidence in the success of the occasion, for I knew he was not given
to flattery and would not have praised the speech without meaning it;
that was not his habit.
He had to go to Rockwood, the photographer, at Thirty-Ninth Street and
Broadway, so I went with him. He said he had hundreds of requests for
pictures and wanted a new one taken so that when people wrote for them
he could refer such requests to Rockwood; similarly he had had some
pictures made by a Philadelphia photographer. These arrangements would
save him much trouble. I asked Rockwood to take a special, large picture
for me. He brought forward his larger camera and took one of the best
photographs of Cleveland I have ever seen. I had two finished: one for
Mrs. Cleveland and the other for myself, and it now hangs in my library.
For luncheon we met Isidor at Delmonico's. At the next table sat Charles
F. Murphy, successor to Croker as boss of Tammany Hall, who requested me
to introduce him to Cleveland. They had quite a chat, after which
Cleveland remarked: "He looks like a pretty clean fellow."
During the meal our guest told us, with language, voice, and manner
befitting the tale, how, when he was being spoken of for reelection
before his second term, he met a farmer who said to him: "Now if you
will go on sawin' wood and don't say nothin', they will give you back
that job in Washington." No actor could have given a more vivid
characterization of that farmer.
That evening we went to Weber and Field's Music Hall, on Twenty-Ninth
Street near Broadway. Cleveland suggested this himself. He said he liked
to be amused at the theater and not saddened or instructed.
* * * * *
At about this period Cleveland from time to time showed evidences of
illness. He called them stomach attacks. Whether or not his personal
friend and physician, Dr. Joseph D. Bryant, had diagnosed the malady as
more serious I do not know; but at times I rather inferred that he had.
Dr. Bryant made it a point to accompany Cleveland on several of his
hunting and fishing expeditions, which were taken not alone for
pleasure, but as health measures, for a change of air and the outdoor
recreation.
On and off during those years also, when the family wanted a little
change, they occupied "the little White House" at Lakewood. Cleveland
liked it for its simplicity and because it was not unlike the parsonage
at Caldwell, New Jersey, where he was born. Early in June, 1908, while
the Clevelands were at Lakewood, the ex-President sent for my brother
Isidor; he desired to have a talk with him. He seemed to wish to
unburden his mind.
This proved to be the last time he spoke to any one outside of his
immediate family while still in the possession of all his faculties.
That very night he had another attack of his malady, after which, as I
was told, his faculties seemed to go under a cloud. Two weeks later, on
June 24th, the country was shocked, though it was not unprepared, to
learn that the ex-President had died that morning at his Princeton home.
On June 26th Grover Cleveland was laid to rest. The funeral was private;
my brothers and I had received a note from Mrs. Cleveland asking us to
be present. At his home we met about one hundred of his personal
friends. It had been his express wish that there be no eulogy or funeral
oration, and his friend Dr. Henry van Dyke conducted a simple service at
which he read passages from Wordsworth's poem, "The Happy Warrior." In a
carriage with Chief Justice Fuller, Judge George Gray, of Delaware, and
Governor Fort, of New Jersey, I accompanied the body to the cemetery.
For Grover Cleveland there were no longer enemies to traduce and vilify.
Perhaps no President had ever been so reviled by a hostile press
throughout the country as this great man, and, strong as he was, these
attacks quite naturally pained him. Public appreciation of men who
struggle against the tide for righteous things is often deferred,
sometimes until after death. In his case, happily, it came while he was
yet among us in the constantly increasing manifestations of admiration,
love, and esteem by the people of the country.
* * * * *
I have mentioned that during Cleveland's second Administration I seldom
went to Washington. At that time I was occupied also with the writing of
two books. I was not, of course, relying upon my pen for a living. I
should not have survived long if I had! Historical writing has fittingly
been called the aristocracy of literature; it requires long and patient
investigation and yields meager returns. For me it made a fascinating
avocation. My "Roger Williams, the Pioneer of Religious Liberty," was
published by the Century Company in 1894, and "The Development of
Religious Liberty in the United States" appeared in a limited edition,
published by Philip Cowen, New York, in 1896.
The latter was a slim volume, an amplification of an address I had
delivered in New Haven before the Yale College Kent Club, and elsewhere;
the former grew out of studies I had made in preparing my first book,
"The Origin of Republican Form of Government." "Roger Williams" was well
received and had a generous circulation, being several times reprinted.
Brown University, under the presidency of that eminent historian and
scholar, E. Benjamin Andrews, conferred upon me the honorary degree of
Litt.D.
When I was again in London in 1898 I carried out a purpose I had long
had, to visit Charterhouse School, earlier known as Sutton's Hospital
School, where Roger Williams received his early education. I met the
Reverend Doctor William Haig Brown, master, who showed me the register
of the school for 1624 containing the inscription of Roger Williams.
When he saw I was much interested in Roger Williams he told me of a
recent life of him that had been written, which he considered very fine
and with which he wanted to acquaint me. He went to his library on the
floor above, and when he returned he handed me my own work! (I had not
previously told him my name.)
I observed in the main hall of the school a number of tablets
commemorating distinguished scholars who had attended there. There were
represented Thackeray, General Shakespeare, Archdeacon Hale, Sir Henry
Havelock, and several who were sacrificed in the Crimean War and the
Indian Mutiny. I asked Dr. Brown whether he did not think it fitting
that a tablet should be added in memory of Roger Williams, and said that
I should be glad to defray the expense thereof. He agreed, and I
authorized him to have the tablet made. He employed Howard Ince, a
well-known architect, to design the tablet, which contains the following
inscription:
IN MEMORY OF ROGER WILLIAMS
Formerly a Scholar of Charterhouse
Founder of the State of Rhode Island, and the
Pioneer of Religious Liberty in America. Placed here by
Oscar S. Straus, United States Minister to Turkey, 1899
I did not wish my name on it, but Dr. Brown quite definitely preferred
it so.
Of all my books, the "Life of Roger Williams" contains the greatest
amount of work in the way of research and study; but the amount of
pleasure it gave me in the doing was commensurate.
* * * * *
In politics I had become more impressed year by year with the importance
of a reform in our electoral system, especially in our large cities. The
bosses in the two big parties were the "invisible powers" who dictated
the nominations. Primaries were primaries in name only, and were so
conducted as to strengthen the power of the bosses. In Chicago a
campaign to purify the primaries had been carried on by the political
committee of the Civic Federation. The Federation, of which its
organizer, Ralph M. Easley, was the secretary, now enlarged its scope in
the political field and issued a "Call for a National Conference on
Practical Primary Election Reform," in the name of some two hundred and
fifty of the leading men of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and
thirty-five cities in between. Prominent in this list I remember Mayor
William L. Strong, of New York; ex-Mayor Abram S. Hewitt, of New York;
Darwin R. James, president of the New York Board of Trade; Andrew B.
Humphreys, of the Allied Political Clubs of New York; Mayor Josiah
Quincy, of Boston; Mayor James D. Phelan, of San Francisco; ex-Mayor
George W. Ochs, of Chattanooga; Albert Shaw; Nicholas Murray Butler;
Carl Schurz; Lyman Abbott; Lyman J. Gage; Melville E. Stone; Myron T.
Herrick; Albert J. Beveridge; Robert M. La Follette.
The meeting was held in the rooms of the New York Board of Trade on
January 20, 1898, and we organized the National Primary Election League.
I was elected president; Josiah Quincy, first vice-president; Charles
Emory Smith, of Philadelphia, second vice-president; Walter C. Flower,
of New Orleans, third vice-president; Ralph M. Easley, secretary; and
Darwin R. James, treasurer. The conference gave a distinct impetus to
primary reform all over the country, and in many of the States led to
the passage of laws providing for such reforms.
* * * * *
In the presidential election of 1896 I voted for McKinley, despite my
former political affiliations. The outstanding issue between the
Republican and Democratic Parties was the money question, and I was an
advocate of sound money.
Early in the new Administration our relations with Spain were rapidly
drifting to a crisis over conditions in Cuba. My friend General Stewart
L. Woodford was appointed minister to Spain. I gave him a letter of
introduction to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, who was now British ambassador
at Madrid. Wolff was very sympathetic toward America. Woodford later
informed me that the letter had been very serviceable, especially as his
audience had been delayed for several weeks on account of the Queen's
absence from the capital. He very frankly laid before Wolff the American
position and attitude with regard to Cuba, which Wolff asked permission
to detail to his Government. Based on that information the British
diplomatic representatives were advised by Lord Salisbury: "The
American cause is absolutely impregnable; govern yourselves
accordingly."
President McKinley frequently invited me to Washington and encouraged my
writing to him, especially on international matters; and my letters
always received prompt reply over his own signature. Accordingly on
March 12, 1898, I wrote him at length stating that perhaps the impending
war with Spain could be averted if we proposed to Spain a plan of
suzerainty. I quote from my letter:
We have no need for Cuba; our destinies point to the Continent; to
leave it to make conquests will weaken our rights, ... and will
place us against our will on the world's chessboard, from which we
have happily kept clear. The Cuban insurgents are imbued with a
spirit of belligerency, but have neither past training nor the
knowledge to maintain freedom and to accord to each other
individual liberty.
The great problems, I take it, are, first: to stop the war;
secondly, to find a solution which will bring independence to Cuba,
and at the same time preserve the _amour propre_ to Spain.... The
proposition to which I have given considerable thought ... is the
following:
That we insist that Spain accord and Cuba accept the position of
suzerainty such as are the relations between Turkey and Egypt. This
will give Cuba self-government, and will at the same time preserve
the _amour propre_ of Spain by retaining a semblance of a claim of
sovereignty without power to interfere with self-government on the
part of the Cubans.... We could much better afford to help Cuba
with a number of millions which would after all be a small fraction
of what a war would cost us, ... especially when the end attained
is the independence of Cuba, and attained in such a way as not to
entail upon us unending responsibilities full of care and
entangling obligations.
Immediately upon receipt of this the President asked me to come to
Washington for a conference. He was very much interested in the idea and
requested me to write out the plan in more detail. This I did. I
discussed with him the suzerainty plan as developed in Europe and as it
was working in Egypt. I expressed the opinion that as the leading
nations of Europe were familiar with the idea it was not likely to meet
with any serious objections. McKinley was impressed with the feasibility
of my proposal and was in favor of some such arrangement. He said he was
having difficulty because of the jingo agitation in Congress and the
storming for war of the American press. He felt when the report of the
Board of Inquiry on the destruction of the Maine was made public, as it
would be in a few days, nothing could hold back Congress and the press,
and the Cuban controversy would be pushed to an issue.
However, he immediately communicated the plan to Minister Woodford, who
brought it to the attention of the Spanish Government. General Woodford
reported that he had every reason to believe it would be acceptable to
Spain. But meantime things moved with lightning speed and war was
declared.
* * * * *
[Illustration: PRESIDENT McKINLEY SENDING THE AUTHOR TO TURKEY ON HIS
SECOND MISSION, 1898]
Matters in Turkey at this time were also not going very smoothly. At a
conference with McKinley one day he showed me a communication from Dr.
James B. Angell, minister at the Porte, suggesting that the only way to
bring Turkey to terms was to send warships up there and "rattle the
Sultan's windows." The President was much disturbed. He felt the sending
of warships might result in another incident like the blowing up of the
Maine. He said the situation had worried him so that it interfered with
his sleep, and he begged me to accept again the appointment of minister
to Turkey, declaring with conviction that he regarded me as the only man
who could adjust the situation. I explained to him frankly how I was
situated in regard to my business obligations and that it was very
difficult for me to drop them at this time; but under the circumstances
as he had stated them to me I felt I had no right to interpose my
personal affairs as a reason for refusing, for I certainly regarded no
sacrifice too great to make in the service of the country when it was
needed, as in this instance. I said I had been too young to shoulder a
gun in the Civil War as he had done, but with a full understanding of my
situation if he should feel it necessary to call upon me I should be at
his service.
Dr. Angell was a distinguished scholar and not lacking in diplomatic
experience. He was president of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor,
and had been special envoy to China. He was also an adviser and one of
the trustees of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions. However, in some public utterance he had criticized Turkey
unfavorably, and the Porte was having its revenge. Every request Dr.
Angell made was declined; exequaturs were refused to our consuls
appointed at Erzerum and Harpoot. Dr. Angell was discouraged and
incensed. He was about to resign.
Finally one day I received a telegram:
EXECUTIVE MANSION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
_May 27_, 1898
HONORABLE OSCAR S. STRAUS
New York
Remembering our talk of a few months ago I would be glad to have
you accept the post of Minister to Turkey. Dr. Angell has resigned
to take effect 15 of August. I would be pleased to nominate you
before Senate adjourns.
WILLIAM MCKINLEY
And I telegraphed back that same day:
PRESIDENT MCKINLEY
Executive Mansion
Washington
Your request that I should accept the post of Minister to Turkey,
with which you honor me, I regard as a command, and deem it my
patriotic duty to you and to the country to accept.
OSCAR S. STRAUS
Among the telegrams and letters of congratulation I received was one
from William L. Wilson, then the president of Washington and Lee
University at Lexington, Virginia, reading: "Washington and Lee greets
you as Doctor of Laws."
The National Civic Club of Brooklyn gave me a dinner and reception,
presided over by my friend and college mate, Frederic W. Hinrichs, at
which the leading speaker was Dr. St. Clair McKelway, editor of the
"Brooklyn Eagle." During the evening a letter was received from my
former chief and Secretary of State, Thomas F. Bayard, saying:
It was my good fortune to be associated with Mr. Straus when he
first took up the tangled web of Turkish diplomacy, so that few
persons can so well attest as I, his possession of those talents
and high personal characteristics which give him weight everywhere.
Ex-President Cleveland, who was prevented from being present by another
engagement, wrote:
I would be glad to join those who will do honor to Mr. Straus ...
and thus show my appreciation of his usefulness and the worth of
his good example in recognizing the demands of good citizenship and
responding to the call of public duty.
And there were also messages from many others, including President
McKinley.
I did not leave for my post for several months. Meanwhile I had more
conferences with the President regarding the Spanish situation. Early
in August, in discussing pending Spanish peace negotiations, he wanted
my ideas regarding them and as to how much of the Philippines we should
take. I strongly advised that we take as little as possible--nothing
more than a naval and coaling station; otherwise to appropriate the
Philippines would in the long run entail endless obligations without
commensurate benefits. I told him I believed these to be the views also
of many of the more thoughtful citizens, and that I had spoken with a
number of prominent men, such as ex-Postmaster-General Wilson,
ex-Secretary of the Treasury Carlisle, and Clifton R. Breckinridge,
formerly of the Ways and Means Committee, all of whom were of like
opinion. The President seemed to appreciate my view, but again feared
the jingo spirit of Congress. He complained also of the attitude of the
Cuban insurgents, who were exaggerating their numbers as well as their
demands.
Turning for a moment to my appointment, he said: "I don't know whether
you know it, but your nomination has been received with more praise by
all parties throughout the country than any nomination to office I have
made since I am President." I assured him I was gratified, but realized
the emphasis this put upon my responsibilities.
Because I had been a Cleveland Democrat my appointment by a Republican
President had, of course, created a great sensation in the press; it was
heralded as a step toward the merit system in our foreign service.
John Bassett Moore was now assistant Secretary of State, and with him I
spent several days in the preparation of my instructions. I considered
him even then the best equipped authority on international law in the
country, and I thought it was a pity his services could not be retained
in the Department of State; but his salary there was five hundred
dollars a year less than as professor, and he had a family to support.
He told me that the President and Secretary Day wished him to accompany
the Peace Commission to Paris, and subsequently he went as secretary and
counsel.
While I was with the President for a final conference a week before
sailing, Attorney-General Griggs came in all aglow and announced with
much enthusiasm that he had just had a telephone message from Justice
White (Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, later Chief
Justice) that he would consent to be one of the members of the Spanish
American Peace Commission. That specially pleased the President because
White was a man of great ability, and because the fact that White was a
Catholic might make a more favorable impression upon Catholic Spain. The
President immediately directed that the names be given to the press.
Shortly thereafter, however, White reconsidered his acceptance, for
reasons which were not made public, and Senator George Gray, who was
serving as a member of the Quebec Commission, and who like White was a
Democrat, was prevailed upon by the President to accept in his stead.
The other members were all Republicans. The commission as finally
constituted was: Secretary of State William R. Day, Senator Cushman K.
Davis (chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate),
Senator William P. Frye, Senator George Gray, and Whitelaw Reid.
There was considerable clamor, from missionaries and others, that we
send warships to Turkey. Of this I entirely disapproved and so told the
President. He answered me: "I shall be guided by you; I shall support
you; I have confidence in your ability and foresight. No vessels will
be sent to Turkey unless you demand them, and then, only then, will they
be sent. And when you get to London I wish you to see Ambassador
Hay"--Hay was about to return to take up the post of Secretary of
State--"and tell him that I have not only constituted you Minister to
Turkey, but Secretary of State for Turkey, and that both he and I will
be guided entirely by your judgment and advice."