THE SPEAKENG OF SiNATGR JOHN WORTH KERN Thais fa: fho Dear“ af M. A. MECHSGAN STATE UNWERSITY Jcseph C. Rhea 3953 ' '«n-a ,v-gro.‘ . THE SPEAKING OF SENA'l‘UR JOHN NORTH KERN By Joseph C. Rhea ABSTRACT OF THESIS Submitted to the College of Communication Arts Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1958 N \J , C Approved by ’ by W . _— V 7 Tel . ‘ul t 1% II- The purpose of this study is to examine the speaking of John Worth Kern, with emphasis given to his speaking while a United States Senator from Indiana. The writer attempted to discover the contributions made by Kern and his speaking to the United States Senate under the first administration of President Woodrow Wilson. Several occasions of informal Speaking (that which took place in caucuses, conferences, and individual meetings). as reported in historical collections, biographical and political works, newspapers and magazines, and other secondary sources, are examined. Occasions of formal speaking (that which took place before assembled audiences), as reported in the Congressional Record and the previously mentioned sources, are examined and two Speeches given before the senate are selected for detailed. examination and analysis. The thesis includes an introduction, a biographical chapter, a chapter on informal and formal Speaking, two chapters (each dealing with a single speech) of detailed rhetorical analysis, and a conclusions chapter. Chapter I introduces the thesis by presenting the purpose of the thesis, essential definitions, major limitations and obstacles, the significance of the thesis, and by indicating major materials and the general organization of the study. In Chapter II, the life of Kern from childhood to his election to the senate is discussed for the purpose of attempting to discover his development as a Speaker. Kern's schooling, his .\\\» N \R t . n ‘1 n. l ’_ .-» _A.‘.o. . u- .I I... c-,léii .“ . it} "g'gl development as a state politician, and his ascension to national prominence in public life are discussed in some detail. Kern began his career as a country lawyer, was elected Indiana's Reporter to the Supreme Court, was elected to the state legisla- ture in Indiana, and became the Democratic minority leader in the state senate, ran for Governor of Indiana twice, ran for Vice—President with Bryan in 1908, and was elected to the United States Senate in 1910. The informal speaking of Senator Kern is given consider- able attention in Chapter III, as well as the issues which gave rise to both the formal and informal speaking. The formal speaking occasions are discussed in general, and essential bio-’ graphical information on the six years of Kern's public service as a senator is also related. Special emphasis is given to examining Kern's leadership while Democratic majority leader of the senate during the first Wilson administration. Chapters IV and V deal respectively with a rhetorical analysis of Kern's Speech in favor of the Sherwood pension bill for Civil War veterans, and a rhetorical analysis of his speech in refutation of the plea of res adjudicata (prior adjudication). The latter speech was given as the first speech in a series of three in favor of disqualifying the election of Senator Nilliam Lorimer of Illinois. Each of these two chapters considers the history of the issue, preparation, textual authenticity, immediate setting and occasion, arrangement, invention Ckhfical,;il;cal and psychological appeals), style, delivery, and reSponse. The principle conclusions derived in Chapter VI include the recognition of Kern's character and personality, leadership qualities, political experience, and previous eXperience and training in public speaking as significant sources of his formal and informal speaking in the senate. His informal speaking appears to have had greater significance in the senate than his formal Speaking. Still, when the occasion arose which Kern felt called for formal speaking on the floor of the senate, Kern pre- sented his case forcefully and well. As a figure in national life, Kern seems to have selected for himself the role of the quiet leader who keeps behind the scenes as much as possible. His principal medium of eXpression was informal public speaking in conferences, caucuses, and individual meetings with government leaders. THE SPEAKING OF UNITED STATES SENATOR JOHN WORTH KERN By Joseph C. Rhea A THESIS submitted to the College of Communication Arts Hichigan State university of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1958 ii ACKNOHLEDQLEN T3 Grateful acknowledgment is accorded to Professor David C. Ralph whose individual encouragement and guidance as major professor made possible the completion of this study. To Dr. Frederick G. Alexander, Dr. Jack E. Bain, and Dr. Gordon L. Thomas, sincere appreciation is expressed for their assistance and supervision in the completion of the study. The valuable assistance of Hon. John W. Kern II, without whose c00peration this study would not have been possible, is gratefully appreciated. To the many helpful librarians (David C. Mearns, Joseph Vance, and Robert H. land of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress; Josephine M. Tharpe, Reference Librarian of the Cornell University Library; and the librarians and staff of the Indiana State Historical Library, Indianapolis Public Library, Kokomo Public Library, Fort Kayne Public Library, Michigan State University Library, Univer- sity of Michigan Library, and the Michigan Historical Collections Library) appreciation is expressed for their excellent service and cooperation during the research. The cooPeration and assistance of the late Hon. Claude G. Bowers, former Schator Henry Fountain Ashurst, Mrs. Woodrow Wilson, Hrs. Thomas R. Marshall,Hon. William C. Kern, and C. V. Hauorth are gratefully acknowledged for the part they played in making available valuable research materials. Finally, the writer expresses his gratitude to his wife those tience and understanding were a source of encouragement throughout the many phases of planning and writing. TABLE OF CORTENTS ACM‘:O\:LEDG.E‘IT3 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Chapter I o INTRODUCT 10L 0 o o o o o o o o 0 Purpose Definitions Limitations Obstacles Significance Materials Organization II. THE MAKING OF THEIMAN . . . . . . . . TheEarlyYears........... Early days Teaching days College Years . . . . . . . . . . . Legal training Public speaking training The senior law student Growth of the State Politician . . Country lawyer Howard County politician State politician Private and social life Return to law practice Return to state politics Private and social life Relationship of hern and Taggert National Prominence . . . . . . . . Beginning of national prestige Personal interlude National campaign of 1908 United States Senate campaigns of III. THE SENATOR FROH INDIANA . . . . . . Political Developments . . . . . . Introduction The first two years in the senate 1909 and 1910 Kern and the Democratic Convention of 1912 Taggert and Kern Reorganization of the senate A9 78 78 iv The role of Araminta Kern Kern and the issues or the first flilson administration The nature of Kern's leadership Uilson and Kern Conclusion IV. A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SPEECH In FAVOR OF THE Sim‘JOCD PmSIOI‘! BILL O O O O 0 0 O C O O O O O O 0 M0 Selection of the Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IAO Criteria for Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1&1 The Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1h3 Chronological history of the pension issue Lobbying and legislative action on the Sherwood bill Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In? Textual Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Immediate Setting and Occasion . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Introduction Body Conclusion SMmmary on arrangement Invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Logical appeals Ethical appeals Psychological appeals Style 188 Force Accuracy Directness Clearness Variety Stylistic devices--figures of comparison and contrast Stylistic devices of direct discourse Other stylistic devices Summary of stylistic devices Summary of style General remarks on style Comparison on style Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Response during the speech Response immediately following the speech Later response Swmmany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Preparation Immediate setting and occasion Arrangement Invention Style Delivery Response V. VI. V IILINOIS O O O C O O The Issue . . . . . . . . _Chronological history of the Lorimer issue Senate action in the second investigation \ A PJiEI‘OEiICz‘LL MOLLYSIS OF '1 MINORITY RESOLUTION OK SENATOR LORIXER OF {E SPEECH IN FAVOR OF Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Textual Authenticity . Introduction BOW Conclusion Summary on arrangement Invention . . . . . . . Logical appeals Ethical appeals Psychological appeals Stle......... orce Accuracy Directness Unobtrusiveness Clearness Variety Stylistic devices--figures of comparison and contrast Immediate Setting and Occasion . Arrangement . . . . . . . . . O Stylistic devices of direct discourse Other stylistic device 3 Summary of stylistic devices Summary of style Comparison on style Delivery . . . . . . . Response . . . . . . . . . . . Response during the speech Immediate response following the speech Remote response Summary on response mry O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 Preparation Immediate setting and occasion Arrangement Invention Style Delivery Reaponse CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . Development of Kern . . . . . . . . . . . Character and personality deveIOpment Political deve10pment THE 223 226 226 229 235 by) «l \l ADF’ 286 291 291 vi Experience and training in public speaking Kern's Informal Speaking in the United States Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Influence of his leadership Influence in conferences Influence of personal relations Kern's Formal Speaking in the Senate . . . . Introduction Comparison of the two speeches examined Sammy BIBLIOGEMPHY . O O O O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 299 303 306 307 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine and criticize the political speaking of John Worth Kern. While much consideration is ‘n's iniormsl speaking in his leader— «1 hd r V \L F) given to the role flayed b ship in the United States Senate, formal rhetorical criticism is re" served for his formal speaking on major issues before that body. The ultimate goal is to obt in some understanding of the formal and informsl speaking of this former senator from Indiana who occupied a significant legislative position in an important legislative period of the United States Senate. Definitions Two terms used in the above statement of purfose deserve inr- ther xylanation. Within the coniines of this study the term "for- tal speaking” refers to speaking for the record from the flsor of the senate. ”Informal Speaking" refers to speaking off the floor of the senate in individual face-to-face meetings, generally for the purpose of securing support for measures sponsored or supported by the Democrats. Limitations While this study could have concentrated on any of several periods of Kern's speaiing in his legal and politiCul career before -1- -2- he was elected to the senate, it attempts to examine extensively only his Speaking while a member of that body. The length of his political career dictates the selection of only a part of Kern's speaking, and the period in the senate was selected because it is felt that this is the Speaking with the most lasting significance. No attempt will be made to present a detailed analysis of short comments by Senator Kern. Rhetorical criticism is confined to senate addresses which are not dependent upon a preceding speech for the adequate presentation of a central idea, and which are prompted by an issue of some importance. Obstacles Two chief obstacles are encountered in this study. The lack of primary source materials is a definite obstacle to accuracy in examining Kern's formal and informal speaking, an obstacle which is cmly partially overcome by the use of secondary sources. The acci- dental destruction of most of Kern's private papers in 1951 is of major importance in this respect. Only a few fragments of his pa- Pers remain, many as a part of other historical collections. The lack of enough authorities who are able to recall inform- ation of value to the study is another obstacle encountered. Those who can recall some information find their memories dimmed by the Passage of a half a century since the events took place. Significance The significance of a study of Senator John Worth Kern is in- dicated by these words of Thomas R. Marshall, Vice-President of the United States during the period of 1913-1921: ll -3- It is a measure of a little man to be cocksure, to be eter- nally and everlastingly right, to be quite certain that Jehovah gave into his hands all knowledge, all goodness and all power. It is the measure of a really great man to walk with certainty and yet walk humbly in his public life, grant- ing to other men the right to think, to speak, to act free- ly. This was the grade of man John Worth Kern was. He showed it in his brilliant services at the bar, in his forceful pre- sentation of his party's principles on the stump and in that kindly, loveable leadership which, when he left the Senate of the United States, made it the supreme desire of political friend and foe alike to do something for him as the shadow of night began to gather around his head. To my mind he was one of Indiana's great and illustrious citizens whose life, when read by the schoolboy of today will help to sweeten, glorify and adorn the public service of tomorrow.1 Previous to his election to the senate Kern had twice been the unsuccessful Democratic candidate for governor in Indiana, and in 1908 the unsuccessful candidate for Vice-President. During the organization of the senate in 1910, his first Congress, Kern was selected as the leader of a group of progressive Democrats who near- ly succeeded in wrenching control of the senate Democratic caucus from the conservatives. With the reorganization of the senate in 1913, Kern became majority leader, was reelected to the position in 1915, and served in this important position until 1917. During this time the senate was in session longer than had been the case since the Jefferson administration. The same period saw one of the larg- est volumes of progressive legislation approved in the history of the country, much of it during the first two years when Kern faced the double burden of a heavy legislative calendar and a narrow Dem- ocratic majority. ‘. 1Thomas R. Marshall Collection, Indiana State Historical I«ibrary, Indianapolis, Indiana. -A- Despite the problems, only one administrative measure failed to pass the senate. William G. McAdoo, then Secretary of the Treas- trry, reported that "John W. Kern served as Democratic leader of the Senate during a period when some of the most important legisla- ‘tion in the history of the country was enacted into law."2 Senator Willard Saulsbury of Delaware, president pro tempore of the senate stated: "In his position as Democratic leader and chairman of the caucus he displayed great ability and tact in handling a majority of senators composed of men whose opinions in some cases differed widely. Every one respected him and many of us loved him. We felt when he left the senate that the party to which he belonged and the country had met with an irreparable loss."3 Thus, Kern occupied a significant position in the history of that period; his speaking formed a major part of his work; and, therefore, he is worthy of study in order to discover the contribu- tion which his speaking made. Kern has not been the subject of a previous thesis in the field Of speech. Only slight mention of his role is made in works in the field of history, and he has received only brief notice in politi- cal science works. Even in his own time, he received little nation- al attention while in the United States Senate. Aside from the lim- ited publication of a biography and a small number of articles, lit- tle has been written on Kern. The intrinsic merit of the man and his career combine with the lack of previous writings to make this Study a worthwhile task. ‘— ZClaude G. Bowers, The Life of John Worth Kern (Indianapolis: The Hollenbeck Press, 19187, p. 369. 31bid., p. 375. -5- Materials Two sources are of primary importance in this study. The biography by Claude G. Bowers, The Life of John Worth Kern, is the only major work which deals with Kern's role in the senate. 'Thus, heavy reliance is placed upon it. At the time that the book was completed the author had been in Indiana politics for a quarter of a century. He was personal secretary to Senator Kern during his term in the senate, and was sympathetic to Kern's views. His back- ground was that of a newspaper editor and reporter. Commenting on the book, a reviewer wrote: While the whole volume is thus sympathetic there is no of- fensive partiality, no long arguments so often indulged in by apologists to prove his hero always in the right. The reviewer, as has been intimated, was not a follower of Sen- ator Kern but he has not found a single expression in the volume at which offense could be taken. Mr. Bowers is a graceful writer, his style is clear and simple. The vol- ume should rank with Mr. Foulke's Life of Morton as one of the two best contriRutions to Indiana biOgraphical and po- litical literature. Since no manuscripts of Kern's speeches are available and his speeches were not reprinted in the newspapers, the Congressional Record was adOpted as the best secondary source. Whenever possible, the accuracy of the texts is verified by comparison with the ex- cerpts from newspaper accounts. Aside from these two principle sources, others deserve brief mention. The Woodrow Wilson Collection in the United States Library 0f Congress provides significant information on Kern's relationship With President Wilson. A private collection of the undestroyed por- tion of Kern's papers, held by John Worth Kern II, are valuable in _‘ u"Reviews and Notes," Indiana Magazine of Histonx. XV (March, 1919), p. 78. -6- many respects; and several collections of the papensof Ihdiaus political leaders in the Indiana State Historical Library also are of some significance. Many other materials and sources hrve been utilized in this study, and these are indicated in the footnotes throughout the thesis and in the bibliography. Organization The study is divided into six chapters, including this intro- ductory first chapter. Chapter two traces the sources of Kern's speaking ability and furnishes essential biOgraphical material which covers the period of his life up to his entrance into the senate. Chapter three discusses the nature of Kern's leadership and the role of his informal speaking. It also deals with certain biograph- ical material concerned with the six years of Kern's senate career. Chapters four and five contain rhetorical criticism of two speeches made by Kern from the floor of the senate. Chapter six seeks to summarize and offer some conclusions about Kern's speaking which are based on the preceding chapters. CHAPTER II THE MAKING OF THE MAN The Early Years Early days. John Worth Kern was born on December 20, 18h9, in Alto, Indiana, a small community in Howard County.1 His father, Dr. Jacob W. Kern, and his mother, Nancy (Liggett) Kern, had moved into this sparsely settled, heavily timbered region from Shelby‘ County, Indiana in l8h6. The generous and sympathetic physician and his wife had become leaders in the swampy region,2 and in June of 18k9 the doctor had risen in politics to the presidency of the Howard County Democratic Convention.3 In l85h the Kern family, including an older sister, moved to Warren County, Iowa and settled near Indianola among other settlers from Indiana in a place called "Hoosier Row" because of its numer- ous Howard County peOple.h In this locale young Kern's political beliefs in the Democracy (Democratic Party) were solidified. Dur- ing the campaign of 1860 he would often make a trip to Indianola ——i 1Charles Blanchard (ed.), Counties of Howard and Tipton, Indiana: Historical and Biographical (Chicago: F. A. Battey and Company, 1883), p. 3RD. 2George S. Cottman (ed.), Indiana Scrapbook Collection: Bio ra h (Article from Indianapglis News, August 3, l90h), IV, PP- 5 -59. 3Jackson Morrow, Histor of Howard Count Indiana (2 vols.; Indianapolis: B. F. Bowen and Company, 19105, I, p. 355. “Cottman, loc. cit. -8- with a load of wood, and attend the political rallies. His yell- ing and cheering for Douglas attracted a great deal of attention to the eleven-year-old Democrat. Shortly after Douglas lost the election, he met a friend of his father who asked him how he felt about the election. "Like Lazarus." "Why, how is that?" "Like I'd been licked by the dogs," was the reply.5 Here in Iowa young Kern received his early schooling. His father was both a farmer and doctor in the community, and John spent the greater part of the year working on the farm. In the winter he at- tended one of the common schools of Iowa, which were considered good by the standards of the far west.6 He received additional help in his studies from his father, an excellent scholar, who graduated in medicine in Virginia in 1840.7 The death of Mrs. Kern and the lack of good educational facilities beyond the common schools prompted Doctor Kern to re- turn to Alto, Indiana in 1864.8 John enrolled in the Indiana Nor- mal School of Kokomo where he received advanced schooling during 5Claude G. Bowers, The Life of John Worth Kern (Indianapo- lis: The Hollenbeck Press, 1918), p. 5. 6Cottman, loc. cit.; Will Cumback and J. B. Maynard (eds.), Men of Pro ess: Indiana (Indianapolis: The Indianapolis Sentinel Company, 18995, p. 185. 71bid. 8Bowers' biOgraphy of Kern states that they returned in 1865 (see Bowers, o'. cit., p. 5). However, two other references (see Blanchard, o . cit., p. 3&1 and Cottman, loc. cit.) clearly indi— cate the date as 1 6h. -9- the winters of 1865-1866 and 1866-1867. Under the direction of Professor E. N. Fay and a staff of competent teachers, this private institution was considered superior to most Indiana schools of the period. Kern rode back and forth to school on horseback each day, and, to economize with money, he carried his lunch. To help pass the time on the nine—mile daily winter rides, he would often recite 9 his lessons aloud, engage in a little practice oratory, and study the great speeches.10 Kern was industrious about his education, and was considered a leader among the other boys and girls. Jackson Morrow, a life- time friend, described him as “a brilliant student but not a plod— 11 der." He absorbed the textbook materials easily. Nor was he con- cerned with dull formulas in his study of English, but merely with the principles that dealt with the clear and forcible expression of 12 thoughts. J. Oscar Henderson, a school companion of Kern's at Normal, stated that: He was a sweet, precocious, gentle boy, ambitious to the last degree and always hOpeful and sure of himself. In- tellectually he ripened and expanded far beyond his years. As a boy he excelled all his fellows in oratory and loved forensic contests. From his boyhood his dreams was to be- come a lawyer of renown. . . . He was an intense Demo- Crat, o o o r 4 9Bowers, op. cit., p. 7; Cottman, loc. cit.; and Blanchard, _10C 0 Cit 0 10Letter from late Hon. Claude G. Bowers, U. S. Ambassador (retired), historian, and close friend of John W. Kern, to writer, August 15. 1957- 1Bowers, loc. cit. 12Ibid., pp. 7-8, and Cottman, loo. cit. 13Kokomo Dispatch, August 21, 1917, p. 1, col. 3. -10- His religious education played an important part in his de- velOpment. He attended Sunday school in the Alto Methodist log church, and at the Cobb church located a mile outside of Alto, and during a one-day Sunday school celebration in the summer of 1865, Kern represented the Alto Sunday School in a contest between Sun- day schools, by delivering a paper on temperance. His clear, in- cisive and earnest manner captured the large audience in his attack on the saloon and drunkeness,lu and the paper was selected for pub- lication in the county paper.15 Teachingfdays. While young Kern held to high ideals, his industriousness also developed in him a sense of practicality and self—sufficiency. This is best indicated by his decision in late 1865 to pursue a legal career.16 His most immediate need was that of money to attend law school. Although his father's practice was adequate enough to provide the extra money needed, John preferred to provide the funds himself. To do this, he took the examination before the county examiner, Rawson Vaile, for a teacher's license. on the basis of the high score made by Kern, he was granted a twen- ty-four months' license--the longest term granted by a county ex- . 17 aminer. —¥ lhBowerS, OE. Cite, pp. 5-60 lsIbid. 16This decision Was reached, in part, because of Kern's love for books which tended to lead him to reject his father's desire that he remain in the old homestead and go into the medical profes- sion. Charles W. Taylor, Biographical Sketches and Review of the Egggh and Bar of Indiana (Indianapolis: Bench and Bar Publishing Company. 1895). p- 338. 17Bowers, Op. cit., p. 8. -11- His first term of teaching was conducted before he was six- teen at the common school in Alto, probably in the winter of 1865- 1866. His last term of teaching was conducted at the Dyar School- house, a district school located in the Albright settlement three and a half miles east of Alto.l8 The record of his experiences at the Dyar Schoolhouse provides an example of some of the leadership qualities that were develOping in him. The district school was large for the times, consisting of about sixty boys and girls, many of them older and larger than the young schoolmaster. 0n the play- ground he would join in the games as an equal, but in the class- room he was a strong disciplinarian. In one instance, the refusal 0f a rebel to stand brought on a severe whipping after school in the presence of two other boys as witnesses. In another instance, Kernpresided as judge over a dispute in ownership of a pet rabbit. The tum in possession of the rabbit was found not to be the right- ful.‘owner, was forced to give up the rabbit, and became the recipi- ent. of several lashes from the schoolmaster.19 His advice in the last: week of November, 1867 to Jackson Morrow, a friend and dis- trifirt school teacher, was well in keeping with these two examples. \ 18On this point the biographers are contradictory. The questxion could well be asked, "How could he both attend school and teactl at the same time [winter of 1865-1866]?" The answer might well Zlie in the fact that Kokomo Normal was primarily a school for the txraining of teachers, and therefore might arrange its term to gg°°nunodate the vocational committments of their young teachers. ofwlecver, the answer must remain one of speculation. The records withcflsomo Normal were destroyed in a fire, according to an interview Bl (3. V. Haworth of Kokomo, August 26, 1957; Cottman, loc. cit.; Auanchard, loc. cit.; Bowers, 0p. cit., p. 9; and Kokomo Dispatch, gust 19, 1917, p. 1, col. 4. Di 19Cottman, loc. cit.; Bowers, o . cit., pp. 9-10; and Kokomo 4%: AUSUSt 19, 1917, p. 1, col. E. -12- He told him "not to spare the rod, but crack the whip under their bellies whenever they deserve it." He softened this statement, however, by saying that the students were "generally well disposed," and "not naturally vicious. . . . I sympathize deeply with every school teacher, knowing as I do the responsibility resting upon them."20 His sense of responsibility in teaching is indicated more clearly in descriptions on his teaching methods. They are de- scribed by Albert B. Kirkpatrick and township school officials as 'being those of an original thinker, one not addicted to ironclad sophistic rules of instruction. He created an interest in learn- iJ:g among the students that resulted in rapid student progress. He ruarticularly enjoyed reading from Patrick Henry and other orators :Ln McGuffey's Sixth Reader. The township school officials were f'high praise. The biographer describes his genius in terms of kuis equuence before a jury, which surpassed the older members of tile bar. He also points to the winsome genielity of Kern's person- zalgity that brought him friends and pOpularity in ever-increasing quantity. His performance before the local justice of the peace cnazxrts, the only local forums of the period, made him a virtual hero in: the county.55 One of his admirers was C. C. Shirley, later a prwandnent Indiana lawyer. He described him as "one who had been ‘t011ched with the fires of genius."56 "I know the impression he made on me was that his client ‘was always right and much wronged by the highly reprehen- .sible persons on the other side. . . . I learned that his *wonderful skill in marshalling the facts and circumstances, sadded to his real genius for pathos, ridicule and invec- ‘tive, when these weapons could be used to advantage, were c>ften quite as much to be feared as the merits of his case. lie knew when to employ these weapons and never made the xnistake so frequently observed of resorting to either un- Iless there was something in the case which made it certain 116 would 'get away with it.’ He avoided the obvious resort ‘to such expedients--indeed he never seemed to employ them ‘at.all. This is what made him so effective when he did use them. "57 In euaother instance C. C. Shirley said of Kern: "I first knew of him in the justice of the peace courts <3f Honey Creek township. As often as he was attorney in a <1ase I was present at the trial. I was charmed with his eloquence and drew my early inspirations from him at the bar. There are no courts which represent the human pas- Efiions, humor and pathos more potently and effectually than \ 55 56 Bowers, op. cit., pp. 30-31. Ibid., p. 31. 57Ibido, pp. 32-330 the justice of peace courts. In them John W. Kern was perfectly at home. He ran the gamut of human emotions and sympathies. He had a big heart himself and under- stood human nature perfectly, and consequently was a perfect master of the hugan heart and played upon the heart strings at will."5 Thus, Shirley thought Kern's brilliance was in his oratory. Adld Bowers described Kern, the Kokomo lawyer, as a "brilliant crim- imisil lawyer in those days, powerful with juries," and "very elo- quent." Later on "he lost some of the 'purple patches'" of oratory tlisrt marked the early period of his legal career. He had the qualities of the orator--a capacity for deep feeling on Convictions deeply felt. He knew men and how to reach their minds and hearts. This was the reason he was a great criminal or trial lawyer in his early days.59 His practice in Howard County also required the power of an- alysis to discover human weaknesses and expose conspiracies. Through the exposing of falseness and concealment Kern presented a Gas“; before both the court and jury on its own merits. He became famous for this analytical practice, and was soon engaged on one Side or the other of every important case tried in the county.60 One reason for the success of Kern in the practice of law may- lie in his choice of law partners. Among these were J. F. Elldiott, later judge of the Circuit Court of Howard County and one °f the brightest legal minds in the county; L. J. Hackney, later a judge on the Supreme Court of Indiana; N. R. Lindsay; and Col. N. P. \ 58Morrow, op. cit., p. #04. 59Letter from Bowers to writer, August 15, 1957. at 60Cumback and Maynard, o . cit., p. 186; and Kokomo Dis- we, August 19, 1917, p. 1, col. E. -25- Richmond.61 Perhaps the most notable characteristic of Kern's early legal <:aleer is the depth and rapidity Of his perception. One example Of tliis occurred in a case where he was positive that the prosecuting unitness was lying. Lacking evidence to substantiate his belief, Kern decided to rely on a bluff. Dramatically, he Opened the drawer caf' the desk in front of him and held up a blank sheet Of paper. Looking directly at the witness he demanded fiercely, "Did you not on a certain occasion testify so and so in this matter?" The wit- ness, certain that he had been caught in his lie wilted and confessed 'theat he had testified differently on a previous occasion. An outgrowth of his skill in perception was his reliance on the: expedient. Kern was not the kind to drag out a court case. He Preferred the fastest course Of action that would lead to the de— Sirwed.results. While Kern was still very new in the practice of law he represented the plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note. He Imad not expected the defendant to make an appearance in Tipton whelfie the case was to be tried, and had not prepared for a trial. Howtrver, the defendant was represented by one of the region's out— Steulding judges. When Kern realized he was going to be facing a Contest with such a worthy Opponent as Judge Green he was complete- ly art a loss and greatly embarrassed at his lack of preparation. HowOVer, Judge Garver was on the bench and, being sympathetic toward the llewrlawyer's position, asked Kern what he intended to do and if he would "take a rule." Kern did not know that to "take a rule" \ 61 Cottman, loc. cit. 62Bowers, op. cit., pp. 38-39. -26- meant that the defendant was required to answer the plaintiff's complaint, or that the plaintiff was required to reply to the de- fendant's answer, but he did know the judge would not mislead him. SO with an air of complete competence he remarked, "Yes, your honor, yes, I believe I will take a rule."63 A later example of the use of the expedient occurred after Kern had gained considerable eXperience in the practice of criminal law. In this case his client had been accused Of stealing a pocket- book. Kern secured a pocketbook similar to the one which had been ‘stolen. He presented it to the prosecuting witness and pressed him for a positive identification. The witness fell for the trap and identified the pocketbook as his, whereupon Kern placed the real one in Dis atch, August 1 , 1917. OBowers, op. cit., p. 53; Cottman, loc. cit.; and Blanchard, 9RL_43;£., p. 3M2. -32- him.81 Kern was an ardent supporter of the reform elements within the Democratic Party. This did not make him very pepular with the conservative elements among Howard County Democrats, but he did not subdue his enthusiasm in 1871 for Horace Greeley, Democratic candi- date for President, and for Hendricks, the Democratic candidate for Governor of Indiana, both advocates of reform. In the Democratic County Convention of 1871+ Kern was still advocating reform. The editor of the Republican Kokomo Tribune commented on his speech, "If he had lived in the days of the Reformation he would have been the head and front of that movement. As a reformer Kern is a suc- cess."82 Kern's leadership of the Democratic Party in Howard County was evident by this time. In addition to the major address on re— form made in the convention, he also made twenty-one of the thirty- two motions placed before the delegates. He was attending the cau— cuses of the State Democratic Committee in Indianapolis as the sole representative of the County. From that year until 188l+ he was the Principal Secretary of the State Democratic Conventions.83 The convention selected Kern to run for the county office of PI‘Osecuting Attorney that year. During the campaign an excellent example of Kern's power of ridicule develOped. He persevered in \ 81 , . Blanchard, loc. olt.; Bowers, op. c1t., pp. 56-57; and Elmo Dispatch, August 13, 1917, p. 1, col. 7. 8ZBowers, 0p. cit., pp. 57-58. I 83Ihid,, p. 58; and Biographical Sketches of Members of the ~3d\iana State Government; State and Judicial Officials; and Members c£~f\the Fifty-fourth Legislative Assembly, 1883 (Indianapolis: The n(in-anapolis Sentinel Company, 1885), p. 25. -33- his advocacy of reform during the campaign, levelling his oratorical attack at local county officials. It appears he had a working know- ledge of the principle of eXplaining the abstract by drawing upon pertinent concrete examples. Kern brought home to his audience the abstract concept of reform by relating to their personal experience an 6. knowledge. The Republican county officials had adorned their offices with items that Howard County farmers would deem "frills" and "extravagant misuse of public funds." Included in this list were such items as paper weights, arm rests, clusters, and fancy stationery, all of which became the objects of Kern's political ridicule. Chief among the items of ridicule, however, was an invention by a man named McGill which clamped papers tot-tether. Kern would go to such lengths in his descriptive ridicule of the "McGill machine" that his audience would build a ricture in their minds of a monstrositr not unlike a thresh— .9 ing machine. At the prOper time, Kern would then show them the tiny real device and name the high price paid by the officials for it. Kern succeeded in making the "McGill machine" an issue in the cam- paign to the extent that in the election, while he was defeated by 234 Votes, the Republican fortress received another good shaking. In 1880 he was again defeated for the office by 505 votes, while the Republican Candidate for President, Garfield, carried the County by 1,200 votes.8b' The State Democratic Convention of 1876 was a sharp lesson 1 . n K(‘Z‘I‘n's exuberance for reform. He engaged in an attack upon one Of the leading and most honestly forthright lawyers on the Indiana ”upreme Court bench. The attack was promped by "unessential pur- Chases of stationery and other conveniences for their offices by \ Bowers, 0p. cit., pp. 58-59; and Blanchard, loc. cit. -31..- the members of the court. Kern lost his fight against the judge and later came to realize the enormity of his mistake.85 The pur- chase of some stationery does not mean there has been a misuse of public funds. Although his inexperience might have occasionally handi— capped him, as in his mistaken reform exuberance against the judge, Kern was always a loyal member of his party. His popularity in Howard County caused many Republican leaders in the county to lay political fortunes at his feet if he would only be converted and join the ranks of the Grand Old Party.86 Kern declined. He was also immune to his own personal desires in matters where party loy- alty was most concerned. .In his exuberance prior to the National Democratic Convention in St. Louis, 1876, for Governor Hendricks of Indiana, he stated that he would not vote for Tilden if he re— ceived the nomination for President. Party loyalty led him to vote for Tilden in the face of heavy criticism from The Kokomo Tribune.87 In the county convention of 1882, Kern's Speech on reform (a regular part of the agenda by now) concentrated heavily on at- taCking politicians who buy their nomination and election. He pre- dicted that the time would come when such politicians would be re- Pudixited by the people. Kern was later to be an important factor in tflat repudiation. State politician. From 1876 to 1884 Kern was gaining state- 85 86 Bowers, OE. Cite, pp. 61-62. Cottman, loc. cit. 87Bowers, 0p. cit., pp. 63-64. 881bid., p. 65. -35- wide prominence as a political stump speaker. More and more the party was calling on his services away from Howard County as well as in his own locale. With his increased recognition and his de— sire for a little financial reward for his efforts, Kern decided to run for the state office of Reporter of the Supreme Court in the campaign of 1881+.89 The Democratic Party ran one of its strongest tickets of the 19th Century in Indiana that year. Isaac P. Grey, Captain W. R. Myers, John J. CooPer, and James H. Rice were the candidates for the chief state offices. They included a shrewd politician, a great stump orator, a business man of high character in the business world, a well-respected lawyer, and a popular personality. They were backed up by a strong group of young party workers including John E. Lamb, Benjamin F. Shively, and a party manager in Marion County who was shortly to be a very important influence in Kern's politi- cal fortunes, Thomas Taggert. Former United States Senator Joseph E. McDonald, Senator Daniel W. Voorhees, and Thomas A. Hendricks, the Vice-Presidential running mate of Grover Cleveland during the election, brought their national prestige on the state campaign.9O Certainly, Kern had plenty of help for the first time in his polit- iCal- experience. Of course Kern was making his own mark during the campaign. AWording to Bowers, his consultation of the files of The Indian- %Sentinel indicated that Kern concentrated on the tariff questxion in the campaign, speaking usually for two hours each time. His Speaking won the now not unusual praise for being eloquent, log- .______¥8 9Ibid., pp. 68 and 8h; and Cottman, loc. cit. 90Bowers, op. cit., pp. 70-73. -36- cal, convincing, highly persuasive in matters of athos, and cog- o n t) 1 v-\ p - nizant of matters of ethos. Perhaps Doctor n. E. wuivey of Fort flayne recorded the most vivid picture of Kern in this period. "He was very slender and in the long frock coat of the period seemed much taller than when I sau him years afterward. He had an abundance of hair which was almost black and which he wore rather long, but always neatly trimmed about the edges. His face was rather pale and already lines were graven on his forehead and about the eyes, which, together with heavy eyebrows, gave an expression of austerity which wholly be- lied his nature. Although an indefatigable worker he was not a rugged man, and was therefore very careful of his physical welfare, using every precaution to forestall some seemingly ever-impending illness. While I am sure that he had many hours of physical discomfort, he never even inti- mated that he was not in the best of health. "Wherever he appeared he made a profound impression by his fluent speech and the compelling force of his logic. He seldom embellished his thoughts with figurative lang- uage, and his speeches were entirely devoid of verbosity; his power seemed to lie in the earnest, lucid simplicity of his appeal. He never sought to please the fancy of his auditors by lofty flights of oratory, nor did he indulge in any tricks that crafty orators employ for applause. In- deed applause seemed more disconcerting than pleasing to him. Under no consideration would he deliberately offer offense to any one, and he was inclined to let personal incivili- ties go unrebuked and apparently unnoticed. Yet when goaded to retaliation he was equal to any emergency."92 The above description lacks any mention of the "purple patch- es" of oratory that marked Kern in his early years before the bar. It! fact, Doctor Quivey specifically mentions that the Kern of this Perfiiod was not given to such lofty oratorical practices. In light of ‘the above description, it appears that the change in Kern's StYle of speaking occurred sometime before 1881+.93 Kern won his firEst important election that fall and a four-year term of service \ 91Ibid.. pp. 72-77. 921bid..-pp- 76-79- 935ee p. 24. -37- with the United States Supreme Court as Reporter for the State of Indiana. In 188#, a good year for Democrats in Indiana, Kern ran 1,500 votes ahead of the Democratic ticket, chiefly due to his pap- 9h ‘ularity in Howard County. From a country lawyer to Reporter of the Supreme Court is at Ileast a modest measure of success in the political world. But Kern ‘wes also meeting with a measure of success in his personal life. fPhus, a review of Kern's personal life in this period is essential to obtain an adequate picture of his development. Private and social life. After Kern had been graduated from tune University of Michigan and was just settled in his Kokomo office on Mulberry Street,95 he lost little time in entering the social ‘whirl of the town. In addition to the young men of the town who sought his favor, Kern found that a promising young lawyer was also a favorite among the young women of the town. Specifically men— tioned shortly after his arrival were Misses Whenett and Hazzard With whom he had renewed old acquaintances. They had called on him at the office, and he in turn was intending to call on both of them at their invitation.96 Whether or not he completed both calls, on November 10, 1870, Kern married Julia Ann Hazzard, daughter of a Prominent Kokomo business man. Kern's chief critic, The Kokomo zaésflsas. announced the marriage in this way: "Notwithstanding the ultra Democracy of John, there is ii whole-souled manner, a generous style and an earnestness \ 9hBiographical Sketches of Indiana State Government, p. 25. m 95Historical Atlas of Howard Countlj Indiana (Chi°38°‘ King- ”1 Brothers, 1876), p. 94. 96Bowers, 0p. cit., pp. 28-29. -38- about him that has.compelled admiration. We have never heard a single person speak of the bride except in the highest terms of praise. She is intelligent, domestic in her habits and preferences and very good."97 By this time Kern's father had returned to his home state of ‘Virginia taking young Kern's sister with him. John visited them frequently, but his father remained there, a recluse, the rest of his life.98 As time passed, Kern's multitude of friends grew to enormous :prOportions. His witticisms and practical jokes were laughed over and passed on to others. His quick temper was still very much a jpaxw of him, and he was quick to rise to a challenge during these eaxiy years in Howard County. His popularity and oratorical powers combined to prompt demands for his services as a speaker on many occasions outside of the courtroom and off the political stump. ‘Ild-settlers' meetings and Sunday school picnics are examples of 'flhese occasions.99 It was said of him in the 1884 campaign that 'Wris social manner won for him a host of friends irrespective of 100 Partwa" Doctor Quivey termed him "by far the most approachable Pablic man we had encountered. The distant, awe-inspiring charac— teristics of some of the other speakers were wholly foreign to his natlire."101 In those early years, a son and a daughter were born into the Kern household, Fred R. and Julia A. Kern was actively engaged 3°°5~adly'as a member of the Methodist Church, a Freemason, and an \ 97Ibid., pp. 35—36. 981biQ-. p. #5. lOOIbid., pp. 7h-75. 99Ibid., p. 46. 1011bid., p. 78. -39- Odd Fellow. But his personal life was to know great sadness also, for on September 1, 1881+, his wife, Julia Ann, died. With the pass- age of time Kern's sorrow lightened, and on December 23, 1885, he married Araminta A. Cooper, daughter of Doctor William Cooper of Kokomo. Two sons, John Worth Kern II and William CoOper Kern, were born to this union.102 Kern lost the race for reelection as Supreme Court Reporter in the campaign of 1888 by the margin of 2,500 votes. His fond dreams of accumulating a little extra cash during his term of office did not materialize. His gregariousness proved to be the downfall Of those dreams. This was an age of "socializing" on the Washing- ton scene, and Kern's affability and ready wit made him a choice faworite for the never-ending stream of Indiana politicians that floured into the capitol. The result was that he spent his money as rapidly as he made it. He authored seventeen volumes of _I_n_d_i_._- weports on the United States Supreme Court (Volumes 100 to 116) during his term of office, and, after finishing out the term, was f°15‘<=ed to sell the c0pyright on them for a very small sum in order t° help alleviate his poor financial condition.103 Return to law practice. Kern returned to private practice, but now made his home in Indianapolis. There he entered into a peu‘tnership with Leo 0. Bailey. Kern and his partner concentrated laLrSely on the more lucrative civil practice in law, rather than Kern's former specialty of criminal practice. Kern later left the \ Ch 102Esarey, From Its Exploration to 1922, p. 5&8; and Blan- az‘d, loc. cit. Cu 103Bowers, M” pp. 84-85; Cottman, loc. cit.; and mlDack and Maynard, loo. cit. -ho- partnership for civil practice on his 0““th There were two prominent reasons for Kern's abandonment of criminal practice. He felt that the law cases in criminal practice involved immoral and irreligious acts that were repugnant to his own set of values. His financial condition also warranted the change to a more lucrative type of practice. His depth of perception of human nature, his sense of justice and mercy, and his analytical mind gave impetus to his rise as a civil lawyer. With the aid of his able partner, the firm of Kern and Bailey was soon among the leading law firms in Indianapolis.105 Few of the cases attracted any notable attention, primarily because civil law was the less spectacular of the three phases of 18W in this period. Curiously, the two cases worthy of note in this last period of Kern's legal careerdid attract considerable atten- 1‘1011. One was a prominent civil case and the other an important criminal prosecution. The civil case was a contest between the State of Indiana and the railroad corporations. Kern served as a SPe¢ial counsel for the state in what turned out to be a series of °a$es arising out of Indiana taxes on railroads. In the criminal case he served as a special assistant to the United States Govern- ment in a case arising out of an indictment of the alleged wreckers Of- the Indianapolis National Bank. This indictment resulted in a \ I - louBowers, o . cit., p. 86; John B. Stoll, History of the 3.I‘Idwna DemocracyL1918 ZIndianapolis: Indiana Democratic Publish- 698 Company, 1917). P- 935; EncyclOpedia of Biography of Indiana, Enorge Irving Reed (2 vols.; Chicago: The Century Publishing and graving Company, 1899), p. 86; and Cumback and Maynard, loc. cit. 105Engyc10pedia of Biography, p. 86; and Cumback and May- ['1 ard’ OE. Cite, PO 187' -ltl- series of cases called the "Swamp Land cases." The effect of both the civil and criminal actions was to raise Kern to a position a- mong the leaders of his profession in the state of Indiana.106 Return to state politics. Kern did not wait long before he again entered political service in his state. In 1892, without any urging or prompting on his own part, the Marion County Democratic Convention nominated him for election to the state senate. Again, political fortune smiled on Kern and he was elected along with a Democratic majority in both houses of the state legislature, a Dem- ocratic governor, and a full slate of electors for Grover Cleveland's second presidential term of office.lO7 Because of his ability and popularity, he was placed among the leaders in the state senate. His prominence is reflected in his committee assignments which included rules, finance, roads, Public buildings, the city of Indianapolis, and the chairmanship of the Insurance Committee. The only slight of Kern was committed by M°3:‘133I.mer Nye, the lieutenant governor, when he failed to place Kern on the Judiciary Committee. Nye was criticized by the state Demo- crats for this snub.108 It was in labor legislation that Kern made his strongest im- Preesion in the state senate. During the session of 1893 Kern led the fight for the passage of two important labor bills. The first “as the Deery bill that legalized labor unions, and the second, the Hench bill, established the first employers' liability law to be en- \ 106Taylor, °E° cit., P0 340; and Bowers, 0p. cit., p. 8?. 10¢ 107Bowers, o . cit., p. 88; Stoll, loc. cit.; and Cottman, NE. 108Bowers, 0p. cit., p. 89. -42- acted in Indiana. Indiana was the fourth state in the nation to adopt this kind of legislation. The courage of Kern in his con- victions is shown in the debate for the passage of the Deery bill. Kern made a major address in behalf of the bill just a year after the outbreak of a serious transportation strike in Indianapolis which lasted several weeks. Bitter feelings over the inconvenience and police measures employed during the strike were still fresh, and business interests were violently Opposed to the bill. In the consideration of the Hench bill Kern was pitched against the rail- road lobby and an unfriendly judiciary committee. After overcom- ing their objections and gaining senate approval, he had to hand- carry the bill as amended through House approval and to the Cover- nor's office for signature. A third piece of legislation was also enacted into law during that session, partly through the efforts of Kern. In many respects it was a quarter of a century preview of a "first" in national legislation in which Kern was to be a leading adVOCate, a child labor 1aw.109 In the session of 1895 Kern became the minority party leader with the Republicans once again in the majority. His chief role "as. that of defensive criticism. For eXMple, in an election bill Kern fought unsuccessfully against a Republican measure to redraw election district boundaries.110 The Kern of this period was "among the best-dressed men in 111 the senate." On the streets he wore a Prince Albert coat and a \ 109Ibid., pp. 93-100; and Stoll, loc. cit. 11OBowere, op. cit., pp. 101-111. 111Ibid., p. 89. -h3- black silk hat. He usually could be seen smoking a cigar. His manner was cordial and inspired confidence in his ability and sin- cerity. He was polite to Republicans and Democrats alike and was impartially admired and respected by both sides of the senate. His speeches contained more and better support, greater variety, and more originality than those of the majority of Indiana legislators. His excellent sense of humor and ability in ridicule were greatly appreciated in the usually dull sessions. Although he was an un- swerving partisan, his speeches were free of bitterness and bigotry toward his Republican Opponents.112 Private and social life. Socially, he was now a member of the Knights of Pythias, the Order of Elks, and a thirty-second de- gree Mason. One of the most significant positions of recognition Came to him in 1898 when he was named Charter Dean of the Indianap- olis College of Law. He held this position until 1905. In his re- ligious belief Kern was still quite orthodox although not now a menl‘ber of any church. He was a total abstainer, but firmly believed that temperance was a question that each man had to settle for him- self-.113 His second wife was of great help to him. Immediately after "‘01:- marriage she undertook quite capably the task of raising Julia, his infant daughter by his first marriage. Their home was at 1836 North Pennsylvania Street in Indianapolis. By 1899 Julia was in her early adolescence and Fred was a grown man. Fred had \ 112Ibid., pp. 89 and 101; Taylor, ——————1°°' Cit“ 113Cumback and Maynard, loo. cit.; and Proceedings of the exl‘ty-silcth Annual Meetings of the Indiana State Bar Association w Indianapolis: Indiana State Bar Association, 19220, p. 71. -4h- serwred as a volunteer soldier under General William R. Shafter at Santiago, and now lived in Washington, D. C. in retirement because of':ill.health. Araminta, while watching over the trials and tribu- lations of her adolescent step-daughter, also found time to counsel hez' husband wisely in his political career. Her assistance to him passed well beyond the normal duties of a housewife.11u Kern was also a social success at parties and other friendly gatlierings. He was quite familiar with the social graces, and his polrite and kindly manner made him a good listener, the key to suc- cesns in many social situations. His vivid imagination and quick Wilt, coupled with his large supply of adaptable anecdotes, also con- trilyuted to his success in Hoosier social life.115 Relationship of Kern and Taggert. Sometime during the 1890's K9111 became associated with a man who more than any other was re- sPOnsible for his late but meteoric rise to national fame, Thomas Taggert. Tom Taggert was a young politician who was enjoying a differ- ent kind of political fame. Like Kern, he was a political "prodigy." Through his faithful party service, Taggert was made chairman of the Seventh district congressional committee in 1890, serving in thert capacity for ten years. With the office went membership on the State Central Committee, and in 1892 he was chosen as State Dem- Ocratic Chairman. Taggert's fame lay in his ability to organize effectively \ 1141p1a,; Bowers, op. cit., pp. 85-86; and Cottman, loc. cit. -45- party activity. It was his organization plans in the campaign of 1892 that delivered Indiana's electoral votes to Cleveland, gave Indiana a completely Democratic state government, and put Kern in the Indiana Senate. These plans were a source of wonder to National Committeemen and they requested copies for implementation in their 116 own states. The result was national prominence for Taggert. He was elected Mayor of Indianapolis for three successive terms in 1895, 1897, and 1899. Taggert first employed the services of Kern while he was Mayor, appointing him corporation counsel in 1895. In 1897 he appointed Kern City Attorney for Indianapolis, and to the same office in 1899. The position paid four thousand dollars a year and gave Kern an opportunity to acquire some private law casemll7 His close association with Kern led Taggert to re- serve bigger and better plans for him.118 In 1900 and 1904 Taggert was the national committeeman for Indiana, and in 1901+ he was elect- 119 ed Democratic National Chairman. There can be little doubt that Taggert was a political "boss," although he was certainly not the kind of party boss that Boss Tweed in New York City represented. Taggert did not buy and coerce his way to fame. Instead he won his position through his organizational abillity. He was not a self-made boss, but was rather a boss by the choise of the Democratic Party. The fact still remains that by 1900 \ c 116Alva Charles Sallee, "Taggert Collection," State Histori- all Library of Indiana, Indianapolis, pp. 25-28. 1171bid., p. 163. 11 118Ibid., pp. 25-28; Stoll, loc. cit.; and Cumback and May- abd, loc. cit. 119Sallee, Op. cit., pp. 37, #2, and 68. ‘11 -a.u. o... u '-l . .‘ ‘ u e .- e ._‘ l -4 -46- the State Democratic organization was under the direct manipulation of Taggert, however temporary that manipulation was to be.120 The campaign of 1896 was a great turning point in the polit- ical life of Kern, and a great testing of his loyalty to the Demo- cratic Party. The schism caused by the issue of the free coinage of silver was no more apparent than in the State of Indiana. On May twenty-eighth of that year the conservative, or pro-gold, ele- ments of the party held a mass meeting to counteract the effect of a free coinage conference which had been held a few days before. Kern was one of the speakers at that meeting who spoke out against the free and unlimited coinage of silver. The free silver men countered with another-rally which featured as one of the main Speakers former Congressman Benjamin F. Shively, the chief advocate in Indiana for silver. The State Democratic Convention was in political revolt that year- The Marion County gold delegation was not seated by the cre- dent"ii-ale committee despite the written'protest of Kern who was the only anti-silver member of the committee. The State Convention end- “ in a victory for the free silver men with Shively bearing the SiIVer Democratic standard as candidate for Governor. The sharp division between the monied and the laboring class- es‘ which the later nomination of Bryan in Chicago evidenced, soon o"~91‘sl'1adowed the free coinage question with other questions involv- 1113 Political corruption through coercion and bribery. In addition t o the moral question of the fight, Kern found other sources of ra- \ J°h 120Ibid., p. 96; and Edna Miller, "The Editorial Opinion of ahdn B. Stoll" (unpublished Master‘s thesis, Department of History Political Science, Butler University, 19116), p. 67. -47- tionale for his continued loyalty, if any other than his faith in the Democracy were needed. Many parts of the Democratic platform Kern found to be highly favorable to his own standard of reform. A- mong these were the income tax, popular election of Senators, em- ployee protection against the coercion of the employer in his exer- cise of the franchise, and the correction of evils in the use of the court injunction. Kern could fight for these issues with his usual zeal. Early in the Campaign he met William Jennings Bryan. He told him that prior to the convention he had fought against silver, and his frankness won him the confidence and respect of Bryan. From that time forward Kern was to become known as Bryan's lieutenant in Indiana.121 As has been stated, the Indiana Democracy by 1900 was Tag- gert Democracy, so it is not surprising that the Taggert lieutenants favored him for the nomination for Governor. However, Taggert in- sisted that he did not want to make the race, and, with Taggert's sthub they mnvmm to Hana Many personal friends had also been “reins Kern to become a candidate, but he was determined to remain out of the race. However, Frank Burke, a man who was not very pop- \flar with the organization forces, announced his candidacy, and in order to insure supremacy of the machine forces and to please Tag- 9”*9 Kern accepted the call. His selection as nominee by the State Democratic Convention was easily managed, and Kern conducted an energetic fight for the election. But the Grand Old Party was election king that year, although Kern ran well ahead of the nation- a1 Democratic ticket. \ 21Bowers, op. cit., pp. 118-125; and Stoll, loc. cit. -hg- In the 1904 campaign Kern was again disinclined to run for Governor, but the personal plea of the Democratic presidential can- didate, Alton B. Parker, on the grounds that no one else could add so xnuch strength to the Democratic vote in Indiana swayed Kern from his: determination and he again consented. His consent caused Tag- gert some trouble since he had made a personal promise to Frank Burdse to leave him a clear field in gaining the convention nomina- tiJDIl. Taggert again engineered the nomination for Kern, and in so doing nearly lost Burke's support. Kern lost his second attempt to 881d: the gubernatorial seat to Republican J. Frank Hanly by over eighty-four thousand votes. The Republican landslide was repeated on the national scene.122 ' -Kern's prominence in the Democratic Party of Indiana was new heightened not only by his pOpularity among party members but also be<-'=a.use he was now a politician who enjoyed the backing of the Tag- gert machine. Both Kern and Taggert believed in the principle that 'LPC> the victors belong the spoils." Yet, Kern's motives and integ- rity in relation to his involvement with the machine were not ques- ti(fined. Kern's frankness and sincerity overshadowed any connota- tions that might have been attached to the bossism of Taggert.123 KeI‘n's political p0pularity is further indicated by his election as 124 the first President of the Indiana Democratic Club. By 1905 his poPularity and record of service had won him the complimentary vote \ 122Legan Esarey, A History of Indiana: From 1850 to the Pres- ifi (2 vols.; Indianapolis: B. F. Bowen and Company, 19181, I, p. 056; Bowers, op. cit., pp. 128-143; and Stoll, loo. cit. l23Esarey, From Its Exploration to 192;, IV, pp. 5k7-5h8. 12“Commemorative Biographical Record of Prominent and Repre- Native Men of Indianapolis and Vicinity (Chicago: J. H. Beers “d Company, 1908), p. 23. -49- of his party for United States Senator, an honorary gesture in the light of a Republican legislature, but one which was to have real meaning in another five years.]'25 Before this time, however, Kern was destined to gain even greater recognition in the Democratic Party. National Prominence Beginning of national prestige. Kern was not unknown on the national level by this time. The plea for his gubernatorial candi- dacy in 1901+ by Parker is a clear indication of his increasing pop- ularity and prestige among the national Democratic leaders. Kern first met Parker and many other prominent Democrats on his first trip to EurOpe in the summer of 1895.126 Political conditions in 190# made it desirable to have Indi- ana strongly represented in the national leadership during the com- 1118 campaign. One reason for this was the nearly absolute control of the Taggert forces over the State organization under Taggert's °r3anizational ability. One such award of representation could have been the vice-presidential nomination, and at the St. Louis Conven- tion Kern was receiving some attention for this position. However, Taggert was interested in the chairmanship of the National Committee and the Indiana delegation was pledged to his support. 0n the other hand, Democratic leaders from the Eastern States were quite willing to see the Vice-Presidential nominee come from Indiana. It was a question of either one but not both, and in the end the Indiana del- \ 1251nm. 126Bowers, op. cit., pp. llh—ll8. -50- egation voted, with Kern's consent, not to present his name in nom- ination. Kern would have liked the nomination, but he was not willing to stand in the way of Taggert's candidacy for Democratic Chairman of the National Committee.127 Personal interlude. Kern made a trip to Great Britain in the summer of 1906. Returning to the United States he plunged into the 1906 campaign in Indiana with his usual vigor. But Kern's health was not good. In fact, his two trips overseas had been Prompted by the hope that they would improve his health. They had only a momentary recuperative effect, however, and Kern soon con- tracted a cold which, in his weakened physical condition, he was unable to throw off. An examination by his doctor revealed that Kern was a victim °f incipient tuberculosis. Kern entered Doctor Von Ruck's sanitor- ium at Asheville, North Carolina three weeks before Christmas. In those days the word "tuberculosis" was practically synonymous with death. Gone were all of his dreams of political fame. His one de- Sire was to live as long as possible in order to be of further serv- ice to his family as a father and a husband}28 Kern had always been deeply in love with his family. John Worth Kern II, his second son, was born in 1899, and in 1900 William C(""Der Kern was born. The year 1900 was also the year of Doctor Jacob Kern's death. Although saddened by his father's death, Kern fblind great consolation in his own family. He was a very proud father, and deeply regretted the time that he was forced to spend \ 127Cottman, loo. cit. 128Bowers, 0p. cit., pp. lh4-150o -51- away from his boys and wife. The forced separation from his family while in the sanitor- ilun finally proved to be too much for him, and in March of 1907 he left there for a visit to his home. Although he had not been dis- missed from the sanitorium, he did not return there until ten years later. He was not to return alive from that second trip to Ashe- vill e . 129 National campaign of 1908. On May 15, 1907, Kern wrote a letter to his cousin, Howard L. Kern, which serves as a preview of the next event in Kern's political career. His cousin had written hixn asking how he should stand on political issues of the day. Kern first analyzed two Of the present political leaders. I was glad you had the Opportunity to meet Mr. Bryan for he is one of the best men America has yet produced. He has grown and gained constantly since 1896, and occupies a high- er position in the esteem of the peOple than ever before, and all this, not alone because he is able, but because he is entirely sincere, and a thoroughly good man. Mr. Roosevelt is a very popular man, but his pOpularity grows out of the fact that he has torn away from the teach- ings of Mark Hanna and the other republican leaders, and espoused the principles for which Bryan stood in 1896, and for which he was then so rOundly denounced. I eXpected to live to see Bryan and the democratic party entirely vindicated in its position taken in 1896, but I did not anticipate that within ten years a republican president would be even more radical than Bryan.130 He had not been home from the sanitorium a year when specu- ilertion.over his possible selection as the running-mate of William Jennings Bryan in the 1908 Presidential election became wide- \ ]_ 1291bid., pp. 150-155; and Logan, From its Exploration to ‘%e P0 5 ‘8’ 1. 130Kern MSS, Private Collection, "Kern to Howard Kern," May 3. 1907. -52- spread.131 Both Bryan and Kern unintentionally encouraged this speculation. In December of 1900 Kern had set the preliminary stage for this speculation by Openly announcing his admiration for and belief in Bryan and the principles he held. With this speech before the Jefferson Club of Lincoln, Nebraska, in the presence of Bryan, Kern had established himself as a radical among Indiana Dem- ocrats. He had certainly strengthened his position as Bryan's lieutenant.132 But the incident that brought the speculation sharply into focus occurred at a dinner meeting of the Indiana Democratic Club sometime before the Democratic National Convention of 1908. John E. Hollet, Kern's successor to the Presidency of the Club, expressed the hOpe that Kern would be the running-mate of Bryan. Kern, con- scious of the drain on his finances by his illness, jokingly re- marked that if he were nominated and elected he would be forced to take up residence in Washington in a one room apartment, Bryan car- ried through on the joke by saying that "if John is elected he will not have to live in one room, for I will give him part of the White House." It was not long before this complimentary good-natured banter had been exaggerated beyond all reasonable prOportions. Kern found himself being looked upon as the favored choice of Bryan for the Vice-Presidential nomination, something that neither he nor Bryan had intended.133 ‘ 131Kern had been previously considered for the Vice—Presi- ciermial nomination in 1904. Kokomo Dispatch, August 18, 1917, p. 1, c131. 7. 132Bowers, 0p. cit., pp. 131-136. . 1331bide' pp. 157‘1580 -53- Kern went to the Convention in Denver determined to dis- courage any move by delegates to place his name before the Conven- tion. His chief reason for this stemmed from his recent illness. Although he had made a remarkable recovery, his friends and family were deeply concerned about the effect that the campaign would have on his precarious health. His wife, whose political counsel Kern valued highly, also warned him of the possible consequences should he desire to enter the race. Kern, himself, was changed by his illness. It had revealed how important his family was to him. He came back from the sanitorium determined to abandon his political career and concentrate on being with his family as much as possible. Bryan, understanding Kern's feelings, did nothing to encourage the 13h nomination of Kern. However, it did not take the Indiana delegation long to real- ize that the spirit of Denver was such that it made the nomination of Kern a practical probability. Kern's name was one of a half dozen which were being featured as the leading Vice-Presidential Choices. Kern and Bryan had made no secret of their admiration and respect for each other, so the majority of delegates knew that Kern Wound be acceptable to Bryan.135 Indiana was also a good political ehxfice for the home of the Vice-Presidential nominee in order to 136 carry out the theme of progressiveness in the party platform. lBuIbid., pp. 158-160; and Logan, From its Exploration to £93, pp. 536 and 548. 135Bryan had asked Kern to stOp at his home on the way to 'tlle Convention to discuss some prOposals for the platform. Kern 83, Private Collection, "Bryan to Kern," June 26, 1908. 136The progressive movement was strongly identified with the midwest and western plains. -54- But Kern gave every sign to the Indiana delegation that he was not a candidate. He never mentioned the subject, but instead concentrated on fighting for a party platform that would be complete- ly agreeable with Bryan's ideals and program. But the Indiana del— egation was not to be denied. With the convention in a quandry as to who should receive the Vice-Presidential nomination, the Hoosier delegates could sense that victory was within their reach. On the day before the nominations, July ninth, Kern finally consented to the wishes of the delegation at least to canvass the delegations on their Opinions of the possible reaction to his can- didacy for the nomination. But to his wife that day Kern wrote: I could get this nomination with little effort. It has been very flattering of course to have offers of support from the great men of the party--Governors, Senators and Congressmen, but I can't lose sight of the fact that my first duties are to my loved ones at home. And I can't see how I can take the nomination without ruining my bus— iness, and going deeper into debt, besides taking on an awful responsibility, and a great physical risk. So I have concluded that I will discourage it, and urge the nomination of some one else.137 Many of the Hoosier delegates could not content themselves with this, and quite Openly engaged in a campaign for support during the Canvass. Their reports confirmed the acceptability of Kern as Bryan's running-mate, and on the morning of the nominations, the 3Indiana delegates gathered to hear Kern make his personal position Clear. "In the first place I want to thank you all for your good wishes and your efforts in my behalf. But my position and yours is the same that it has ever been since we came to Den- ver. I am not, and have not been a candidate for the vice- presidential nomination, and if there is to be any contest, 137Kern MSS. Private Collection, "Kern to Mrs.", July 99 1908' -55- .any'balloting at all, my name will not be presented. That :is what I wish the position of the Indiana delegation to tae, and if you agree with me that is what it will be. Let 11$ fOrget about it and go home and carry Indiana. God bless you a11."13 At tlie same time that Kern was denying his candidacy, John E. Lamb and Thomas Taggert were representing Indiana in a conference Of party leaders who were canvassing the availability of suggested Vice-Presidential possibilities. The result of the conference was agreement that the best interests of the party would be served only by the nomination of Kern. The nominations began at noon on July tenth with Alabama mielaiing her position on the roll call to Indiana. Thomas Riley Marshall, then nominee for Governor of Indiana, placed Kern's name in nomination. State after state rose to second the nomination of Kexui. Charles A. Towne, whose name also had been placed in nomina- tiIHI. took the lead for others and withdrew his name for the purpose 0f Obtaining an acclamation nomination for Kern. A motion for nom- ination of Kern by acclamation soon followed. Kern was nominated in Perfect accord with his statement Of clarification to the Indi— .ana Cielegation. There had been no balloting and no contest for the nomination, and Kern still emerged as'the nominee even though the com’ention action was against his intentions. Kern received a telegram from Bryan on the same day. It read : Ikccept my warmest congratulations. Your nomination gratifies hue very much. We have a splendid platform and I am glad to }1ave a running mate in such complete harmony with the plat- \ 138Bowers, Op. cit., pp. 160-16#. -56- form. StOp off and see us on your way east.139 The Bryan and Kern campaign began with a precedent-breaking announcement. The candidates decided to pledge the Democratic Party to the publicizing of campaign contributions before the elec- tion, and to limit the amount that could be contributed by an in- dividual party. All contributions between one hundred dollars and ten thousand were to be publicly announced, and no contribution of over ten thousand dollars was to be accepted from a single sub- scriber. This formula later was written into law.ll+o Kern embarked on his campaign itinerary in the middle Of September. It carried him into Kentucky, Illinois, Maryland, Ala- bama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, West Virginia, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Ohio, and back to Indiana. At the height Of his campaign he was summoned home to his son's bedside. John Kern II had been stricken with polio. The night of the election was a night Of sorrow and anxiety at 1836 North Pennsylvia Street--not because of the returns, but because the second John Kern was not ex- Pec‘ted to live through that night. ‘When he was told that his father had lost the election, young John exclaimed, "What fools the people of the United States are to turn down such a man as father." Two years later the Republican Vice-President Sherman called at the Kern home- He was told the story in front Of John Kern II. He Placed his hand tenderly on the crippled boy's head and said, "My boy, the more I have seen of your father and the better I know him the more Inclined I am to think you were right."141 \ 139Kern MSS, Private Collection, "Bryan to Kern," July 10,1908. 140Bowers, Op. cit., pp. 169-170. lullbido. PP. 178'186° -57- Despite the fact that this was the third major political de- feat for Kern, he was not abandoned either politically or socially. The uneven contest was an accepted thing in Indiana with the Demo- crats always cast in the role of the underdog. Thus, Kern's defeat was not a personal one. His role was considered to be one of per- sonal sacrifice in three of the "normal" election years. Yet, 1908 was not a completely normal one since the Democrats did quite well in Indiana. Marshall was elected Governor and the Democrats enjoyed a majority in the State House of Representativesfl'l‘2 Socially, Kern still enjoyed great success in both fraternal and community affairs. One‘of the community services that he en- joyed most of all during those early years Of the twentieth century was his position as the President of the Commercial Club of Indian- aPOIis. There were no party lines drawn in this club. It was a Predominantly Republican membership who elected Kern to its highest office. Kern enjoyed this position because he enjoyed the activi- ties and areas Of concern. in the Club. It was dedicated to the best interests of the community in which Kern lived--interests stretch- ing from social to financial to sanitary considerations.1‘+3 hited States Senate campaigns of 1909 and 1310. Perhaps it was the picture of the sacrifices of 1900, 1901+, and 1908 that prOmPted Kern's friends and associates to believe that Kern would finally receive his reward. With a majority by a margin of twenty in the Indiana House and only a minority by four in the Indiana \ I . IhZCharles M. Thomas, Thomas Riley Marshall: Hoosier States- E‘L“ (Oxford, Ohio: The Mississippi Valley Press. 19397. p- 60- 1“BCottman, loc. cit. -58- Senate, the Democrats were certain of electing a United States Sen- ator in 1909 on the combined vote of the Legislature. But other considerations and factors intervened to thwart the supporters of Kern.:|'l”+ One of the most important factors which had not been consid- ered was the victory in the State Democratic Convention of 1908 by anti-Taggert forces. In fact, during the Convention Taggert arose during a dramatic moment of the Convention proceedings and stated that the Taggert machine had been sent to the "scrap pile." Tag- gert's candidate for Governor, Samuel M. Ralston, had been defeated for nomination while the cheers of the anti—Taggert hundreds defied Taggert from the floor. There could be no doubt by the end of the day that the Taggert machine was completely disassembled. But as Taggert's lieutenant, A. C. Sallee, put it, "When the righteous win a Political victory they go home and take chloroform, while their adversaries, after every drubbing, put a double shift on the job."']‘l"5 It is extremely doubtful that if Taggert had really believed his °r8anization was now mere scrap he would have said so. Instead he went about the task Of quietly rebuilding his organization while ad°Pting a policy of watchful waiting. However, Kern as a Taggert man Probably was not looked upon with great favor by the new anti- Taggert leaders.146 A second and closely related factor in the uncertainty of Kern's political future stems from the political conditions which 1 ed t0 the 1908 Democratic victory in the state. Liquor legisla- \ 1#uBowers, OE‘ Cite, p. 188; and Thomas, 1°C. Cit. lhssallee, loc. cit . 1&61129'3. -59- tion and the temperance movement were the underlying causes of the political conditions. The Democrats favored a ward and township Option law, while Governor Hanly had compelled the Republican con- vention to declare the party in favor of county Option. But Hanly was not content to let the voters decide the issue. Early in the fall he called a special session of the State Legislature and placed the county Option law upon the statutes before the voters could register their decision on the issue. The end result of this action was that the anti-prohibition elements in Indiana lined up with the Democrats, and these elements did not favor the machine- tactics of Taggert or Kern's radical stand with the Bryan idealsiu‘7 There was a negative factor involved also. Taggert would like to have had the nomination for himself, and permitted the men- tioning of his name during the early discussions concerning possi- ble Candidates. But it soon became apparent that the weakened con- dition of his influence might only mean another defeat, so patient T388911: withdrew from the race completely to wait for better days. In Vithdrawing, he elected to run a neutral course and not lend his support to any of the other candidates. Governor Marshall could have wielded considerable influence OVer the name of the Democratic choice. Personally, he favored Kern, but the support of those who had aided him in his candidacy for GOVernor was given to Edward G. Hoffman, a comparatively un- known than in party inner circles. Because of the circumstances of his llewlynwon position and his sponsors' support Of Hoffman, Mar- 8 hall also elected to remain neutral in the race.ll+8 1&7Bowers, Op. cit., p. 189; and Miller, Op. cit., p. 72. M8 . Thomas, 02. Cite. Pp. 60-62. -60.. ffhen, of course, there were other candidates. Perhaps Ben- jamin F. Shively was the most prominent. He had served in the United States House of Representatives, and had conducted a hard fought campaign for Governor in 1896. He measured up well against the staxndards set by former Democratic Senators, such as Voorhees, McDonald and Turpie. In addition, he was the favorite of the lib- eral elements who were in no small measure responsible for the Dem- ocratic victory. .John E. Lamb was another possible choice. He was a prominent party worker who, at Bryan's request, had been in charge of the Westerml Headquarters during the campaign of 1908. Behind these two leadinpg contenders were Major G. V. Menzies, another Party worker; L. Ert Slack, the favorite of temperance forces; and Edward G. Hoffman, backed by the prestige Of the organization which had nomin- ated Marshall. Therefore, Kern did have considerable competition for the ele<:ti01'l.]'l+9 IEven Kern was a factor in his own defeat. Evidently over- come bythe assurances and confidence of his own supporters, he did not Open up his own headquarters in the Denison Hotel at Indianap- °116 until long after the other candidates had established their meeting rooms. The other candidates worked at perfecting efficient and effTective organizations designed to manipulate the county dele- stations, while Kern decided to rely on pOpular Opinion to present him with the nomination. The result was that the rest of the candi- dates 9 with the exception of Lamb, combined their efforts early to defeat Kern. Lamb tried to warn Kern of the dangerous conditions \ lkgBowers, Op. cit., pp. 189-190. -61.. early, and urged him to take a concentrated stand for an Open bal- lot. But the day following the warning only carried a report by the newspapers that Kern was said to favor an Open vote. No state- ment had been made by Kern, and when the press carried a report on the following day that Kern could be assured of thirty-five votes on the first ballot, Kern went back to sleep. It was not until two days .before the cauCus, a week after Lamb's warning, that Kern fin- ally realized the danger. His statement in favor of the Open bal- lot came too late.150 One Of the most active Opponents of Kern was John B. Stoll, Editor of the South Bend Daily Times. Stoll admired Kern, but ap- Parently no actual friendship existed between them. Stoll did not like Taggert, and Kern was a Taggert man. Consequently, Stoll usu- ally felt quite cool to Kern at anytime he was a candidate for of- fice. Stoll went to the caucus as head of a St. Joseph County del- egation, seeking to block the Kern movement, while working diligent- 1y to Secure the election of Benjamin F. Shively, Kern's foremost Opponent.151 The caucus was conducted under the most stringent rules Of secrecy. Many .Of the caucus members stated. quite Openly that they had no intention of revealing to anyone how they voted. To enforce the I‘llles of secrecy, every time a caucus member left the room he would be followed by another to make sure he talked to no one. In one instance a "shadow" narrowly escaped a beating with a cane when h . e infuriated Lamb by poking his head over the shoulder of Lamb in \ lfiolbide, pp. 191-1930 151Miller’ OE. Cite, pp. 75 and 78° -62.. an effort to hear what he was saying to a state senator from his 152 own county. The first ballot indicated Kern would probably lose. He had planned on over thirty votes on the first ballot. Instead, twenty- five votes were cast for him. On the second ballot Kern received twenty—three votes. All twenty-five votes had been pledged to Kern, but two had deserted their pledged positions. Lamb and Kern had arrived at an agreement before the ballot- ing began which was destined to be an unfortunate arrangement for Kern and his supporters. They had agreed that if no candidate had received a majority on the second ballot, Lamb would swing all of his support to Kern, with the exception of one vote, on the third and fOurth ballots. Then if Kern still had not won by the end Of the fourth ballot, all of Kern's votes would in turn go to Lamb on the fifth ballot. True to his word, Lamb shifted his votes behind Kern on the third ballot with the result that Kern received thirty-four votes. But the stampede which the Kern forces had expected did not mater- ialiZe. and on the fourth vote Kern slipped to twenty-eight votes. At this point Kern's part of the bargain should have gone into ac- tion. For the fifth and sixth ballots Lamb was to have enjoyed Kern: 8 support. If the effort failed, then Lamb was to swing his supp°rt back to Kern for the seventh and eighth ballots, and then repeat the cycle for the remaining ballots. But Kern‘s delegates, with the exception of a very few, did 1'1 °t shift their allegiance. Lamb was bitterly disappointed with \ lSzBowers, Op. cit., pp. 193-19#. -63- Kern.- Just as Kern had felt the hand Of treachery, Lamb now be- 1ieved he was experiencing it. After the convention Kern told the Lamb forces that he had simply forgotten to inform his supporters of the agreement. The excuse is so weak that it may well be the real truth. Kern was a very inefficient political organizer. He relied heavily on Taggert for such things, and Taggert was neutral 153 in this race. By the fifth ballot Kern felt he had lost. As the ballots continued and the contest narrowed to Kern and Shively efforts were made to secure the support of the losing candidates for Kern. It was clear that Kern was the one man that every candidate, with the exception of Lamb, was determined to beat. 0n the sixth ballot Lamb supporters joined the ranks Of the "beat Kern" movement. 0n the nineteenth ballot four votes remained stubbornly for Lamb's hoPeless candidacy. If they had gone to Kern, the twentieth ballot would probably have spelled victory for Kern. The vote on the nine- t“3111311 ballot, with these four votes, could have been Kern 40 to sniVely's 38 votes. Instead, the 30 VOLeS for Shively on the nine- teenth ballot to Kern's 36 votes develOped into 1+2 votes for Shive- 1y on the twentieth ballot and the Senatorship. At two O'clock in the morning of January llrth Kern was left with his thirty-six votes, and a. costly political mistake.]'5l+ Kern went home a bitterly disappointed man. His years of Esau=I‘ifice seemingly meant nothing to his party. His years Of labor \ 153Bowers, op. cit., pp. 191-192. 13 lshThomas, 02' cit., pp. 60 and 63; and Bowers, Op. cit., 13- 193-195. ‘ -6l+.. had been to no avail, and memories of past words Of praise from party friends were apparently meaningless. Forty-four members of the caucus had promised their support to the Kern candidacy after the contest had narrowed. The promise had been made prior to the balloting. When the roll was called during the week following the caucus, forty-four men claimed they had voted for Kern. Eight were obviously guilty of violating their pledge. Rumors were widely circulated before the caucus that several votes had been purchased. Kern told a yournalist that the eight men had been tempted away from him by the brewery interests in In- diana. On the other hand, the brewers Openly acknowledged that they were fighting against Kern, not for Shively. Probably the votes were bought for minor candidates who were soon eliminated.155 Shively was not to be condemned for what had happened. Kern later retracted his accusation against the brewery interests, and cement- ed Cordial relations with Shively. Although the caucus was over, the storm of public opinion was just beginning. The Indianapolis News summed up the general opinion in this way, "We think that Mr. Kern suffered from the se- cret ballot, for this deprived him of the weight of the pOpular en- dorSement which was clearly his, and which would have full play had there been an open ballot." The caucus attracted attention outside the borders of Indiana, and its notoriety was later used as one of the arguments in favor of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Consti- tution of the United States.156 \ 155 - 64 Thomas, Op. Cit., p. . 156Bowers' OE. cit., pp. 195-196; Thomas, 020 Cite, pp. 60 and 61+; and Cottman, loc. cit. -65- Governor Marshall realized that the political future of the Democratic Party in Indiana for several elections to come was now at stake. The second senatorial seat was to be selected by the next session of the state legislature, and it was necessary to lay plans early if a repetition of the caucus scandal of 1909 was to be avoided. Marshall, several weeks in advance of the State Democrat- ic Convention of April, 1910, announced the "Governor's Plan" for selection of the Democratic nominee for Senator. Essentially, the Plan consisted of the selection of a Democratic choice for United States Senator prior to the campaign and election of the State leg- islature which would elect the senator to Washington. This selec- tion would take place in the State Convention by the nomination pro- cedure and delegation vote. The plan would have the advantages of not only eliminating the notorious caucus from the selection, but WOUJJi also give the people of Indiana a clear picture of whom they "mm-C1 be voting for as United States Senator when they voted for their legislators}57 The Governor's plan met considerable Opposition among the conservative, professional elements of the party. Senator Shively was firmly against it. Taggert attempted to get Marshall to with- draw his proposal, because it would hurt his chances as a candidate. In fact, he would be eliminated by the same rank and file which de- feated his forces in the 1908 State Convention. Marshall was firm in his stand, however, and many other prominent Democrats rushed to his support. The deciding factor may have been Senator Albert J. B e"Eridge's strong appeal to the independent vote in his speech be- \ 19 157Thomas, Mo. pp. 64-65; Bowers, Op. cit., pp. 198- 93 and Sallee, op. cit., p. 163. -66- fore the Republican State Convention early in April. It was quite obvious that Beveridge was to be the Republican choice. Therefore, it was essential that the Democrats select the best candidate poss— ible and make their selection known to the peOple. Marshall stood flirm on his proposal that the plan be submitted to the Convention for their consideration.158 On April twenty-seventh the tactical maneuvering in the pre- ccrnyention meetings revealed the Taggert forces in control of seven di.stricts which were against the Governor‘s proposal. The forces trlat favored the prOposal could muster only six districts. Taggert n<>w saw a way in which to dispose of the plan, secure his election, arid still not antagonize the Governor and his supporters. Exer- czising his control over the rules committee, he recommended that time Convention as a whole vote on the Governor's plan with the real- izzation that he now controlled a majority of districts on this issue. The Convention was called to order on the twenty-eighth, and after the usual preliminaries proceeded to vote on the Governor's Plan. Taggert lost his gamble by an error and the Governor's plan carried by a vote of 888% to 858%. Now the Convention proceeded with the business of electing their cal manner, and to concentrate on his private law practice and es- pecially on his family life.159 It is possible that a personally enabarrassing situation also prompted Kern to remain insistent that her was not a candidate. Lamb had urged Kern to present his name be- fcare the Convention, but Kern felt his situation would not permit h:inlto cement his relations with Lamb in this manner. But it is n<>t likely that Kern was largely influenced by this situation.160 At this point in the proceedings the nominations were made. D1xring the Convention Lamb had committed a tactical error on the filoor of the Convention by attacking Taggert viciously in a candi- (kacy speech. He was hissed down, but Taggert was furious. Taggert had an.agreement with the Marion County delegation that he would cast their votes for the senatorial candidate of his choice. He was determined that if nothing else he would not give his support to Lamb . 161 ‘ 159Sallee, loc. cit.; Thomas, 02. cit., P- 663 and Bowers, %- , pp. 199-201. :16OSallee insists that Kern wanted the nomination but could if“ actively seek the nomination because of the situation with Lamb. TaWeVer, it should be kept in mind that Sallee was an apologist for diggirt‘ Kern's frame of mind and general personality traits in- e. that the other two reasons for his reluctance were the over- whelming considerations involved. Sallee, loc. cit. cmuii_ :161Again, Sallee indicates that Taggert was not a serious 1’. dEite and fully meant to support Kern. This does not seem like- £1.2- -68- Kern had left the Convention floor after the victory of the Governor's Plan. He knew that there had been movements afoot to present his name to the Convention. But he was quite confident that these movements had been successfully halted by expressing his de- sires to Howard and Clinton Counties.162 At this point we can merely speculate as to what actually WELS the reason behind the presentation of Kern's name to the Conven- tiuon. The delegates responsible were a few farmers in the Marion Ccrunty delegation. Now if we are to believe that Taggert was in cc>xumcl of the Marion County delegation then it seems reasonable ttiat Taggert was merely taking out "insurance" in case he could not seecure the election. Because of his own lack of pOpularity and the ceirrent eruption in his relations with Lamb this would seem quite reeasonable. 0n the other hand, if there was any candidate who could take the nomination from him it was certainly Kern. Still, if Kern imas really serious about not being a candidate, then it was not likely that the Convention could draft a candidate who refused to be drafted. A third possibility is that Kern did want the election as Sallee contends. It would seem that the most lOgical explanation is thift Taggert, recognizing the improbability of his own election, decided to lay the groundwork for a possible draft by permitting some members of the delegation to place Kern's name before the Con- vention. I(ern's nomination had a stimulating effect on the mood of the Convention. There was a tremendous ovation and cries of "Kern!" "K ertllt' drowning out the other noise in Tomlinson Hall. Mrs. Kern 162Bowers, op. cit., p. 199. -69- was sitting in a box in the balcony with Mrs. Thomas Marshall and the novelist, Meredith Nicholson. She was obviously pleased with the honor being shown her husband but quite confident-that he would not accept. Kern returned to the Convention floor during the first ballot to discover that his name was before the Convention. After it. was all over he described it this way: "When I entered the hall," he said afterward, "several men yelled 'Stand pat, John,' and I didn't know what to do for an instant. I thought, however, that the manly thing to do was to make a statement to the convention and I stood on a chair and told them that my name had been presented without my knowledge or consent, and that no man had any right or authority to present my name and that I was not in any sense a candidate."1 Asfter he had finished, the roll call continued with Wabash County wlao proceeded to cast 15 of its 16 votes for John W. Kern. The end 02f the first ballot gave Kern 303 votes. Only six of these were from Marion County, while the other 177 votes in the county had been cast for Thomas Taggert. On the second ballot Taggert launched a stampede to Kern by Withdrawing his name and casting his entire delegation vote for Kern. The second ballot was completed with 647 votes being cast f0? Kern. Kern strode to the platform with the nomination almost in his; grasp. But again he protested vigorously against the right 0f the: delegates to force upon him this nomination. Cries of "N0, N°" and "Sit down, you can't refuse" were heard. At the conclusion °f thids address to the Convention Kern left the hall confident that he had finally convinced them that he would not accept the draft m°v°ment. \ 163Ibid., pp. 199-200. -70- Lamb withdrew after he left, and Kern was made the unanimous choice of the Convention. Kern heard of the Convention's action in his law office where he had returned to work on a case. At first, he was inclined to refuse the draft. The honest and enthusiastic action of the Convention delegates in the face of his personal re- luctance was certainly a strong persuasive factor. Finally, it was tinis honor together with the insistence of party leaders that persuaded Kern to consent to the draft. His plans for a quiet Peaceful life and a profitable law practice were completely shat- tered, but it was to be replaced by his greatest political achieve- ments.161+ The convention seemed to have been full of irony. Kern, who had desired the nomination a year ago, did everything possible to keep the nomination away from him. Yet, he was the party choice. Taggert fought for the nomination, but in the end yielded to one °f his political products to avoid endangering the party's chances °f winning in the fall. In Opposing the Governor's plan Taggert had been fighting for his own election. Yet, once the vote was in he had accepted defeat gracefully. It was later discovered that Taggert had actually won, but Taggert knew it was too late. A clerk discoVered a mistake in the official tabulation'of the vote on the Governor's plan while the second ballot was going on. In the vote of one county the official had recorded incorrectly. Instead of favoI‘ing the prOposal most of the county delegates had actually voted against the plan. The mistake cost Taggert his victory and a \ 1641bid.’ p. 201; and Thomas, 100. cit. Sallee maintains, Ccurse, that Kern knew Taggert's plans in advance. Sallee, loc. H: 0 ’0 H. r,» -71- 165 Senate seat. Kern's Opponent in the senatorial campaign of 1910 was the incuunbent Senator Albert J. Beveridge. His eloquence was a potent weaznan which Kern had to consider. Beveridge had begun his Senate career as a strong and consistent champion Of Big Business. He de- fended the trusts and advocated the protective tariff. The senate at truis time was under the direction of what was known in Democrat- ic circles as the Aldrich senatorial machine.166 Beveridge was an arderrt supporter Of this machine until the debate on the Payne- Aldrich tariff bill. The Aldrich machine was determined to force the harsh restrictive tariff on the western states. Beveridge could not honestly support the measure so he left the Aldrich camp and fought with Dolliver, Cummins, Bristow, Clapp and Lafollette against the 13111. His action cost him the support of a large number within his Ipaxty. Under the circumstances his only hope seemed to be to rally enough support among the progressive elements of the Demo- cratic party to counteract the loss Of support from his own party. With this in mind, Beveridge made his speech before the Re- publican State Convention in early April, appealing to the progres- Sive independent vote. His supporters were busy mapping the strat- egy- CDf the campaign which would place the Democrats in the role of Snvabrters of the Payne-Aldrich tariff bill and other reactionary measures. This was to be accomplished by holding up before the \ 165 it 166Kenneth W. Hechler, Insurgency: Personalities and P01- raicfiof the Taft Era (Studies in History, Economics, and Public w' NO. 1+70; New York: Columbia University Press, 1940), 1). 191+. Thomas, Op. cit., p. 67. -72- people two Or three likely selections for United States Senator should the legislature remain a Democratic body. Marshall's plan and the selection of Kern as the Democratic choice for senator completely upset this strategy. Kern was the state's most widely known progressive. Beveridge wrote Marshall 167 after the Convention stating, "You have broken my heart." Bev- eridge faced the Obstacles and prepared thoroughly for the battle 168 to come in the fall. Kern was busy with the task of cementing relations with the Democratic party. Most important in this respect was to placate the feelings Of Shively supporters which had been ruffled by Kern's accusation a year before that the brewery interests were responsible for his defeat. Although he had not intended to imply anything in his remarks, the newspapers and many of Shively's supporters felt that Kern was accusing Shively of being the emissary Of brewery in- terests. Kern sought to undo this impression in a speech before the Democratic editors at French Lick, Indiana on June 21+, 1910. "One of the crowning features of the victory of 1908 was election Of a legislature, Democratic on joint ballot, which made possible the election Of a Democratic United States Senator. There have been, and there were, before the Democratic Caucus older soldiers than Benjamin W. Shively, but there Were none better. His election to the senate by the Demo- cratic members of the legislature without a single dissent- ing vote secured to the peOple for six years the service Of a man ripe in scholarship, rich in experience and equuent and convincing in expression--a man Of unquestioned integ- rity and commanding ability. . And I stop here to say that, from the honor Of his elec- tion to the present time, I have never failed whenever Op- poI‘tunity Offered, to eXpress my appreciation of the char- \ 167Bowers, op. cit., p. 203. -73- acter of the man, and since he entered the senate my ap- proval of the splendid record made by him in the exalted position to which he was called. I shall not speak of my present candidacy for the sen- atorship, which came about by the unanimous demand of my party in the state convention assembled, further than to say that it is my ambition to serve the peOple Of my native state in that great legislative forum by seconding the ef- forts Of Benjamin F. Shively."1 On October first Kern Opened his campaign with a strong speech in Evansville, Indiana. In it he outlined the issues Of the campaign. He carefully pointed out that Beveridge's voting record was full Of inconsistencies. Beveridge's action in voting for the Ship Subsidy bill and against the income tax was pointed to as ex- amples of inconsistencies with telling effect. These examples made Beveridge's plea that he had become a progressive look quite weak in comparison to the desires Of the peOple and the record of Kern's Progressivism. Kern carefully pointed out the closeness Of Bever- idge' s alliance with the current Republican policies. Beveridge's appeal to the prOgressive vote appears to have been compromised. In the latter half of his speech Kern concentrated on a denuncia- tion Of the extravagant eXpenditures and the misuse of taxing power by the Republicans.170 The reaction to Kern's speech was one Of commendation from bOth Sides of the political fence. The Republican paper, The In- ii—‘i&al.&1is News, called the speech "a straightforward and manly pre- sentation Of the Democratic Case."l71 \ 169 William Jennings Bryan tele- Cottman, loc. cit. 170 Kern MSS, Private Collection. ”Campaign speech of 1910." 171Bowers, Op. cit., p. 205. -71;- graphed Kern, "Your speech was a powerful statement and much stronger both in substance and manner tO that of your Opponent."172 Kern was constantly on the stump during the next month. He won friends among the newspaper correspondents from Indianapolis who followed him from one place to another, with the result that his speeches were given the widest possible publicity. He contin— ued to hammer away at the inconsistencies in Beveridge's stand as a progressive. He concentrated so heavily on Beveridge's position Op the Ship Subsidy bill that Beveridge was forced to admit that if a similar situation were to arise he would be against such a mea- sure..173 Beveridge was never more eloquent than in the campaign of 1910. He played the role of a crusader determined to smite down the reactionaries of the "dastardly" Payne-Aldrich tariff. Fred Laindis, an Indiana orator known for his wit, said that Beveridge Was standing for "Mary of the vine-clad cottage" holding the pluto- crats at bay.17l+ Beveridge enjoyed the analogy and adOpted it into his campaign. But he had forgotten that Kern was a master of ridi- cule, and in a speech at Decatur, Indiana, Kern brought his weapons of Satire and ridicule to bear on "Mary." When he was through the entire country was laughing at Beveridge’s Mary.l75 Both candidates had outside help. Theodore Roosevelt de- S"3ended On Indiana on behalf Of Beveridge. He had been well coached \_ 1721bid., pp. 203-205. 173Ib1d., p. 205. 17“Ib1d., p. 206. 1751b1d., pp. 205—206. -75- on the political situation in Indiana by Z'u'. D. Foulke, a prominent 176 Indiana Republican. But the otherwise good effect Of Roosevelt's suppnaz"t was partially negated by rumors Of bad feelings between Beveridge and Roosevelt. The basis for these rumors was the can- cellxitxion Of Roosevelt's speech in Richmond, Indiana. Actually, the ‘tamain was running late, forcing cancellation in order that Roosevelt could keep a more important engagement in Columbus, 0- hio.177 ‘Kern was aided strongly by his close friends, Alton B. Parker and tfileliam Jennings Bryan. In the middle of October Parker told an Indianapolis audience that in the Senate "we shall need the com- mon sense, the sturdy honesty and eloquence of John W. Kern."178 Bryall, at the same time, was sweeping through the countryside with a barrage of oratory, speaking to a dozen audiences each day in be- half of Kern.179 Kern, Bryan and Parker had devastated Beveridge's appeal to the independent and progressive voters. Roosevelt’s action at Rich- mond had further hurt his cause. Another chief deterrent to Bever- idge"3 election was the non-support of the elements Of his own Party who favored the Aldrich machine from which he had rebelled. In fact, many Of these men were actively working for his defeat. \ 176Indiana State Historical Library, W. D. Foulke MSS Collec- Foulke to Roosevelt, September 13, 1910, Indianapolis. P011 . 177Oscar King Davis, Released for Publication: Some Inside Wal History of Theodore Roosevelt and His TimesJ 1898-1918 Stem Houghton Mifflin Company, 19257, pp. 252-233. 178Bowers, Op. cit., p. 207. tiOn ’ 179Ibid., pp. 206—207. -76- In addition, the Republican outcast, former Governor J. Frank Hanly, was in the throes of zealous temperance. He was busy col- lecting affidavits to prove Beveridge drank too much. His plan was to preserve these affidavits until the state legislature met, and then stampede the legislators with the affidavits to elect a moder- ate candidate on the temperance issue. While the effect of this sabotage was minor it did serve to divert some attention from Bev- eridge to the total abstainer, Kern. Perhaps Foulke summarized the hOpe of the Beveridge supporters best in a letter to Roosevelt when he said, "Many Republicans will knife Beveridge but he, like you, will get a large accession of Democratic votes."180 But the hOpe turned out to be only a dream and the Democrats carried the legis- lature. However, many of the legislators elected were supporters of the more conservative party leaders who did not like Kern's radical POlicies. Despite their pledge at the Party's Convention it was SUEEeSted by several of them that they might not be bound by the action of the State Convention. This may have been an attempt by Taggert supporters to regain the ground they lost as a result of the mils-tabulated vote on the Governor's plan. At any rate, the mere Suggestion brought on a storm of protest. Governor Marshall made it clear that he would not sign the commission of any man other than the choice of the State Convention, Kern, who had been the Choice of the people in the election. Consequently, Kern was promptly elected when the state legislature met, and was sent on \ 18OFoulke Collection, loc. cit. -77- his way to the Senate of the United States.181 \ that 181Bowers, Op. cit., pp. 507-208. It should be remembered In f -LE£10 was a bad year for the Republicans all over the country. in tECt' Beveridge considered his defeat a moral victory and was not ter if? .least downcast by the results. The Republicans had done bet- OCratn Indiana than in most of the states that year. While the Dem- of ses had carried the state legislature by a substantial majority faCt ats, it had been by narrow margins of the pOpular vote. In give; the Republicans had succeeded in reducing the popular vete brar to Marshall two years before. Indiana State Historical Li- '- Beveridge MSS Collection, Beveridge to Secretary of the TreQSur . . y MacVeagh, November 18, 1910, Indianapolis. CHAPTER THREE THE SEHATOR FROM INDIANA Political Developments Introduction. In the previous chapter the personal and po- litical development of Kern was traced. Some attention was given to indicating the sources of his attitudes and ideas in his early education, religious training, personality traits, later education, law practice; and political experiences. The period of time repre- sented in the chapter is sixty-two years, while this chapter covers only six years. The purposes of this chapter are to trace the sources of Kern's ideas while a member of the United States Senate, in light of the previous chapter, and to indicate the leadership of Kern in the informal and formal speaking situations that surround the work 0f the senate. The sources of his ideas are develOped through a summary examination of the issues of concern to Kern, while his lead- ership is indicated by examples, testimony, and discussion of inter- Personal relations. W The Democratic party was Very successful in the elections of 1910. The Democratic victory had been prompted not only by the Payne-Aldrich Tariff, which had a‘n’cagcu‘lized the mid-western and western plains states, but also by the 8Llienation of the Republican insurgents from the Republican reg- “lax-s. With the added strength of the prOgressive elements across -78- -79- the (Hountry, a formerly weak Democratic party suddenly became for the first time since 1892 the Congressional leader, even though that leadership lacked unity. The House of Representatives now held 227 Democrats, 162 Republicans, and one Socialist. The senate was com- posemi of 49 Republicans and 42 Democrats.1 Republicans like Sena- tor Robert LaFollette, however, sometimes sided with the Democrats in tune upper house giving the Democrats a working majority by their insurgency.2 Champ Clark of Missouri was elected Democratic Speaker in the liouse of Representatives. The Republican majority in the senate were in reality two parties, the insurgents (progressives) and the reenfilars. Ten of the Democratic senators were new members, each of themjprogressive and determined to fight for an aggressive party POI-icy. Among these new men were Senators James A. Reed of Missouri, Atlas Pomerene of Ohio, Gilbert Hitchcock of Nebraska, and James A0 (J'Gorman of New York. These new men were joined by experienced 3010118 such as Senator Stone of Missouri and Senator Shively of Indiana.3 The enthusiasm of these new senators and their senior allies was prompted by the dissatisfaction of the peOple with the Democratic 1The distribution of the senate seats between the two parties chfilnged several times due to late elections by state legislatures. 2Arthur S. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, W (The New American Nation Series; New York: Harper and sz°thers, 1951+), p. 7; and Mark Sullivan, Qur Time_s__:_ ”The finitgg $123,} 00-1 25 (6 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 32-1935. IV. pp. 362-372. Th 3Link, The Progressive Era, pp. 4-8; and Claude G. Bowers, 19: Life of John Worth Kern (Indianapolis: The Hollenbeck Press. 3 pp. ZOu-lee -80- regulxxrs. Many of these regulars, who came from relatively secure Democruatic states, had become soft in their Opposition to the Taft administration and the Republican majority in the past Congress be- cause <3f social and patronage favors given them during the earlier Repukfilican years. This softness had manifested itself during the PaynereAldrich Tariff fight when Democratic Opposition was secondary to tlrat of the Republican insurgents. Many of these new senators were xiledged to the restoration of an uncompromising party policy thatL‘would eliminate this kind of lethargy.“ The problem of how these new "should-be-seen-and-not-heard" senators were to impress their views on the majority of senior Dem- ocrmrtic senators remained. They were not new men to politics, and theY‘were determined to ignore tradition in a fight for representa- tiorl on the most prominent committees. The leader of this fight was 53enator Kern. He was the logical choice both from the stand- P°11Tt of political experience in the progressive ideals of the new senators, and national recognition as a Democratic party leader. He did riot seek the position, but the progressive groups congregated by Ciroice in his office to map their strategy.5 The main battle took place in the Democratic caucus called for ‘Zhe purpose of electing a caucus leader. An assumption of the regulars was that the former leader, Senator Martin of Virginia, ___~§__¥ 42° Albid., p. 212; Link, The Progressive Era, pp. 3-7, and 36- . ' <>scar King Davis, Relepeed for Publication: Some Inside Polit- %E£L~;History of Theodore Roosevelt and His Times, 1838-1918 (Boston: Iougfiltoa Mifflin Company, 1925), pp. 167-172; and Kenneth W. Hechler, ifiFfliELgency; Personalities and Politics of the Taft Era (Studies in v stfi?ry, Economics and Public Law, No. #70; New York: Columbia Uni- e’Slty Press, 191:0), p. 105. 5Bowers, op. cit., pp. 212-213. -81.. woulxi be reelected to his position without opposition. Martin was not mpany, 1929), pp. 181-18’+. -89- through Marshall's support of Wilson, and later in Marshall's suc- cessful bid for the Vice-Presidential nominationfih The successful Democratic campaign and the national elections fcfiLlowed, and after the Christmas holidays Congress again convened. During the short "lame duck" session of the Sixty-second Congress, the senate took under consideration a measure designed to increase the cost and facilities of certain government buildings. Kern was against the measure because it was a bill that could be considered ‘by"the new Sixty-third Congress, a Congress more in keeping with t11e~*wishes of the peeple as expressed in the fall elections. He took the position that the bill was a "pork barrel" measure and should be defeated.25 The election of 1912, because of Roosevelt's Bull Moose par- ty. resulted in the Democrats winning by a minority of the pOpular VOte while the Republican and Bull Moose parties split the majority Vote. Eleven new Democratic senators gave the Democrats a narrow majority in the senate (51 Democrats, 1+4 Republicans, 1 Progressive), ‘whjLLe the House Democratic majority was greatly increased. The e- leven new senators were strong supporters of Wilson's reform pro- greuns and the Party Platform of 1912. Together with Senators Kern, O'GOI‘man, Lea, Williams, Ashurst, Pomerene, Reed, Myers and Johnson, the llew Democratic senators embarked on their senatorial careers by assisting in the organization of a progressively minded Demo- \ 2“Bowers, 0p. cit., pp. 274-281. 46 ZSU.S., Congressional Record, 3d Sess., 1913, XLIX, Part 5, ”196-4697. Kern MSS Collection, "Campaign speech of 1910... of. ap. ii: P0 33- -90- 26 cratic senate. Taggert and Kern. The election also had its effect on the Indiana Taggert machine. Across the rest of the country the politi- cal machines were meeting disaster. Boss Murphy in New York was meeting defiance, while the President-elect had broken the New Jer- sey Smith machine in 1910. But in Indiana, Taggert now reigned su- preme. With his support, Marshall had become the successful Vice- Presidential candidate of the Democratic party, and the state legis- lature was under his domination. Taggert men filled offices in many cities, and county court houses also held allegiance to the Taggert banner. In Washington, both Shively and Kern were consid- ered Taggert men, while in the House all of the thirteen Indiana Taggert's position was to 27 seats were filled by Taggert followers. remain relatively secure until the 1916 elections. Of course, such a large extension of power was bound to suf- fer from the strain and stress of divergent Opinions among individ- ual leaders. Certainly Kern, Shively and Marshall could not be ex- Pected to agree with Taggert on every issue, and furthermore, Mar- shall was normally associated with anti-Taggert forces. In the first six months of 1913 the Indiana press was filled with rumors °f a Kern-Taggert split. Probably, some disagreement existed. The I'esult, however, was general agreement that Kern and Marshall were \ Era 26Bowers, op. cit., pp. 282-285; and Link, The Progressive 175’ pp..2l-21+. The President Openly sought and encouraged this Linlfli‘essive theme in the leadership of the Government. Arthur S. 3 Wilson: The New Freedom (Princeton: Princeton University p "938. 1956), pp. 67-70, and 11+7-157. Stat 27Alva Charles Sallee, "Taggert Collection," Indianapolis: e Historical Library of Indiana, pp. 96 and 110. -91- not the kind of men who would forget the efforts of Taggert in their behalf.28 Reorganization of the senate. The Sixty-third Congress had been in session just two days when the Democratic progressive ele- ments determined to depose Senator. Martin as the Democratic leader and substitute a more progressive leader. Kern had taken a law case over the holidays which had lasted longer than he had antici- pated. Consequently, he was not a party to the maneuvers of the progressive element. Kern was informed by telegram of the movement for Democratic caucus reorganization and asked for assurance of his cooperation. He was also asked to indicate his willingness to accept the Chair- manship _of the Committee on Committees. Kern wired his assurance 0f cooperation in the maneuver, but gave no encouragement to the Proffered caucus leadership. On a Sunday evening in late February of 1913, thirty of the fift'-y-'one Democratic members met at the home of Senator Luke Lea on Massachusetts Avenue. Their purpose was to select their progressive candidate for majority leader. The qualifications of several men were considered, and the possible candidates gradually eliminated by the conferees. They finally selected Senator Kern as the best candidate. Kern was not present at the conference and had made no effort to secure support for the position. Several good reasons existed for the selection of Senator \ 28 relat _ There is no evidence that Taggert felt any breach in his Apri‘llons with Kern. Sallee, M” p. 163; The Fort Wayne News, 16 28, 1913, "Editorial;" and Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, June ’ 1913, p. 1, col. 1. -92- ICearn, despite the fact he had been in the senate for only two years. First, the candidate had to be a nationally known progressive who ‘wers in complete harmony with the Democratic platform. Kern had been a ‘Vice-Presidential candid te in 1908 and had served as Chairman of tile: Committee on Resolutions, the committee reslonsible for writing tile: platform. Certainly, he measured up to this criterion. But so did a few other party leaders. A second requirement arose out of the nature of the Democrat- ic lnajority in the senate. With so small a majority, it was neces- saxfiy that the candidate for the leadership have an unlimited reser- th11' Of tact to preserve unified Democratic support of party mea- sures. Not only would tact be necessary, but infinite patience with individuals as well. Kern had made his reputation in the party as one of the most patient and tactful leaders. The same could not be Said for some Of the other possible choices. Other desirable criteria also fitted Kern, and through them ttbe- choice was made. Kern was recognized as a man of skill in sit- ‘lainions where conciliation was needed, and personal pOpularity in 'thii senate was a factor in his favor. His application Of the tests of Common sense and practicality to ideas and ideals sharpened the :focnls of attention upon him. And finally, his forty years of party serVice assured the leaders that Opposition to party measures would not develOp because of a lack of devotion to duty if Kern was elect- oer-1.29 ‘. \ 29Bower, Op. cit., pp. 287-289. -93- With the decision of the leaders already made, the caucus election of Kern on March fifth was merely a formality. His first act as majority leader was the appointment of the Steering Commit- tee. The membership selected was safely progressive, but reflected a conciliatory tone by including Senators Martin and Clark to re- present the conservative elements of the party. One revolutionary aspect of the selection occurred in the fact that five of the nine members had been in the senate two years or less. As the process of the selection of committees continued it Was quite clear that this revolutionary aspect was to be the theme in the senate. The golden god of seniority had been swept from its Pede stal. Senior senators found themselves forced into choosing between honored assignments rather than accepting both. Kern's Patience and tact were put to the test several times during this S'-1<=<=essful revolt. .cS-na for Simonds, ranking member of the Finance Conlmittee and a high tariff man, was made Chairman of the Finance COmmi‘ttee, but the committee membership consisted of progressive low tariff senators. Senator Bacon wanted both the Chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee and the office of President Pro Tem; but he reluctantly consented in the decision when he became only the committee chairman. Senator Clark, an ultra-conservative, was awauf‘d.ed the position of President Pro Tem. The new Banking and Cur- rency Committee was composed of progressive currency men to insure 30 t . . . he Success of Wilson’s cam an. n romise for currenc reform. P 5' P \ 30 Ibid., pp. 289- 292; and Frederick Austin Ogg, National Pro- 5%, 1900-1917 (The American Nation: A History, Vol. 27, New York: amber and Brothers, 1918), pp. 213-214. -94- The changes were not made without some protest. Kern told his wife: I have been under a terrible strain all this week--working with my Committee on Committees, arranging the membership of 73 committees, and selecting chairmen of all committees. Every Democratic Senator wanted to get on the best commit— tees and secure for himself a first class Chairmanship. frillman was storming around like a madman because he was to be removed from the chairmanship Of the big ApprOpria- tions Committee. Our Committee divided nearly equally on the question of throwing Senators Johnston and Bankhead of Alabama out of their Chairmanships. It looked for a time as if my administration was going to break up and be a.failure. I got the President‘s aid, and everybody else that I could, and we finally reported our Committees to the Caucus this morning expecting much dissatisfaction and a big row with Tillman and others. But to my surprise, the row did not occur, and everybody seemed delighted with what he got. When we brought the names of our Committees into the Senate for approval this afternoon, old Tillman asked to be allowed to move that the Senate approve our action.31 With his senate administration secure, Kern turned to other tasks before joining his family in Virginia. The first of these tasks was housekeeping. He needed to get settled in his new Offices it1 tLhe Senate Building, and his second task was that of calling on Varfiious government departments to secure positions for Indiana Dem- °°Ifiats. During the next week, he would be concentrating on secur- ing his portion Of the senate patronage. Reward for party and per- sonal loyalty was well in keeping with Kern's belief in the spoils system.32 The revolt spread its influence over the new senate rules. Chairmen lost their power Of arbitrary control over legislation in a s'~=I‘ies of far-reaching changes. Now a majority of the committee \ 31Kern MSS Collection, "Kern to Mrs.," March --, 1913. 321bid. cf. p. 83, n. 13. -95- might call for committee consideration of pending legislation, and a preponderance of the majority members in a committee could name sub—committees to consider pending legislation and report back to the full committee. They could also name members to confer with House conferees when disagreements on legislation between the two bodies occurred. These changes in the rules kept the progressives in firm control of the Democratic majority, thereby keeping the odds in favor of the success of the Wilson prOgram. The effect of the changes in the rules was to deprive the committee chairmen of their authoritarian positions and reduce them considerably to the status of coequals with their committee memberships. Through all of this Party unit was preserved.33 The significance of these changes did not go entirely unno- ticed by the nation's press. Comments ranged from that of The Liter- ary Digest, "the reorganization of the senate has been accomplished in a way paralleling the overturn of Cannonism in the house by the prac tical abolition of the seniority rule in making up committees," to that of The Springfield Republican which commended the "throwing °ff 0f the customary control of a perpetual succession based on seniority of service." Senator Kern commented to the press that it was; the intention of the Steering Committee to make the senate "Demo- cratic not only in name but in practical results." The radical Changes in the senate rules attracted less attention, but The Re- Wf Reviews stated that "even more significant than the personal changes which bring a new set of men into control of a body so re- cently managed by the extreme conservatives of both parties are the \ 33Hammers, op. cit., pp. 293-295. 14+ changes in the rules.") The role of Araminta Kern. While Kern had assumed the reins of the senate majority, his wife stood patiently by in their home, Kerncliff, in Hollins near Roanoke, Virginia. Her political judg- ment continued to be of great help to her husband. Kern tended al- ways to expect the best in peOple. He was highly idealistic in his dealings with them, honest and Open-handed in every way. His love for peOple told him to expect the same kind of associations from others. Mrs. Kern, however, was far less Optimistic. She had learned to become an ardent Democrat through the maturation process of watching her husband's progress and disappointments from the time he became Reporter to the Supreme Court to his victory as a United States Senator. From the position of a biased observer she knew that there had been several "supporters" in time of victory who had been missing from the ranks in time of doubt and defeat. She knew that these opportunists were not to be trusted. In effect, she be- came a check on the reins of her husband's trust in peOple and their s“PYPQrt of the progressive program. She served as a sounding board for his troubles, a counselor for his political problems.35 Mrs. Kern also had a political career of her own. While in VirSinia she maintained an interest in child welfare work in Indi— ‘ aha. and her chief office was that of a member of the Board of Tr“Stees in charge of the Indiana Girls' School, a correctional in- stit'ution. Her political activity and character are indicated in \_ 3“Ibid., pp. 292-294. J 35Interviews with John W. Kern, II, October, 1957 through anuary, 1958. -97- a letter to Governor Samuel Ralston concerning an issue arising out of a preposal for a new cottage at the school. (Dan you give me any reason why we should not build a cottage ‘that would add to the comfort of our Supt. providing we took <:are of the number of girls necessary. Is there any reason for Amos Butler interfering to the extent he forced our board ‘to give Miss Dye another chance--the memory of which makes xny very blood boil-- . . . I only want fair play and I insist ‘that we should be allowed to plan a cottage that suits our :ideas--not beyond the apprOpriation . . . Why should we build .just above a septic tank when we can place the cottage in a xnore healthful place. Mr. Kern sees this as I do and thinks "Amos" is going too far--tho of course he insisted that I say riothing--but I am not built this way. I want justice. I be- ILieve you will find that this board is most careful and are eanxious to please you and do our part toward making your ad- rninistration a success. of course my faith in you is so estrong that I believe the peOple would have faitg in you-— (even if every board you have should "go wrong."3 Just as valuable as her political advice was her aid to her huistasind in meeting the endless social obligations that were so much a part of the political activity of this period. One of her most formidable tasks occurred when she found it necessary to ask Presi- derit. Wilson to leave a party. The episode occurred at a dinner party at 33Ifiyan's home in Washington. Kern had to leave on a late evening tréfiirl for Indianapolis in order to make a speech there the next day. They had exPected the party to break up in plenty of time, but the prwasidient became so intrigued by the performance of the singer brouS‘ht in for the occasion that he kept calling for encores. Time was getting so short that Mrs. Kern finally slipped into a chair llexii to the President and said to him, "Mr. President, we probably \NlJJL Iae court-martialed, but we are going to have to leave before you do," \ and then explained her husband's predicament. The Presi- 36Indiana State Historical Library, Governor Samuel M. Ral- Il Collection, Letter’from Mrs. Kern to Gov. Ralston, September ‘ 1913. 19 -98- dent agreed to assist them, and said his farewells to the peOple pzwesent in as few minutes as possible. They humorously recalled tlie incident several times on later occasions.37 She maintained occasional correspondence with President Wil- scui for the purposes of expressing normal social greetings, and at- ‘teruiing to social relations that fell under her obligations as a thosrtess in party circles. Expressions of sympathy, Christmas wish- ees, friendly and informal remarks about her children (Wilson was es— pecially fond of the two boys, John, II and William), invitations tc> xrisit them, congratulations, and summations of "grass roots" po- litxical expressions that her husband had observed while speaking cnztzside of Washington served to assist her husband in maintaining 800d relations with the President.38 The President faithfully re- sPonded to this correspondence, and even he seemed to be aware of her- pnelitical acuity. In response to Mrs. Kern's expression of con- Cerfl: ‘that the pressures of those favoring war with Germany might push the nation into the world conflict, the President assured her on January 24, 1916, that there need be no fear "that the jingoes "ill ‘fKDrce or even hurry me into anything."39 It is quite evident that Mrs. Kern was in every respect a partner to her husband in his p°13-‘~”«i<:zall success. \ C 37Indiana State Historical Library, "They Achieve" Scrapbook dele<=tion, Lotys Benning Stewart, "They Achieve Series, No. 69, *Eg—Eligianapolis Star, July 5, 19h2. 38 United States Library of Congress, Woodrow Wilson Collection, 39Baker, Op. cit., Vol. VI, Facing War, l9lS-l9l2, p. 26. -99- Kern and the issues of the first Wilson Administration. Eflhjfile Mrs. Kern was busy carrying out her duties as a political helpmate and mother, her husband was carrying out his task of "moth— eriJig" the senate. Those four years, from April 7, 1913 through Ptarmzh 4, 1917, were to be the longest and hardest four years of vxardi that the United States Senate had experienced since the Jeffer- sor1 administration. The Congress was not in session only eleven months out of those four years, including short holiday breaks. The solons were in session 1,022 days out of 1,427. During those first yeuaxés Kern was faced with the double burden of extra sessions and a very narrow Democratic majority. Although the problems were interrelated, perhaps the one whims!) caused the most concern was the narrow majority. Keeping Dem- ocraitxic members "on the party reserVation" on individual party is- sues; \vas an especially difficult task. While the senate leadership and ‘tlie administration were progressive, there were still many con- SerVEitZives among the senate membership that had to be dealt with on theSCE issues. The program was uncompromisingly prOgressive, and the conservatives had to be kept in line. The energy and enthusiasm of President Wilson for his own progfl?€in1 were certainly factors in inspiring party unity. But Wil- son's; (enthusiasm for his program did not carry through to his per- sonaJ_ IPelations with the politicians in the House and senate to the same degree. Many distrusted the "political novice" who had been cata¥“llted from a position as a college president to President of t he Ul'lited States in a little over two years. In the same manner, \ hoBowers, Op. cit., p. 349. ~100- EVilson did not trust the politicians completely. His experience 111 breaking the New Jersey machine had taught him that there was 43 nuJCh in the politician that did not merit his trust. Thus, it would appear that the picture of COOperation by Agrthur S. Link was somewhat less rosy than painted. To begin with, because of the Republican rupture, the Demo- crats had a majority of seventy—three in the House during the critical first two years of the administration. More— over, many of the Democratic members were new and inexper— ienced--ll# of the 290 had been elected for the first time in l9l°—-and Wilson easily dominated them. In addition, the old-line Democratic leaders like Oscar W. Underwood, William C. Adamson, or Henry D. Clayton realized that the fate of their party depended upon their performance, and they will- ingly c00perated with the President to prove that they were not, as Republicans often charged, "the orgarized incapacity of the country." Finally, most of the Democrats in the Sen— ate were able, responsible, and prOgressive, as eager as Wilson himself to give the administration success. . . . Even the older, more conservative leaders in the Senate, like Furnifold M. Simmons of North Carolina, Thomas S. Mar- tin of Virginia, John H. Bankhead of Alabama, or William J. Stone of Missouri, signified their readiness to follow the President. Certainly, many of these political developments contributed to 1;k1e end result of a progressive four years of consideratle legis- latjxsn. Nevertheless, while many of these Congressmen were rela- M‘ 43Instances of this atmosphere are numerous. Wilson's reli- ance can Col. House is an indication of Wilson's distrust. The Demo- cratjme revolt on the Ship Purchase bill is an indication of senator- lal Chistrust. Ralph McGill, "The President," in Em Bowles Als0p (ed.)1, The Greatness of Woodrow wilson (New York: Rinehart and Com- pany, 19563, pp. 82-83 and 85-86; Link, The Progressive Era, pp. 9— 10. 25-26, and 31-35; Bowers, 92, cit., pp. 3119-350, 3353-358, and BSI‘BEUE; Bowers, Letter to author; Interviews with John Kern, II; and Lidik, The New Freedom, pp. 67-70 and lk7-157. Link is somewhat lneonsistent since he characterizes Wilson's leadership in Congress as onuliqpotent, and in the same work cites examples and characistics 04‘ 1: ' . . . - wealcness in his leadership. aLink, The Progressive Era, p. 35. See n. 43. -lOl— tively new and inexperienced, they had been 3roducts of local polit- ical experience covering: several years. They were politicians, 1+5 while Wilson was the amateur. Also, the conservatives had just been defeated in the organization of the senate majority by the pro- gressives, the supporters of Wilson. Although they realized that they would need to lend general support to the administration, they could not be depended upon for the kind of support necessary to push through every measure on the strength of the Democratic vote alone. Evidence of the majority problems in the senate occurs not only in consideration of differences of vie'.'.'point,L+6 but in human wealcnesses as well. Congress was called into extraordinary session to consider tariff revision just one month after Wilson assumed of- fice. From April 7, 1913 until October 24, 1911+, the longest con- gressional session in the nation's history, Congressmen were at the task of considering legislation. That is, many of them were. Wash- ing-goon is not a vacation wonderland during the late Spring and sum- mer. Heat and humidity combine to make it one giant steam bath. ACrass the line, the racing season was in full swing: in Maryland. The cool breezes in the Blue Rid,,e Mountains beckoned the solons as they sat in senate chamber. With no ventilation, the giant fans only pushed the hot, damp air around the chamber. As the tariff \_ L‘SThe word "amateur" is used in a relative sense to denote a #83739 of inexperience in the practice of politics. Wilson served his Political apprenticeship as Governor of New Jersey and President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1913. #18 Alfred Lief, Democraclvs Norris: The Biography of a Lonely Cru- M (Nev.- Yor :: Stackpole Sons, 19397,— ppo 141*"1"6 and 1484119. ~102- fight in 1913 were on into the months of June and July, the day- dreams became more often truant realities. Senator Walter Johnson was pitching; for the Washington Senators at the ball park, and could be found only at the morning roll calls. The "party whip" sent out a letter :‘leading for regular attendance, and then immediately dis- appeared for a few days. When he returned, Kern told him he was glad he had recovered from his illness. "But Senator," was the re— ply, "I have not been ill." Kern told him that he had not seen him for several days and had assumed he was sick. The secretary of an- other Senator sought to eXplain his absence by telling Kern he could not get a seat on a returning); train. Kern got him back. by showing the secretary a number of newspaper clippings that listed the sena- tor's "vacation" activities. In Examples of this kind of truancy occurred all the time. part, it can be forgiven. After all, the senate was not accustomed to meeting through the Washington summer, and the fr ct that they COIlsented to remain in session is all to their credit. But someone had to remain in Washington, and someone had to keep track of the Wanderers and attempt to bring them back when they were needed. The narr'owness of the ma'orit‘r made a Re ublican "sur rise art ” on J P P p pfinding legislation entirely possible, and the responsibility rested on I{arm's shoulders. The fact that there were no "surprises" by the Republicans is ample testimony both to Kern‘s ability in his watch- L, deg role, and to the Republican desire to wander as well. 7 On No- Vember 27, 1913, the New York Times saluted the Democratic record of \ 1+7 . 7. ., - Bowers, op. Cit., pp. ,49-g59. -103- attendance. So far, however, the Democrats have shown their ability to maintain a quorum without Republican assistance. Almost the full Democratic strength is in Washington and while that is only a little more than a majority, they are usually to be found for roll calls. The Republicans undoubtedly will insist upon the maintenance of a quorum and it is likely that debates will be geriously hindered by the repeated calling of the roll. Misinterpreted humor promrted Ker n to address the senate on .éJiggust 9, 1913. Senator Jacob H. Gallinger of New Hampshire had at- tempted to interject a little humor into the senate business two clagrss before by exaggerating an alleged order by Secretary of the Iqsrvgr, Josephus Daniels. Unfortunately, newspaper reporters and some :seqlsltors took him seriously. Kern's speech was in defense of the Secretary of the Navy and in advocacy of greater promotional Oppor- tunities for enlisted men in the Navy.49 Never during those first two years of the Wilson administra- tion was the senate all "sweetness and light." During that first Sunnnexr there were many disagreements and heated discussions about the UndeaIWsood tariff bill that were ironed out under Kern's leadership 50 ln'msrjority caucuses. On one occasion, a Democratic senator bolt- ed the caucus and accused the leadership from the senate floor of running the Democratic caucuses like a political machine. After \ ASThe debate in cues tion was on the lederal Reserve bill. “‘-—!EEE§§;Eimg§, November 27, 1913, p. 12. 4 hgcongressional Record, 63d Cong., lst Sess., 1913, L, Part ’ 323—5--3.216. had 50The majority caucus was an instrument of leadership which firstong been neglected by the Democrats. On June 20, 1913, the <=aucus of Democratic senators "that anyone" could remember was From that time forward, the senate majority caucus was a po- ‘“’€?apon in lining up support behind the administration's mea- A. Kn - Wilfred E. Binkley, President and Congress (New York: Alfred c’llf, l9fl7),pp. 211-212. held- tent sures -lOl+- four months of patient, tactful work, Kern saw the results of his efforts in the passing of the Underwood tariff law. Tyyically, 51 Wilson received the credit. With the tariff law enacted, Congress was eager to adjourn, but Wilson insisted that they take up the Federal Reserve bill be— fore adjournment.52 Democratic senators grumbled, while prolonged hearings were demanded by the angry minority on both sides of the chamber who looked with disfavor on currency reform. A caucus was held by the Democrats on November 26, 1913, to break the deadlock in the Banking and Currency Committee, and it was agreed that there would be no Christmas recess unless the currency bill received sen- ate approval by December twenty-fourth. Kern addressed the senate on December seventeenth, asking for an unanimous consent agreement On a date which the vote on the bill would be taken.53 The motion failed, but the leadership again proved effective and the bill was Signed into law by the President on December twenty-third. Again, I: ’lLink and McGill both adopt the view that Wilson's personal leadership was responsible for the victory over would-be destroyers of tariff reform in the senate. But the leadership of senate pro- gressives in the caucuses which applied Party pressure more direct- 1y to the recalcitrants was logically more effective. Kern was a Strong supporter of tariff reform. Link, The Progressive Era, pp. f?-L+35; McGill, op. cit., pp. 87-88; Bowers, op. cit., pp. 3E§-351; Ink, The New Freedom, pp. 177-197; and George and George, 0p. cit., pp- 131-137. that 52It was a characteristic of Wilson during these four years saE- he demanded immediate action on his prOposed legislation, never andlsfied with success on any single measure. Ibid., pp. 117-120, 137-1%. 53Congressional Record, 2d Sess., LI, Part 2, lOEB-lOBh. -105- 5h the administration received the credit. The next session got underway in January of 191“. Administra- tfinve measures designed as anti-trust legislation further shortened aalgready short tempers. The conservative Democrats felt that things 11=1d.already gone too far with the currency reform. 'Now Wilson sscrught to tamper with the hallowed ground of big business enter- Iarfiises. Several opponents of the intended anti-trust legislation snatzght to defeat the legislation by interpreting the prOposals to a; rfily equally to labor unions. Kern felt strongly that the arbi- tnrsury’price-fixing and monopoly consumer oppression by big business vvags in a far different class from the organization of laborers and fraruners for the purpose of improving living wages and living condi- tions.55 Kern's interest in the laboring men first became nationally PIWDntinent in his Paint Creek resolution, which he introduced in the serraj;e on April 12, 1913. Briefly, the resolution provided for an inanesstigation by a sub—committee of the senate Committee on Educa- tiCN1 and Labor into the laboring conditions of miners in the coal fields of West Virginia. The sub-committee was also to determine if aEg‘lreements and combinations contrary to law were in existence. At ‘tlieé time of its introduction Kern did not realize the attention that: tJais resolution was to receive. Resolutions on this subject \ 51*Above comments (n. 51) also apply to the Federal Reserve b111'° Link, The Progressive Era, pp. 43-53; KcGill, Op. cit., pp. Kern MSS Collection, "Kern to Mrs.," 9~Sn2.. . : Bowers, o . c1t., p. 353; é:::13éllgly Decembers, 191A; Link, The New Freedom, pp. 199—240; and Eye: and Gebrge, pongii-a PP° 137'1h2' 55Bowers, op. cit., pp. 32 , and BSB-BSH. -106- had been introduced before, but had never received satisfactory at- tention. Conditions in these mining lields were in such a state that mine owners had hired men who had killed not only the miners, but the wives and children of miners in camps suspected of union ac- tivities. Some union leaders were being shot, while others were held as prisoners by the owners. The subject was not a pOpular one with the senate. Many of the solons steered clear of the subject because they feared being identified by their constituents as favoring this fiery young labor movement that was attacking the free enterprise system. A few owed allegiance to management circles who wanted the union movement stopped on whatever front, no matter how justified the cause that precipitated the movement. Kern found some friends in the senate on this issue, but the fight was an up-hill struggle against one of the most effectively Organized economic forces in the country. The Opposition possessed a thoroughly effective press that ground out the benefits of patern- alism to the public. Kern gave a major address in support of the I‘eES<>II.1.1t:'Lon on May 9, 1913. The resolution was finally approved by the senate, and the in‘h‘estz‘igation which followed completely substantiated the case of the miners against the owners. The Opposition press was forced to retire from its prediction of downfall for Kern's leadership as a 56 1‘681111: of the investigation. Kern's stand had been vindicated. Kern played a significant role in other battles for social J“Stige. One of these occurred during senate consideration of the \ 56Bowers, op, cit., pp. 296-327. -107- Sundry Civil appr0priation bill of 1914. One of the commissions covered by this appropriation bill was the Industrial Relations Commission, and, under the leadership of Frank P. Walsh, a lawyer from Kansas City, this commission had been doing a thoroughly ef- fective job of probing into the social and industrial problems of the country. Many times the efforts of the commission resulted in exposing management malpractices that hurt the case of management in its fight against the rising tide of unionism. The prOpaganda mill of business began to grind out their version of the commission's Walsh was pictured as a socialistic visionary who was only The work. causing had blood to flow between employers and employees. work of the commission was pictured as a dangerous waste of the tax- payers' money, and the result was that the Appr0priations Committee 6111: the appropriation from $200,000 to 820,000. The move was de- Signed to strangle the commission's work through a lack of funds. Kern sympathized with the efforts of the commission, and was determined to see the commission continue its tasks. Senator Borah tool: the lead in defending the commission, and Kern followed with a strong commendation and defense of its purposes and work. The de— bate on the issue took up most of the day on July 7, 1911+, but when the Vote was finally taken the Industrial Relations Commission was given the necessary funds by a vote of 1&6 to 18.57 wrilson again moved in Opposition to the progressives in his party in the consideration of the Seamen's bill. He had been in “"0? or the bill from the beginning, but discovered that the bill would have the effect of abrogating the contractual obligations of \ 57 Q3129” pp. 329-332. cf. Chap. ii, pp. 4142. ~108- alien seamen on foreign ships while they were in American ports. This, in turn, brought the United States into a position of conflict 'with certain maritime treaties, to which she was a signatory member. JIt was further pointed out to Wilson that such action might have an undesirable effect upon the convention on safety at sea, which was to be held in November, 1913. While it was too late to stop action in the senate on the bill, Wilson was able to halt passage in the House. The bill's chief lobbyist was the organizer, advocate, and leader of the seamen's union, Andrew Furseth. He was one of the delegates to the London Convention which might have resulted in a convention agreement that would have made the Seamen's bill unnec- essary. When the Convention failed to meet the standards set by the Seamen's bill, Furseth resigned his position as delegate and re- turned to the United States to continue his fight on behalf of the bill- The ConVention continued, and ratified an agreement that Called for fairly rigid safety measures on all maritime shipping Carried on by the signatory states. The question before the admin- istr-‘ttion now became one of pressing for unconditional ratification, or of provisional ratification which would leave room for the Sea- . O D I i O 0 men 8 legislation. The deCiSion was made to press for uncondition- a1 ratification. But the Congressional progressives won the victory. On August 27, 1914, the House passed a modified version of the Seamen's bill, and in December the senate ratified the Conven- tion with a broad reservation. Three months later, both houses ratified the conference report on the Seamen's bill. Bryan, in a -109- rare moment of progressive disagreement, urged Wilson to give the bill a pocket veto, and it appeared that this would be its fate even after a letter of appeal from Furseth reached Wilson. There were many powerful influences, other than diplomatic, which were against the bill. Delegations appeared at the White House to protest the measure, and the National Chamber of Commerce came out against the bill. V On the other hand, the progressives in both parties generally favored the measure. Bryan Opposed it only on diplomatic grounds. Then two events occurred which changed Wilson's position. Kern led seven or eight senators to the White House, and urged the signing of the bill. On March second Senators La Follette and Owen accompanied Furseth in a call on Bryan. As a result of Furseth's persuasive appeal and La Fol-lette's personal promise that Congress would give its earnest support to the State Department in the abro- gation of old treaties and negotiation of new ones to eliminate con— flict with the Seamen's bill, Bryan gave his support to the legisla- tion. Wilson, after a considerable amount of deliberation, finally Signed the bill on March 1+, 1915058 Kern's role in the passage of the bill is best told by Fur- seth, its chief advocate. _ "Shortly after the senator came to the senate I went to hlm and asked his permission to tell him about the seamen. He had not time then, but told me to come to his hotel Up- on my arrival at the appointed time I told him it would take \ 58 Link The Pro ' E 61 6 ° B p ‘ 332_ . ‘ , greasive ra, pp. - 3, owers, o . c1t., pp. "Maritg’ Link, The New Freedom; pp. 269-271}; and Elmo Paul Hohman, Historige Labour in the United States: I, The Seamen's Act and its a 1938) Background," International Labour Review, XXXVIII (August, ’ pp. 200-211. -110- me at least twenty minutes to give him some idea of what I had to say. He told me to go ahead. I did and I was with him for about an hour and a half. In a quiet easy way he encouraged me to talk, and I told him about the Seaman‘s daily life on the vessel, but more so on the shore. At sea, the terrible quarters, the ceaseless toil, the poor food, the general treatment and the longing to get‘ away from the life which was degraded by involuntary servitude and a feeling of helplessness. 0n shore, the power of the Crimp to dictate our wages and take away what we were to earn in the form of advance or 'allotment to the original creditor,‘ as the thing was called; the power to compel us to go to sea in any vessel and with any kind of men--destitute poor devils who set our wages when we were hired and whose work we had to do at sea because they could not. With it all a feeling that we were forgotten by God and held in bitter contempt by men on shore. When I stopped he would ask a question and set me going again, and then he said--'I shall see whether we can not help you.‘ "And he certainly did. I tried not to go to him too often; but it was often and he was always kind and encour- aging. I always left him with more hOpe in my heart, and sometimes I needed it sorely. If God ever placed upon the shoulders of men a part of the burdens of others the sena- tor was surely one of those men. My burden was always lighter and my heart more free when I left him. "There never was anything that he could personally do to help getting the Seaman's bill through that he did not d0. He helped to get the bill considered. He helped to Set it passed. He saved itpwhen the London Convention and the treaty adOpted there was about to strangle it for good. If that treaty had been adopted the Seamen‘s bill could never have been passed. That treaty was designed to keep the Amer- icans from the sea, and if the United States now has the men needed or is able to get them, not only the seamen but this nation owes the thanks therefor to Senator Kern."5§ I“111‘seth again expressed his appreciation, this time personally to Kern in a letter of holiday greetings, written on December 31. 1916- , "My Dear Senator-~The seamen have lived through one year In fl’l‘eedom, in hOpe, and in gratitude to you. On their be- half and for myself I wish you a blessed New Year and all the happiness that can come to those who feel the pain of ”here. May God in his mercy to us and to all who toil prev- serve on in h lth nd tren th to fi ht on for man's free- dom."6% ea a s g 3 \ S9 6 Bowers, Op. cit., pp. 337-339. 0 .Ibid. , p. 31+O. -111- Two other measures deserve brief mention at this point. The first of these was a model workmen's compensation bill that had been drafted by the American Association for Labor Legislation. The bill was- sponsored by Senator Kern and Representative McGillicudy of Maine, and received full administration support. In the senate the bill met with a number of well-intentioned amendments but, never- theless, amendments which if approved would have resulted in the de- struction of the bill's effectiveness. Kern and his supporters suc- cessfully fought down the amendments, and the senate gave its ap- proval to the bill in August of 1916. When the Kern-McGillicudy Worknmn's Compensation bill became law, hO0,000 civil service em- Ployees were enrolled under its benefits.61 The second measure was the Keating-Owen child labor bill. In 1911+ Wilson had Opposed a similar bill on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. But in the summer of 1916 he took strong ad- lainistrative action to secure the passage of the Keating-Owen bill. Congress was in the mood to adjourn, because of the fast-approach- ing November election. The pressure of two heavy sessions of leg- islation had left many political fences in a critical state of dis- repair. But Wilson and Kern felt that the legislation was essen- tial if the midwest was to remain in the Democratic ranks. Kern and senator Stone, after Wilson's personal intervention within the walls of the Capitol had failed to bring some recalcitrants in line, b rought considerable pressure to bear upon the rebels both within \ 61Kern first became an advocate for this kind of legislation w . title a member of the Indiana Senate, twenty-five years before this 9. Ibid., pp. 340-342; and Link, The Progressive Era, p. 226. -112- and outside the caucus meetings. Kern's role in the bill's consideration is best explained by one of the Democratic Opponents to the measure, Senator Vardaman. "I remember distinctly that the senior senator from Indi- ana stated to the caucus that a failure to pass the child labor bill would militate very much against the Democratic party in Indiana and would probably defeat him for re-elec- tion. But the caucus adjourned with a program agreed upon which left out the consideration at this session of the child labor and immigration bills. The next morning I heard that the distinguished senator from Indiana--the Democratic leader, mind you-~was very much dissatisfied with the caucus action and was busily engaging himself trying to create sentiment in favor of rescinding the action of the caucus Of the evening before. It was also whispered that the presi- dent would be invited tO take a hand in order to save the senator from Indiana from the evil effects of non-action upon the child labor bill. The correctness of these rumors was soon verified. In due time the president Of the United States appeared at the capitol and called certain senators into consultation. But as to what he said--or ordered--I am not at libergg to speak, since I was not one of the sena— tors consulted. Kern had always been a strong advocate Of permitting the protests and petitions of groups against prOposed legislation to be printed in the Congressional Record. But on this issue, he felt so strong- ly the injustice of the protests that he refused to permit any of them, except one, to be printed. The exception was a letter from a minister in the South who protested on the grounds that child serVitnade was making it possible for many families to continue to live by permitting the children to work. Through both administrative and senate leadership pressure, the action of the caucus was reversed. Kern continued to press home th - e 2”deal to recalcitrant senators that child labor legislation could \ 62Bowers, Op. cit., pp. 345-346. Wilson was spurred to ac- tio Preziby a deteriorating political picture in the face of the coming derltial election. George and George, Op. cit., p. 11+}. -113- benefit the party's chances at the polls in November. When the bill was finally taken up in the senate it passed with very little Opposition. While Kern's work had again been quite effective, he received little credit for the bill's passage. The efforts of lead- ership in solon conversations and caucuses seldom come before the eyes of the public.63 Kern's participation in issues surrounding foreign relations during the period from 1913 to 1917 can only be indicated. While his beliefs led him to Oppose any action that did not support Amer- ica's neutrality, he generally supported administrative measures and led the majority in the fight for their adaption against the Repub- lican efforts. Kern‘s one failure to hold the majority in line occurred in March, 1915 with the defeat Of the President's Ship Purchase bill. In 1913 the Ship Registry bill was introduced in Congress. With Op- position deveIOping to the measure, the President cancelled his usual cabinet meeting on July 31, 1913, and called the Congressional leaders, Senators Kern and Clarke and Representatives Underwood and AdamSOn, to the White House for a conference. He described to them the disastrous possibilities of the nation's exports rotting in waLr“flilbuses because of a lack of merchant shipping from the b91113” aren't nations. He then urged the Ship Registry bill as the means to p"‘:‘<>\ride the merchant marine necessary to meet that emergency. The bill, making possible the transfer of ships of foreign registry to American registry, passed the senate on August seventeenth and \ "Kern 63 Bowers, op. cit., pp. 31+6-3h8; and Kern MSS Collection, to Mrs.," July --, 1916, August 6, 1916, and August --, 1916. IE -llh- was signed by the President on August eighteenth. But private enterprise shipping did not respond to the avail- ability of transfer from foreign registry with the necessary amount of capital investment to purchase a large number of foreign ves- sels. There were still not enough American merchant shipping avail- able. Thus, he urged the outright purchase Of foreign shipping by the government through the instrument of the Ship Purchase bill. Many arguments were urged against the measure. Most of them centered around the government purchase instead of private enter- Prise, and the implications of the purchase on the foreign policy 01' neutrality. The House caucus voted to support the measure, and Passed the bill on February 16, 1915. The caucus action in the Senate was also in support of the bill, but the Republicans were unified in their Opposition. At a critical point in the delibera- tiOns seven Democrats (Senators Hankhead Of Alabama, Vardaman of “is sissippi, Hardwick of Georgia, Clarke of Arkansas, Hitchcock Of Nebraska, Camden of Kentucky, and O‘Gorman Of New York) bolted the °aucus decision and sided with the Republicans. On March it, 1913, the senate adjourned without the bill achieving passage. On March 3, 1916, Kern delivered his fourth major address. He had long been Opposed to American citizens risking the uneasy peace of our country by travelling on ships belonging to belliger- entB. But through the personal explanation of the President on resLSOns for his opposition to the Gore resolution, a measure de- BlSued to lead to the denial Of passports to American citizens \ 1 6“Bowers, M” pp. 366-368; and Baker, gp_._ci_t_., V, pp. °9~134. .1 ll . t2lu -115.- travelling on belligerent ships, Kern spoke in Opposition to the 65 resolution. As threatening as the war clouds were, the darkest clouds on Capitol Hill in late August and early September Of 1916 were those which threatened a general railroad strike across the country. Con- ferences and Presidential appeals yielded no results. President Wilson's plan of settlement calling for an eight-hour day, increased freight rates and a permanent arbitration commission was completely unacceptable to the railroad presidents.66 President Wilson's com- ment t9 the railroad presidents, as he left the final conference 67 with them was, "I pray God to forgive you, I never can." Kern wI'Ote to Mrs. Kern his feelings on the subject. "The railroad situation is alarming. The railroad presi- dents who are here seem to be determined not to yield to the President's requests, and if they persist it means the great- est strike in the history of the country-oone that will tie up every railroad and stOp every train in the country. The President came to the capitol tO-day and called Senator New- lands, chairman of the Railroad committee, and myself into his room to talk over a prOpOsition to amend some Of our ar- bitration laws and the Interstate Commerce law, so as to make further negotiations possible. . . . It is difficult tO-night to foretell just what the outcome will be. The men who own the roads seem to care nothing for the public interests, and if disaster comes it will largely be their fault. I am call- ing the Steering committee together to-morrow and the presi- dent will probably come down to confer with a number of sena- tors and congressmen Monday morning." Iv. 'llsOn met twice with the senators in Kern's private room, 21+9 in \ Cit. 65Bowers, op. cit., pp. 3662-368; and George and George, pp. \’ Pp. 153-154- 6 Era 6 Bowers, 21:333., pp. 363-365; and Link, The PrOgressive ‘9 pp. 235-236. 67. sink, The Progressive Era, p. 236. 68%., pp. 235-236; and Bowers, Op. cit., pp. 363-365. -116- the £5enate Building, during which time the President's proposals were- discussed and adOpted for senate action. Wilson's proposals inclnided.the enforcement of an.eight-hour day on the railroads, and compnilsory suspension Of railroad strikes until a federal commission had investigated the cause for strike action. The legislation, known as the Adamson Act, was enacted on September second. While Kern's leadership among the senators was as valuable in.‘tlnis issue as in others, Kern was especially valuable as the re- cipient of information on the negotiations in progress. Because Of his popularity with organized labor, and his stand on this issue, he was kept in touch with the progress of the conferences by reports from the labor participants in the conferences. The railroad presidents were not eager to accept the Adamson Act;, From January to March Of 1917 they fought the legislation, but; vmith.the impending war and a personal appeal from the President, they consented to the inevitable. The nation's largest transporta- ti‘311 :industry became the trail blazer in the eight-hour day.69 Kern also apoke on other occasions, but these occasions were of. El lninor character. A summary of these minor addresses would re- veal the following list. 1. February 15, 1913 Memorial address on Vice-President James S. Sherman 2. February 22, 1913 Memorial address on William W. Wedemeyer, Representative 3. June 24, 1916 Memorial address on Senator William 0. Bradley \ and 6932131.” PP- 365-366; Link, The Progressive Era, pp. 236-237; Ch Kern MSS Collection, "Kern to Mrs.," September 3, 1916. of. ap. ii, pp. h1'u20 ‘ -117- 4. August 22, 1916 Speech of apology to the senate and Senator Hardwick of Georgia for an error in senatorial courtesy 5. February 18, 1917 Memorial address on Senator Benjamin F. Shively 6. February 25, 1917 Memorial address on William G. Brown, Representative 7. {arch 3, 1917 Speech announcing his departure from the senatelo Of course, other issues during this first Wilson administra- txion concerned Kern, and many of these were issues of some import- auice. Certainly, the beginning of the income tax was one of these. THie purpose here has been merely to indicate some of the issues wtnich seem to have been of most active concern to Kern. Many other seuiators during this period were capable of leadership, and Kern was ncrt 'the kind to keep leadership from others. The nature of Kern's leadership. It is perhaps prudent to inquire into the nature of Kern's leadership in the senate. Certain- 13’ tzhe exposition of the preceding issues indicates to some degree the nature of the leadership, but a more detailed investigation seems to be of value. Just as Kern's qualifications for majority leader brought him tkle’ ;position, these same qualifications were to maintain his position ("f 3-eadership during some of the most trying years of legislative labor ever faced by the senate. The extraordinary session of 1913 flowed without a break into the regular session and into the next Bession. When Congress finally adjourned in 1911+ it had been in \ 4 70Congressional Record, 62d Cong., 3d Sess., 1915, XLIX, Part 1% 3208—3209; 3676; 6hth Cong., lst Sess., 1916, Part 10, 9923-9924; 993359, and 129u5-l29h6; 2d Sess., 1917, LIV, Part 4, 5551-5552; Part ‘ 1*251; and 29134914. -ll8- session 567 days, leaving in its wake the greatest amount of pro- 71 gressive legislation ever enacted in so short a time to that date. Bowers best describes Kern's leadership of this period. Throughout this period Kern had played a vitally important part, but not a spectacular one. When the senate was not in session he was busily engaged with the Steering committee in efforts to reconcile differences, to conciliate the dis- gruntled, and owing to the meager majority always in danger of being overthrown, frequent caucuses were called at night, and, when time was pressing, on Sunday mornings. His work was not the sort that strikes the imagination, but it was the kind that counts, and with a less astute, patient, con- ciliatory and watchful leader the story of the achievements of the Wilson administration during the first two years might never have been written as it was. So completely did he dedicate his time and energy to his work that weeks went by when he never entered his offices in Senate building, and senatorial duties more important than those of routine were performed by his assistants.72 An outstanding example of Kern's devotion to his job occurred duzfiing the day and night deliberations on the Ship Purchase bill. Kern knew the dangers of a minor Democratic bolt from the caucus de- terminations. Therefore, during this period he had comforts brought on ‘tlie gallery floor in order to get a little sleep between points °f car-1515.73 As desertions and threats of desertions began to occur the Sit“insertion became increasingly difficult. On February twelfth, Kern t0143_ his wife that they were now relying on La Follette, Norris and Kenyon to make the vote a tie. Democrats were losing sight of their promiSe to uphold the President in passing the bill. On February \ pp 7lBowers, OE' cit., p, 355; and George and George, op. cit., ' 133-134. 72Bowers, loc. cit.; and Bowers, Letter to author. 73Bowers, 0p. cit., p. 357, and Kern MSS Collection, "Kern to Mr 8‘ s " February 12, 1915 and February 15, 1915. -119- fifteenth, Kern told his wife: Some of the Democratic insurgents are pretty tired of their bargain and would like to get back if they could let go. No, I am not blamed for the loss of the seven Democratic votes. Everybody (the President better than anybody) Cknowsj that it was no fault of mine and couldn't have been avoided. Hitchcock hates Bryan, O'Gorman hates McAdoo and the President. Hence they Oppose everything the admin- istration wants. Camden and Bankhead are controlled by the big interests--Vardaman is a crank who only wants notoriety while Clarke of Ark. is a rule or ruin reactionary. Speak- ing of myself Hoke Smith said yesterday, "You have the af- . fection of everybody on our side as no one else could have."2l+ I)espite the efforts of Kern and the President, the bill failed. IQot until August 18, 1916, was it possible to bring enough pressure t<>'bear in the caucus to push through a new Shipping bill.75 While the President kept up the deluge of administrative mea- snlres during the years of 1915 to 1917, Kern was reelected majority lweader and faced the task of gaining senate acceptance on the legis- ‘léitixe schedule which was already loaded beyond its normal capacity. EVen Democratic senators who possessed a high degree of loyalty to their party, and especially to its platform, became discouraged? when they saw the products of sweltering summer labor fall under clfisticism by an unappreciative press and public. Thus, it was necessary for Kern to engage regularly in anal- yzing the sentiments of his colleagues. The narrow majority and the diSCOuragements made it necessary to consult constantly with other conStressional leaders, and the changing sentiments required him to remain in frequent reportive contact with the administration.77 \ 7“Kern MSS Collection, "Kern to Mrs.," February 15, 1915. 75George and George, op. cit., pp. 152-155. Kern MSS Collection, "Kern to Mrs.,“ February 12, 1915. 77Bowers, op. cit., pp. 358-360. -120- Several times Kern would report that the prevailing Opinion Of the majority was in favor of adjournment for a much deserved rest. Wil- son would tactfully insist upon the importance of the measures be- fore the senate, and Kern would return with new inspiration to keep the senate in session. Conferences in the Steering Committee would lead to party caucuses and the eventual decision to support the President's wishes to continue in session. Taunts from the press and the opposition that the senate had relinquished its legislative leadership to the administration had some effect, however. With the conservative dissatisfaction already evident, minor desertions occurring, and absenteeism compounding the problems Of a narrow majority, taunts did little for the morale of A never-ending task of conciliation faced 78 Kern, not only on issues but on ruffled feelings as well. 1: he Democratic members . Furthermore, Kern had not wanted the task of the leadership for another two years. He had told his wife in either late Febru- ary or early March: I will probably be offered the leadership again and will de— cline it. I could not stand the strain for another two years. I must be in a situation where I can get away for a week or a nmnth if I feel like it. I would not repeat my experiences of the past month for any money--the strain is too great, and I feel that I would break down completely and this I cannot .afford. . . . The strain and worry are not compensated for 21n.any way. . . . I am in reality a prisoner here as long 515 this leadership continues and I am determined to end it.... But events dictated the necessity for Kern to run for reelection to the l eadership . \ 78Bowers, Op. cit., pp. 558-360. 1915 79Kern use Collection, "Kern to MrSo." (Possibly February)v -121- Most of the Democratic leaders are here and the sole tOpic of conversation is the organization Of the Senate. While most of them seem to be in favor of my reelection as leader, there are a few who are trying to work up a scheme to make me Presi- dent pro-tem of the Senate, and elect some one else as leader. In view of the war on me that has been commenced by the Indianapolis Star, and I understand it will be kept up, it is important to me that I be reelected to the position I already hold. . . . Swanson, Overman and Fletcher are the only ones that I know of who are active in trying to get up the move- ment to make me President Protem, but there may be others in it. Fletcher and Overman both want my place, and Swanson is working in Martin's interest. A13 it turned out when the caucus met to elect the majority leader, Kkern's Opponents had received so little encouragement in their pro- ;pc>sal that they were among the leading spokesmen asking for Kern's reelection by a rising vote. Thus, Kern became the majority leader for another two years. ‘ Kern's personality, party prestige, and ethical character appeared to be his chief assets in persuading senators to overlook tlieim'personal considerations in favor Of the higher purposes of loyalty to their party leader and the party platform. His pOpular- ity with the Democratic senators, his sincerity, and the soundness (If Ihis political judgment were rarely questioned. His appeal for Ullisty of effort on the basis of the party's reputation as a con- structive force nearly always met with success.8‘2 Some of the Democratic senators were inclined to accuse him of Weakness when he failed to denounce the Democratic senators who had deserted the ranks to assist the Republicans in defeating the PrF—‘ESJ'leent's Ship Purchase bill. But Kern's leadership was not based \ 80 81 Ibid., MarCh’ 19150 Ibid., Letter two days later. 2 8 Bowers, Op. cit., pp. 361-362. ‘5, -.— __ -122- upon harsh discipline measures., While he looked upon the desertion with distaste, he was not the kind of leader who would resOrt to hasty words of denunciation when his leadership had been frustrated on a single issue. He knew that temporary disagreements on single issues exist only on those single issues. Criticism or denuncia- tion of those single issues would result only in the loss of the confidence and friendship of the recalcitrant on future issues where his aid could well mean the deciding vote. To criticize the recalcitrants would mean that Kern would lose votes for future ad- ministration measures. Others felt that Kern was not a true leader because he did not lead the majority in making speeches in behalf of the administra- tive measures. There were many prominent senators, and more insig- nificant ones, who made more speeches than he did. Kern seldom Spoke during those four years. The more essential work in the con- ferences, caucuses, Steering Committee, and direction from the f143<>r occupied a great deal of Kern's time that otherwise might have been put to use defending the measures that he supported. Another factor which figured prominently in Kern's decision net to feature himself in the oral advocacy of administrative mea— 8tires from the senate floor was his strategy in dealing with the Republican opposition. His strategy was to keep the Democrats from resP'Dnding to the Republican arguments, let the Republicans talk themselves out as soon as possible, and thereby force an early vote. This strategy meant that the burden for favorable vote ac- \ 83Ibid., p. 362. -123- tion rested entirely on the shoulders Of Kern and other senate Democratic leaders. Kern and men like Senator Stone spent weeks in advance of a particular vote lining up the Democrats behind the mea- sure. When all the disagreements had been conciliated and victory assured, then the measure was allowed to come to the floor for the final debate and vote. Therefore, the Republicans in Opposition generally had little effect on the outcome of legislation. Kern recognized one weakness in this strategy other than planned desertion from the conference and caucus decisions. On the day of the final debate when the galleries were packed with con- :stituents, he lived in fear that some Democratic senator bent on trudlling the galleries with his equuence would upset his careful- ly lined up victory. For this reason, Kern did not himself engage 111 this senseless kind Of speaking, and did his best to discourage Crtllers. He was not concerned with obtaining the credit for the Victory. He was satisfied with the realization Of that victory. Dictatorship could never have been substituted for the type <>f’ leadership undertaken by Kern. The individualism and talent Of ‘tllee Democratic senators would never have worked "in harness" under 5i (iictator. Kern, realizing this, never sought to unify the major- 55t37 by making demands upon them. When, in the case Of the child labor bill, he came dangerously close to this attitude with the com- ment that failure to act would result in his defeat, the majority responded by leaving the bill out of the caucus determination of filtlxre legislative action. The bill was saved only through the per- sonal intervention of the President, thereby neutralizing Kern's \ 8#Ibid., pp. 358-362. -121+- 85 role as an advocate for action on the bill. Kern carried most Of his points in conferences and caucuses by his insistent persuasiveness. Opponents found it was much eas- ier to follow his logical and emotional appeals than to offer ob- jections and follow a different course. This is perhaps best ex- emplified by Bowers. Bdore than any other man he was responsible for getting the Wilson measures through, but because his work was done be- hind closed doors with the men of the party in Opposition he had never had the credit he more than any other man de- served. I remember when Senator Reed of Missouri, a power- ful man and not a great partisan of Woodrow Wilson was fighting a Wilson bill I was present at Kern's attempt to line Reed up when the conference closed with Reed saying: "Well, Uncle John, if you feel so strongly about it I will vote for your damn bill." That sort of thing happened reg- ularly during those hectic four years of the first Wilson administration. Many other public servants had Opportunities to observe Kern's leadership. Among them, Secretary of the Treasury William G. McAdOO who said: "John W. Kern served as Democratic leader Of the senate j‘uring a period when some of the most important legislation 111 the history of the country was enacted into law. With the peOple's interest ever uppermost in his mind, he mar- s11alled the forces of his party with infinite patience and t‘axzt, and always with self-effacement. He was loved and re- SP ected by his colleagues, regardless of party, and always Possessed the confidence of the public and the administra- tion,"88 S . enator Charles S. Thomas analyzed Kern as a leader in this way: \ 85 86 Ibid. , p. 571. Ibid. 7Bowers, Letter to author. 88Bowers, Op. cit., p. 369. -125..- "Senator Kern was the most kindly, efficient and practi— cal of men, and an ideal leader for a majority just coming into control of a great body like the senate, after an exile of twenty years. No other member of the majority could, in my judgment, have done the work so well and so satisfactor- ily as Senator Kern; . . . ". . . The senator's judgment Of men, his methods of ap- peal and his wonderful tact in dealing with his associates enabled him in the course of ten or fifteen days to report a plan of organization.Ethe reorganization of the Senate after the 1912 election] absolutely satisfactory to all of his associates with a solitary exception. Even that excep- tion finally gave way to Senator Kern‘s resourceful, court- eous and generous methods of treatment. I think it can be said with perfect truth that the enactment of the great program Of reform legislation by the sixty-third congress was due as much to Senator Kgrn's splendid leadership as to any other single influence." 9 Senator James A. O'Gorman emphasized other qualities of Kern's lead- ership ability. "His upright character, his recognized ability and his at- tractive personality had already prior to his selection as Senate majority leader given him a strong hold upon their Chis colleagues: esteem. At our conferences after he be- came Senate majority leader, which were frequent, he was wise and resourceful in suggestion. On these occasions he invited the freest discussion of legislative plans and pol- icies, and was always candid, sympathetic, conciliatory and helpful. "He had a clear and strong mind, a sound judgment, an un- bending integrity, a comprehensive knowledge of our consti- tution and laws, and a power Of laborious application that enabled him to render valuable and efficient public service. Patriotism, humor and loyalty to his friends were his emin- ent characteristics. He was a strong partisan, but there was a kindliness about him that turned aside all feelings of ill will or animosity."9O This last statement would seem to imply that Kern won a number of Personal friends on the Republican side Of the aisle, and that these friendships remained largely undisturbed during the polarity of partisanship on the senate floor. The President Pro Tempore Of the \ 89Ibid., pp. 371-373. 901bid., pp. 373-374. ~126- senate, Senator Willard Saulsbury, stated that: "In his position as Democratic leader and chairman of the caucus he displayed great ability and tact in handling a majority of senators composed of men whose Opinions in some cases differed widely. Every one respected him and many of us loved him. We felt when he left the senate that the party to which he belonged and the country had met with an irreparable loss, . . . Dignified, upright, able, I doubt if any one ever impressed himself upon his colleagues more favorably than he. . . . The kindly, sweet and generous character influenced us all in our personal relations with each other, and when, as he occasionally did, he took a high, strong stand in favor of a given courgf, he carried us irresistably to the conclusion desired." From these quotations it can be seen that Kern's qualities of leadership represent our modern conception of the group leader. Leadership "requires an understanding of peOple, ability to handle people, a high sense of social responsibility, considerable skill in analysis and synthesis, competence in give-and-take conversation, and Personal qualities which inspire confidence and respect."92 To this list we can add Kern's ability as an advocate when the need 81‘056 for advocacy to support his beliefs. One defect in his leadership was also one of his strong at- tribIItea that accounted for his social and personal pOpularity. A Skilled conversationalist, Kern had a deserving reputation as a hum“Ti-st. He had a weakness for telling anecdotes, and told them in a Way that made them very real and personal. His gentleness in human relations and his fondness for the telling of anecdotes com- bined to cause Vice-President Marshall to comment, "If instead of smiling he had frowned, he might have gone much further, but it will \ 91__Ib._id-. pp. 375-376. man aJameS H' McBurney and Kenneth G. Hance, Discussion in Hu- 37% (Revised edition; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), -127- be a long, long time before the Senate finds a more pOpular, a more useful, and an abler representative.93 It would seem that the de- fect was not a serious one. Wilson and Kern. We have noted previously that Kern had a great deal to do with the success of Wilson's first administration. It is perhaps important, then, that we obtain some impression of Kern's relations with President Wilson. In order to construct this impression it will be necessary to examine several things; the re- cord of Kern's official visits to the President, reporting Of Kern's unofficial visits with the President, and correspondence between President Wilson and Kern. The distinguishing feature between the official visits and unofficial visits is a rather arbitrary one. The official visits are defined as those listed in the Executive Diaries, the Official aPPOintment books Of the President (kept by the Head Doorman) for the Years 1913 to 1916. These visits always consisted of Kern call- ing on Wilson during the President's regular visiting hours. All other Visits between Wilson and Kern are arbitrarily defined as un- official. The term is applied without regard to significance of “1°89 "unofficial" visits. It will be noticed from the following listing of the offic- ial viBZ’I-ts that Kern was a frequent Official visitor. The signif- icance 01' any of these visits cannot be determined from the listing alone. Indeed, the majority of these appointments contain no refer- \1 9 3I'homas R. Marshall, Recollections of Thomas R. Marshall; A Hogsier Salad (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company. 19257» pp“ 93‘293; and Indiana State Bar Proceedings, 1918. p- 208- -128- ence to their purpose. It may be assumed that one or two consti- tuted excursions for "visiting firemen" to meet the President. One specifically dealt with a pardon case in which the power of the President to issue pardons might come into play. Two were for the Most of the purposes of extending invitations to the President. other visits appear to be concerned with matters of legislation. The listing is in summarized form. 1913 Volume page 195 Monday July 11} Kern and Borah (re Kittenback and Keste pardon case) 30 minutes 233 Thursday August 21 Kern and Shively 10:30-11:00 271+ Wednesday October 1 Ashurst and Kern 10:55-11:00 191h Volume page 50 Thursday February 19 Kern 9:45-10:30 89 Monday March 30 Kern 11:45-12:00 13‘: Thursday May 1‘} Lieb and Kern (to extend invitations) 10:50-10:55 152 Monday June 1 Kern and Shively 10:30-10:35 189 Wednesday July 8 Kern 11:50-12:00 340 Monday December 14 Kern, Shively and Rep. Rauch 11:15-11:30 1915 Volume page 6 Wednesday January 6 Kern 10:30-10:l+5 8 Monday January 8 Kern and others 2:30-3:30 6]. Tuesday March 2 Kern CProbably Seamen's bill: 10:30-11:00 152 Tuesday June 1 Kern (the White House) 3:00 243 Tuesday August 31 Kern 12:00 1916 Volume page 2’4- Monday January 21: Kern and Dr. ' McKelway 11:00-11:15 54 Wednesday February 23 Kern, Ransdell (re. dynamiter case) and others 11:00-11:30 59 Monday February 28 Kern and Rep. Dixon 11:30 81 Tuesday March 21 Kern and others (re. Water Power Bill) 10:00—11:00 131 Wednesday May 10 Kern 11:00-11:10 -129- Page 187 Wednesday July 5 Kern and Taggert 10:’+5-ll:00 342 Thursday December 7 Kern 3:30 356 Thursday December 21 Kern and others 2:30-3z30 In terms of length of time involved in a single visit, the appoint- ments range from one hour to five minutes in length. Kern's offic- ial visits are among the largest number received by the President from one individual during that first administration. Few Sena- tors (Stone being the most notable exception) called on the Presi- 94 dent as often as Kern. But official visits, as herein defined, are not a very ade- quate measure of Kern's relations with Wilson. Many unofficial vis- its are vastly more important than these official ones. It would be best to consider some of these in passing. During the summer of 1916 Wilson again showed his ability at breaking with tradition, and at the same time indicated his rela- tions with Kern. Without any warning he came to the Capitol on one afternoon and immediately went to the Marble Room, the usual scene of Wilson's precedent-breaking conferences with solons on important legislation. Wilson dispatched a page to find Senator Kern and bring him there, and a brief conference followed Kern's arrival. Other Senators were then called in, and the news was released that Wilsori was insisting on passage of the Child Labor bill before Con- gress adjourned. This was the bill on which Kern pinned many of his hopes for reelection. Wilson had learned of the caucus action in r . “using to consider the bill before adjournment, and was prompted to apply this extra pressure to the senate by calling on Kern and ——\ 9 4&5. Library of Congress, Wilson Papers, Series I. -130- in turn applying pressure to other Democratic leaders in the sen- 95 ate. During the railroad crisis of late August and early Septem- ber, 1917 the President again called at the Capitol. There, in conference with Kern and Senator Newland, he discussed possible legislation that would make it possible for negotiations to contin- ue. The next night was dark and stormy, and Kern was in a meeting of the Finance Committee in the basement of the Capitol. Capitol police had left their posts at the entrances of the building and gone to their room down in the basement to get away from the tor- rential rains. The precedent-breaking President, who had come out in his car in search of Kern, suddently walked into their room, and requested that they find Senator Kern. Kern answered the summons, and he and the President immediately began a conference in the basement corridors. They continued it upstairs in the Marble Room, as soon as they could find a janitor to open the door, and at its conclusion, Wilson announced he would hold Congress in session un- til the needed railroad legislation was enacted. Shortly after this: two additional conferences were held between the President 96 and Senate leaders in Kern's private room in the Senate Building. Foreign affairs prompted still another meeting. On February 21’ 1916, Senators Kern and Stone and Representative Flood attended w o a hite House briefing on relations with Germany. Stone was Chair- man of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and Flood was Chair- _\ 95Bowers, Op. cit., pp. 31+3-348. 961bid. , pp. 364-366. -131- man of the House committee. It is reported that Wilson told them that the United States would "prolong negotiations with Germany no longer if the coming communication from Berlin fails to meet the "97 views of the United States. There are other evidences of the working relationship be- tween Wilson and Kern in these unofficial visits. The appeals made by Wilson to Kern to add additional legislation to the always ever- worked calendar, and Kern's response to these pleas, are tributes £8 to Wilson's reliance on Kern and Kern's loyalty to the President. The correspondence between Kern and Wilson that has been re- covered is fragmentary in nature. Much of it does not deal with major issues, but some idea of Kern's relations with Wilson can a1- so be obtained from an examination of it. It is evident, from the correspondence, that Wilson turned to Kern on several occasions when there was a chance of strong cp- POsition to administration supported legislation or appointments. On June 4, 1913, Wilson wrote Kern requesting that he and other Democratic leaders line up support to assure that his nomina- tion for Judge of the Juvenile Court be confirmed. Wilson told Kern that the choice had been especially difficult to make, and had been made only after a great deal of deliberation. The outcome of Wil- 99 I son 8 I"P-quest for support is not known. In matters of legislation not already mentioned, Wilson held a t S rob-e; interest in the Rucker Corrupt Practices Act, regarding \ 9 71bid., p. 567. 98 Ibid., pp. 358-359. 99 U.S. Library of Congress, Wilson Papers, Series VI, 112. -132- campaign contributions. Kern undoubtedly was also in favor of the bill, but there was a great deal of opposition to the bill and many modifications had been suggested. Thus, the bill was being kept in committee when it was needed in the coming elections of 1911!». Senator Owen was urging Wilson's support of the bill, and Wilson, in turn, sought Kern's aid. "'At present," Wilson said on June 23, 1911+, "it is possible for our Opponents to spend any a— mount of money they choose to spend against us, and there is no legal check upon anybody." He then asked Kern if it would be pos- sible to place the bill on the calendar for the session in progress. Wilson again wrote Kern about getting the bill on the calen- dar on August 20, 1914, but it was not until 1916 that the bill was finally approved by the Privileges and Elections Committee. On August 19, 1916, Senator Robert Owen sent a letter to the President requesting him to send a letter of congratulations to Kern 0n the report of the bill (Kern was to report the bill that afternoon), and to express his interest in the measure. Wilson carried out the request.100 The Alaska Coal Leasing Bill was one of several natural re- sourCes measures in which the President was interested.‘ 0n Octo- ber 8, 1911+, he wrote Kern to urge senate support of the measure.101 The water Power and the Gene ml Leasing Bill prompted a letter to Kern on December 10, 1911:. Senator Walsh had called the Secretary of the Interior, on an earlier occasion, expressing the fear that thes e bills would not come out to the floor of the senate during _\ loolbid. , 1529. lOlIbid. , 9h. -133- that session unless they were started early. The Secretary of the Interior wrote the President, and the President, in turn, wrote Kern. "I fear," Wilson said, "with regard to all the bills in which I am interested that delays in beginning their consideration might be fatal to their passage."102 By April 12, 1916, the General Development bill had been re- ported out of the Public Lands Committee of the senate. Wilson wrote Kern urging that it be placed on the calendar for the session in pro- gress. Wilson described the need this way: The shortage of gasoline has made the development of the oil resources very inportant; the potash is very much needed be- cause of our dependence hitherto upon Germany for that prod- uct; and the phosphates are required as fertilizers for our western lands. The release of these resources would seem a necessary part of preparedness and I sincerely hope that it will be possible for this bill to be given a chance to pass at this session. Sometime before April 21, 1916, Senator Walsh wrote to the Secretary of Interior, Franklin K. Lane, in regard to the Myers Water Power and Ferris Leasing bills. Lane wrote the President about wad-8h '8 letter, and Wilson wrote Kern on April 21, 1916 requesting that the bills be taken up during the current session. (The two bills are assumed to be the same bills previously referred to as the Water Power bill and the General DevelOpment bill.) Wilson also re- marked, "I understand that the present plan is to take up the Rural C . redits Bill immediately. Would you be kind enough to let me know wh at the Steering Committee have in mind after that?"101+ On April \ 3L gpgg., p. 1888. l OBIbidq p. 23. 101+ , Ibid.; and Link, The New Freedom, p. 131. Pt -134- thirtieth Kern replied that there was still "a lack of interest" in the Water Power and Leasing bills, and Western senators were unfor- tunately "divided in sentiment." A water power bill was not passed by Congress until June of 1920.105 Just as Wilson sought Kern's support of favored legislation, Kern sought Wilson's c00peration in administration actions. In re- sponse to a letter from Kern on April 7, 1915, Wilson made official note with the Executive Clerk to issue an Executive Order granting old soldiers of the Civil War, who were in government service, a leave of absence with pay from September 26 to October 3 to attend the Grand Army of the Republic Encampment. The leave would also in- clude as many days as would be necessary for travel.106 On May 30, 1915, Kern wrote Wilson recommending Judge E. Downey to fill a vacancy on the United States Court of Claims, Wil- son approved the selection on August 2, 1915 after a careful inves- tigation.107 But Kern's interest in potential and aetual government employees was not confined to placing them in government jobs. (It Wjll be remembered that Kern was a believer in the spoils system.) He also was interested in maintaining faithful party workers in of- fice. and in government service. 111.1914 Kern wrote Wilson that some question had been raised about the President's support of Senator Shively, Kern's friend and senior colleague from Indiana, for reelection. On September 31, 191“. W11 son wrote Kern, "I am genuinely surprised that any question should _\ 105 loo 107mm. , 152 L. saker’ OE. Cit. ’ VI, p. 103. Wilson Papers, Series VI, 344. -135- have arisen as to whether I want Senator Shively returned. I do most decidedly wish it." Wilson added: May I not add a word of cordial appreciation of the whole Indiana delegation in Congress? The members of the House have stood by the administration with unfailing generosity and spirit and have made me feel a very deep interest in the political fortunes of every one of them. I need not tell youiogy dear Senator, what my sentiments are towards yourself. In 1915, a George W. Hall was dismissed by the Civil Service for inefficiency. Hall appealed to several peOple, including Kern, that an injustice had been done. He claimed that the type of work he had been doing required the correction of hundreds of examina- tion papers, and could not be done at the rate the Service had de- fined as the normal work load. Kern appealed to the President, and Wilson wrote him in reply on March 9, 1915, stating that he was "convinced by the evidence" that an injustice had not been done. He told Kern that the Civil Service Commission had informed him that Hall was not required to read examination papers at all, but merely letters of application which he could handle at the rate required. Kern replied: But my dear Mr. President, did you send for Mr. Hall and 1.198.:- any evidence that he might have to submit? Do you think 1t quite fair to dispose of any case upon evidence offered by One of the parties to the controversy, denying a hearing to the other side? Mr. Hall is a man of fine intelligence and high character so thoroughly competent in every way that ehaters Johnson, Gorman, Pomerene and myself did not hesi- téte to endorse him for a place on the Civil Service Com- ;lSSion believing him to be superior in everyway to Mr. thlheny and every other member of the Board as then consti- “Fed, Of course, the fact that he is a sturdy Progressive halne Democrat also weighs with us somewhat. I sincerely ope that you may see your way clear to send for Mr. Hall _\ Fre loalbid” Series VII, LB 17A, pp. 87-88; and Link, The New \9 p. 1+ 7, no 800 -136- and hear his side. Such a man--such a Splendid Democrat-- is entitled to be heard. I have not changed my Opinion of this Civil Service Board since I talked to you months ago. Indeed I hear complaints of their partiality and inefficiency and unfairness on every hand. I am strongly of the Opinion that they have deceived you in this case. After receiving the letter Wilson again wrote Kern on March fifteenth stating, "I am always distressed when I find your judgment and mine eat. 6111 at variance." Wilson told him that he felt he could not see Hall personally since it might serve as a precedent for every dis- missed Civil Service employee to come running to him. He promised to make additional inquiries of another sort, and closed by saying tlnert on the basis of evidence furnished to him by the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission "it did not seem . . . I could question but one is never certain that he is right." Hall was later vindi- cated of the particular charge, but was never officially exonerated. The Civil Service Commissioners even admitted that their evidence had been incorrect, but never publicly.109 As senate majority leader, Kern was often asked by Wilson to determine the attitude of senate Democrats toward certain subjects. In either late August or early September Wilson asked Kern to deter- mine tlcrw the senate would feel about returning early for a special session. It will be remembered that only a short time before this the senate had completed the marathon of 567 days of sitting in de- ciSion on the President's "urgent" legislation. After polling by letter many of the Senate Democratic leaders, Kern wrote the Presi- d . ent on September twenty-second. He briefly summarized the Views \ 1 Oglbid” VI, 1929. -137- of seven senators on the subject, the majority of whom were against the calling of a special session, and then stated his own position: "If the war situation is such, in your judgment, that an extra Ses- sion of the Senate for Executive business could be safely called, it ought to be called--otherwise not." Wilson replied, "I think your own judgment is the sum of the whole matter. . . . I am sin- cerely obliged to you for the care you have taken to canvass the Opinion of members of the Senate, and your letter is of great as- sistance to me."110 Kern held a vital interest in foreign affairs, as did most solons during this period of international tensions and war. On two occasions he furnished some information to Wilson on interna- tional relations. The first occasion was prompted by Kern receiv- ing a letter from Addison C. Harris, a friend and former U. 5. Am- bassador to Austria. Harris told Kern of his relations with Baron Malkino. Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan at the time of Har- ris's writing (January 22, 1911+). Harris evaluated Makino as a temperamental man of great ability, and ambitious’to enlarge the boundaries of the Japanese Empire to the point of employing force if EiVen the Opportunity. Kern wrote a covering letter to the Pres- ident. and forwarded the letter. Wilson replied that he had read 1 the letter with a great deal of interest.11 In late December or early January Of 1915, Kern received two 1 etters from German-Americans protesting the sale of arms and ammun- i ' ' tion to Great Britain, and forwarded them to President Wilson. \ 1101mm, II. 113'Ihid., v1, 272. -138- Wilson replied that he had read them with a great deal of interest and concern, and hOped that a method of publicity he had worked out with Senator Stone would meet at least part of the situation.112 Kern's personal relations with Wilson are difficult to de- scribe beyond this point. Kern's natural liking Of most men he met was most certainly true in the case of Wilson. He admired Presi- dent Wilson for his ability and knowledge. His strong devotion to party duty made him just as dutiful to the leader of his party. Kern may have become disappointed with Wilson, at times, because Of Wilson '5 lack of belief in some of the more radical reforms advo- cated by the progressive Democrats. But Kern was not the kind of man Who let even major political grievances upset his personal re- lations with a friend.113 If there was any strain between the two, it was probably felt on the part Of Wilson. Wilson's weakness, his distrust Of the pro- f986:3.onal politicians, probably Operated in the case of Kern as Well 11“ . . - Kern was a product of the Taggert machine in Indiana; and "hile Taggert enjoyed good relations with Wilson, Wilson's distrust °f POliticians may have extended to both Kern and Taggert. gonclusion. The passage of time and the lack Of primary so urce materials in sufficient quantities makes positive identifica- \ llszid., 17l+5, Neutrality file. 113Bowers, Op. cit., pp. 362—363. litica lhInterviews with John Kern, II; and James Kerney, The Po- 192 1 Education of Woodrow Wilson (New York: The Century Company, Ward ’ 133p. 31+2-3’+3. The exception to this distrust was Colonel Ed- House . House who enjoyed Wilson's complete confidence. Wilson told eVeryé .'You are the only person in the world with whom I can discuss 1mg." Link, The New Freedom, pp. 93-91}. -139- tion of the sources of Kern's ideas difficult. The discussion of the issues and the occasions for Kern's speeches to the senate indi- cate, in the light of this chapter and the previous chapter, the major channels in which his attitudes and ideas were develOped. By the same token, the discussion of Kern's leadership in- dicates one of the vehicles through which his ideas were expressed. The informal speaking which Kern did in conferences and with indiv- iduals, and in view of his legislative strategy, probably contrib- uted more to the final outcome of the legislation passed under Wil- son's first administration than most of the speeches on the floor 0f the senate. At the same time, Kern was not Opposed to speaking from the floor of the senate when the occasion made this necessary. On four occasions involving major issues Kern stepped out of his in- formal speaking role as majority leader, and into the role of the floo :- advocate . CHAPTER IV A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SPEECH IN FAVOR OF THE SHERWOOD PENSION BILL Selection of the Speeches In chapter three it was determined that Kern rarely addressed the senate from the floor, and an examination reveals that his for- mal speaking falls into essentially three categories. The first category may be described as responsive debate. This category con- sists of answers and challenges by Kern which occur during the course 0f debates on various issues, and generally lack one or more Of the essential elements of a speech (introduction, body, conclusion). The)’ are characteristically short, ranging from one sentence to two paragraphs. A second category consists of memorial addresses, declama- tions, and speeches connected with the operation of the senate. TheSe addresses contain all of the essential elements of a speech, but are only remotely, if at all, connected with issues surrounding legislation before the senate. The third category consists of issue-connected speeches on 1esign-cation pending before the senate, and this category was select- ed for rhetorical analysis. The first category Of speaking was eliminated on the basis that eLll of the factors Of rhetorical analysis could not be consid— ered slnce one or more of the essential elements of a speech were -140- -141- missing; from the Speaking instances within this category. one. category was dismissed from consideration because t} r- A. C were not concerned with import nt issues surrounding; legislation, :nd because the effect 01‘ the speeches was not significz‘nt in rela- tion to the prim-try, legislative function of the sex—ate. The third category was selected because it is concerned with the important is- sues surrouning legislation before txe senate. Kern made five sneech-s in this catesor" and two of these i O J’ have been selected for analysis in this :nd "the next c3;;..1;ter. Kern's first speech before the senate will not be subjected to rhetorical criticism because it was concerned with a relatively minor issue surrounding a Public Building bill. Since the speech on the Sher- wood bill, a more important issue, covers many of the same arguments that Kern orir-inall 'raised in his first sceech the decision was b 4. i made to exclude the speech on the Public Buildings bill. Two other Speeches were eliminated in order to achieve a satisfactory compro- mise between an analysis which is representative of Kern's Speak" 1n8‘, and an analysis which is detailed without becoming cumbersome 1n length. The first of the speeches to be analyzed stemmed from th - . . . . . . , e ma.‘Jor 15:71.18 of penSion legislation for CiVil War and the vlar wi . th Melntico veterans . Criteria for Criticism ‘v'v'hile there are many acceptable methods of developing the an- alySiS and criticism of a speech, the following method is used for the Sake of consistency in each of the two speeches analyzed. The \ XLVII lU.S., Congressional Record, 62d Cong., lst Sess., 1911, 9 part 1+, 3290—3297. (Hereinafter referred to as Record.) -142- issue is first reviewed before the speech itself is considered. Kern' 5 preparation of the speech, authenticity of the text which is used, and the immediate setting; and occasion for the speech are con- sidered in the sections following examination of the issue. The logical and psychological arrangement of the speech is then ex- plored with some attention given to the organization of main points and sub-points, and the use and placement of transitions. Invention is considered under the three main divisions of logiCal appeals, ethical appeals, and psychological aspeals. The t A kinds of argument and types of support are examined under logical appeals, while the division of ethical appeals examines the speak- er's level of sincerity, his attitudes, and apprOpriate character- istiCS of the speedier thet contribute to ethical appeals. Psycho- logical appeals that are considered include those of a general na- ture, those characterized by suggestion, and specific appeals made to primary and secondary motives. A discussion of style follows invention. It is considered ““391? the characteristics of force, accuracy, directness, unobtrus- lVenesS, Clearness, and variety. Kinds and examples of stylistic d ' . , .. . , . evlces and dances of direct discourse are also Cited. Delivery i“ . . I I I " then considered on a general basis \‘.‘lth0ut speCific reference to tr 0 . is speech under examination. Response to the speech is examined under the three Cgtegories of res; onse during the 81338011. response immediately f‘fter the sieech, end lat er response. The salient features of the analysis and criti- cism are then discussed in the order of method JUSt discussed. Ids) -143- The Issue Chronological history of the pension issue. Pension legisla- tion.lh¢id long been a source of discussion in the United States, as is indicated by the following chronological table. 1. Prior to June 27, 1890, all pension legislation for veterans of the Civil War recognized only specific disabilities incurred in the line of duty. 2. The act of June 27, 1890 abandoned the requirement of service originated disability and substituted require- ment of incapacity to perform manual labor, regardless of the origination of the incapacity. The disability ' pension provided ranged from six to twelve dollars per month, and required Civil War service of at least nine- ty days. A pension of eight dollars per month was pro- vided for all widows of the Civil War veterans who had been married prior to June 27, 1890. 3. In March of 1904, by Executive Order No. 75, age be- came the standard by which disability was determined. 4. 0n Kay 9, 1900 the Pension act was amended to provide pensions to widows only if their net income was not above 3250 per annum. 5. The act of February 6, 1907, was solely an age pension, granting pensions to all who had served 90 days during the Civil War, as follows: 62 years, $12 per month; 70 years, 315 per month; and 75 Years, 320 per month. 6. The act of April 19, 1908, abolished the income pro- vision, and the pension of the widow was increased to 812 per month. Under this act and the acts of Febru- ary 6, 1907, the services of the physical and financial examiner were discontinued.2 '7. March h, 1911, the Sulloway Dollar-a-Day Pension bill died in committee with the end of the 6lst Congress.3 \\ sio . aU.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Pensionfi Service Pen- 3?‘E=L~.Tlieport of the Committee on Pensions TOgether With the Views E§I§%~£iiglorityon H.R. 1, Report No. 355, Part 1, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., , pp 0 2'3. worlxi' Charles Francis Adams, "Pensions--Worse and here of Them," 5; "“‘-——___;fl2£§, XXIII (December, 1911), p. 190. -14u- Lobbying and legislative action on the Sherwood bill. To the Grand Army of the Republic and other supporters of more liberal pension benefits for Civil War veterans, the failure of the Sulloway bill in the Sixty-first Congress in 1911 seemed to spell doom to their efforts}+ But at the opening of the Special Session of the Sixty-second Congress General Isaac R. Sherwood, Representa— tive of the Ninth Congressional District of Ohio, introduced the Sherwood Dollar-a-day Pension bill in the House of'Representatives. Sherwood was chairman of the Pension committee in the House, and a pioneering advocate of the principle that pension legislation should be based on age.5 The Grand Army of the Republic held two objections to the Sherwood bill. They claimed, first of all, that the bill was un- SCientific since the pensions would be based on service periods of three, six, nine and twelve months, and no provision was made for pensioners whose service was measured in terms of years. Their sec- ond objection stemmed from a clause which denied admission to na- tional homes for disabled soldiers, to all pensioners who were in receipt of twenty-five dollars or more each month. The clause fur- ther provided exemption from benefits of the prOposed legislation to . all veterans whose net income per annum was a thousand dollars \ Ar “Journal of the Forty-sixth National Encampment of the Grand 19:13; of the Republic at Los Angeles, California, September 12‘13' “D p. 196. (In later references, G.A.R. Journal). Life 5Ibid.,; Adams, loc. cit., p. 191; Claude G. Bowers, '_I'_h_e_ W John Worth Kern (Indianapolis: The Hollenbeck Press, 1918). Servi ‘ and U.S. Congress. House, Committee on Invalid Pensions, W Pensions for Certain Defined Soldiers of the Civil War, Re- NO. 165, 52d Cong., lst Sess., 1911, p. l. -145- or more, exclusive of their pension income. While there were these objections to the Sherwood bill, the Grand Army of the Republic was sufficiently encouraged by the na- tional picture to take steps in support of the bill‘s basic prin- ciples. In early December of 1911, the G.A.R. pension committee met with their Commander-in-Cnief. They agreed that the Sherwood service principle was good, but wanted the bill to approximate more closely the provisions of the defeated Sulloway bill. Therefore, they decided to ask Sherwood to amend his bill by eliminating its objectionable features, such as the income clause and the restric- tions on admission to Soldiers' homes, and add provisions to the bill that would make it more "scientific" in its service period pro— visions. Due consideration would be shown to those of short serv- ice and adVanCed age, as well as those suffering from service dis- abilities. This agreement led to the committee's adOption of the double standard, a pension which would be based upon age and serv- 7 196 Combined. The Sherwood bill passed in the House of Representatives on December 12, 1911 with its objectionable features eliminated, but with . . . . 8 . Out provisions recognizing advanced age. On the following day the GoA.R. Pension Committee met with Senator McCumber: Chairman 0f the Senate Committee on Pensions, and advised him of their resolu- tion in favor of the double standard. To justify McCumber's fram- \ 6Ibid., pp. 2-6; and G.A.R. Journal, pp. 197-198. 71bid., p. 198. 8"Survey of the World: The Pension Bill," The Independent. LX XI (December 21, 1911), pp. 1353-1359. -ll+6- ing of another pension bill based on the double standard, the com- mittee passed the following resolution in his presence: Resolved, That it is the sense of this committee that the age and service standards should be combined in any pen- sion measure enacted by the present Congress, to the end that justice and equity be done to all classes of our Comrades. The <3.MA.R. Pension Committee believed that neither a strictly serv- ice or a strictly age penion bill could become law.9 In January of 1912, at the request of Senator McCumber, the (SMA.I2. Pension Committee appeared before the Senate Committee on Pensions, which the G.A.R. reported as being "a most helpful and suc- cussful hearing." McCumber then introduced a substitute motion which was designed to change the Sherwood pension bill from a dollar— a-dsuy' service pension to a pension of less size which was based on hot}; zservice and advanced age. Kern spoke in favor of the original bilJ- sand against the substitute motion on March 16, 1912. But the substitute motion was adOpted, and on March 29, 1912, the Sherwood- McCumber pension bill passed the senate by a 51 to 16 vote.:LO On April fourth the two bills were sent to conference where agreement was not reached until May second. At first, Sherwood was inclined not to give up any of the ground he had won from the House of Representatives, but after an income clause had been eliminated “0111 the senate bill and 91,685,000 had been added to its cost, he and RePresentative John A.M. Adair concurred in the revised senate \ 9G.A.R. Journal, p. 198. 10:11.91... pp. 199-200. -147- 11 version. The result of the passage of this compromise bill was that every pensioner had his pension increased. The annual increased value of the national pension roll was $25,797,702, and the average . . 12 annual increase to each pensioner was 361.28. Preparation Unfortunately, the accidental destruction of Kern's private papers in 1951 left few traces of his methods in preparing a speech. Some inferences might be obtained from the discussion of his previ- ous Speaking experiences}; But the greatest reliance must be placed upon the recollections and writings of Claude G. Bowers, Kern's Personal secretary while in the senate, and on the recollection of Henry Fountain Ashurst, former Senator from Arizona. This seCtion is concerned with comments on the general methods'of Kern's prepar- ations for a Speech, and the Specific preparation which Kern made fo? the speech under examination. An important part of Kern's preparation for a speech was the thm—‘Sht process which took place prior to the arrangement of the ideas. Kern would concentrate on a problem with such force that he would exclude all outside diversions. If he felt that he might be ‘\ Jou 11'U. S. Senate, Service Pensions Report, pp. it and 6; G.A.R. Sertflal. p. 200; and U.S., Congress, House, Committee of Conference, WPension to Certain Defined Veterans of the Civil War and War I“Itsxico, Report No. 6L7, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., 1912, pp. 1-5. Port 12U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Pensions, Remarks of W. McCumber, Document No. 645, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., 1912, p. ’ and G.A.R. Journal, p. 200. chf. chap. ii, pp. 35-36, and chap. iii, pp. 1254-126. -1’+8— interrupted, then he would make himself inaccessible by locking him- self in a private room in the Senate Building which could not be en- tered from his public offices. Even telephone communication was limited to a select few who were given the unlisted number.1 He seemed to dread sitting down to the task of preparing a speech. Possibly, he was mentally engaged in the process of select- ing and discarding ideas before beginning the actual arrangement of the ideas in formal preparation but, if so, he never outwardly ex- hibit ed the process.:L5 This possibility is borne out by his scrut- iny 0f political problems. Kern was not given to jumping to conclu- Sions on the basis of his emotions. Through engaging in objective analysis, he would view each political problem from every angle he could bring to mind before reaching a decision. After reaching the decision, he would hold it in abeyance while he Carefully reviewed the arguments on the problem again and again. Only after several reconsiderations would he act on the basis of his decision.16 Ap- plying this mental trait to the preparation of his speeches, it would seem that preliminary thought on the selection and rejection 0f ideas was an important part of Kern's preparation. Kern did not write out his political speeches unless an es- Peeiéllly important occasion prompted this kind of attention. His legal training and erudition served him so adequately as sources \ lttBowers, op. cit., p. 401+. Fort ' lBClaude G. Bowers, "John Worth Kern: An Appreciation," T e Mine Journal-Gazette, August 27, 1917, p. 1+ (Hereinafter re- e rred to as Bowers' article in The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette). 16 Bowers, loc. cit. -1n9- that he did not need to depend upon a manuscript. Normally, he would simply arrange the main ideas in his head after going through the mental process of problem analysis.17 But when the occasion called for formal preparation of a written manuscript, and if he resigned himself to the task, Kern would gather his materials and begin. His preparation materials con- sisted of a rough scratch pad, several sharpened pencils, and a plen- tiful supply of cigars. He would then slowly, carefully, and patient- ly write out the speech in longhand. While writing, he would shut himself away from other peOple and outside influences. He might begin the writing in his room at the: Capitol, another section would be completed in his private room in the Senate Office Building, and the final section of the speech might be completed at his hotel in the evening. Whenever and wher- ever Kern prepared his manuscript, it was always a slow, painstaking task:. If the capy was slow in coming, it certainly reflected Kern's mental process of selecting and rejecting ideas in advance of set- ting them down on paper. Even in the longest and most important of his Prepared manuscripts there were only a few eliminations and addi- ti°n3 to the draft. The finished writing gave the appearance (from its lack of erasures and deletions) of a COpied manuscript rather \ w , l7Ibid., p. 407; and Letter from Henry Fountain Ashurst to nter. July 11, 1958. -150- 18 than a creative one. As a result of his reluctance to begin formal preparation and the slow evolvement of the completed manuscript, Kern often found himself writing on the speech right up to the moment it was to be given. Newspaper men were always asking for advance copies or ex- tracts of these speeches, but Kern was irritated by such requests and refused to fill them. In many cases it would have been impossi- ble to fill the requests since little formal preparation was in- volved. When the speeches were formally prepared, they were usually so tardy in their completion that advance COpies still would have been impossible to furnish. On at least one occasion, when pressured by his staff for a manuscript of a speech, he became irritated and sarcastically remarked, "If, after forty years, I need any advertis- ing in Indiana I'd better quit." Consequently, his speeches before the senate received little publicity.19 During his entire six years in the senate, Kern prepared only two speeches by writing complete manuscripts. The first of these was the speech under present consideration on the Sherwood bill, and the second was his memorial tribute to Vice-President James Sherman. Kern took more pride and exercised more care in the prepar— ation of the Sherman memorial address than with any of his other 18Bowers, loc. cit.; and Bowers' article in The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, pp. 5-5. An undated manuscript in longhand bears out this observation. The speech, on the character of George Wash- ington, contained only 30 word changes, 5 deletions, and 2 additions in the two thousand word manuscript. Kern MSS Collection. 19Bowers' article in The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, p. 5. -151- senate speeches. Kern prepared the pension speech with considerable care, writing out a complete manuscript with a pencil on a pad.21 Because of the lack of a preserved manuscript, other matters of preparationfbm this speech must be inferred from the general remarks above- Textual Authenticity Since the manuscript of the speech on the Sherwood bill was not preserved, the text contained in the Congressional Record was adapted as the best secondary source. The accuracy of this text was checked against limited quotations from the delivery of the speech which appeared in various newspapers. While the text covers nearly four and one-half pages in the Congressional Record, the excerpts from the speech are taken from only five paragraphs on one page and one paragraph from another page. But, on the basis of these excerpts, Kern made only minor word deviations from the prepared manuscript during the delivery of the speech. The newspapers accounts were from the Associated Press wires, generally, but at least one independent report is represented, providing a third source for comparison and substantial agreement.22 Immediate Setting and Occasion Kern lived in the same hotel as Sherwood, the Congress Hall 203‘“. ZlBOWBrS, OE. Cite, p0 2190 ZZIndianapolis News, March 16, 1912, p. 13; South Bend Trib- ;ggg, March 16, 1912, p. 1; Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, March 17, 1912, p. 1; Indianapolis Star, March 17, 1912, p. 2; and Record, 2d Sess., 1912, XLVIII, Part 4, 3466 and 3h69. -152... Hotel, and the two men had become close friends. Sherwood, a Demo- crat, was a member of the House majority, while Kern was in the Dem- ocratic minority of the senate. McCumber, a Republican, enjoyed the support of the majority party as well as of the G.A.R. organization. From the beginning of the debate, the Sherwood bill was fighting a losing battle in the senate,23 but Kern sought to defend the measure in his first "set" (completely prepared manuscript) speech before the senate.24 On Saturday, March 16, 1912, the senate met at twelve noon. Following the usual preliminaries of communications, petitions and memorials, unanimous consent (private) measures, and other quickly disposed of items of business, Senator McCumber addressed the chair: I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. l. I observe that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Kern: is now present, and he gave notice that he would desire to speak on the bill immediately after the close of the morning business. His motion was interrupted momentarily for the consideration of a ‘resolution requesting information on the possible reorganization of the Harvester Trust, and was then approved. Since a roll call was not ordered during the entire legisla- tive day, it is impossible to determine the exact number of senators present. However, it was an unusually heavy legislative day of third readings, and at least a quorum of the senate was probably present. Attendance at roll calls on the three previous legislative days had 23Bowers, op. cit., pp. 218-219. 2“Ibid., p. 21}. 25Ibid., 3A65. 26Ibid., 346h-3h90. -155- 27 ranged from 52 to 59 senators. The three major viewpoints were all represented on the floor that day. (The Senate had been considering the Sherwood bill on the floor since early in March.) Senator Kern was representing the advocates of the Sherwood bill, a general pension measured based on service. Senator McCumber represented his substitute motion, a substitute enacting clause to the Sherwood bill which was based on both age and service. And Senator Claude A. Swanson of Virginia took up the cause of a small minority who sought the defeat of both measures on the principle of economy in the government.28 The size of the gallery audience is not reported in the sources explored, but since this was a Saturday session with a great deal of activity taking place in both houses it seems reasonable to assume that it was near capacity. There was at least one special guest in the chamber, General Sherwood, who sat with his hearing trumpet to his ear a few seats distant from Kern as he spoke on the bill - 29 Arrangement-50 27;p;g., 3136, 3180, and 3371. 28Ibid., 3465-3h78. 29Bowers, op. cit., p. 219. 30While the analysis and criticism of arrangement follow claBSical tradition, the terminology and interpretation stem from the following modern works: Glen E. Mills, Composing the Sweech (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1952), pp. 217-26€;*Henry Lee Ewbank and J, Jeffery Auer, Discussion and Debate: Tools of a Democracy (2d edo; New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, 1951), pp. 137-162; Winston Lamont Brembeck and William Smiley Howell, Persuasion: A Means of Social Control (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1952), pp. l9l+-2’+O and 3‘ 110—360; and Alan H. Monroe, Principles and Types of Speech (#th edo; Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1955), pp. 307-331. -15h- Introduction. Kern Opened his remarks with a statement of his thesis. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a pension bill that will settle the pension question for all time to come; that will forever put an end to special legislation; that vvill, when once put into Operation, enable the Government to dispense with the services of thousands of examiners and special agents, Spies and detectives—-a measure which has the support of the great majority of the soldiers of the Nation who served in the ranks of the Union Army as privates during the Civil War and who by the thousand are registering - their protest against the McCumber or Smoot substitute now under consideration. The first point in the introduction announces Kern's stand on 1:}1e issue and seeks the attention of his audience. The second poirit: establishes reasons for his stand. The only transition from the first point to the second is the sealutation, "Mr. President," and the transition from the second to title’third point is accomplished by the words "and yet." The third point, itself, is primarily the major transition from the in- trodtmction to the body of the speech. It carries the rationale of Kern' 8 stand on the issue to the introduction of three of his main arguments. Thus, the introduction accomplishes three functions corres- ponding to its three points: it announces Kern's stand on the issue, it establishes the rationale for that stand, and it introduces his main arguments. The major transition from the introduction to the body of the speech is adequate, but the transitions within the intro- 32 auction are somewhat abrupt. A ——f 31Record, 3h65-3h66. 32Ibid. 455- _B_9_c_1y. Kern analyzes the problem in terms of three expressed needs: the government has failed to carry out the provisions of its contract with the soldiers of the Civil War, the government can no longer practice discrimination among the veterans of the Civil War, and the prOposed substitute would not meet the just demands of t h e veterans. ‘ The criteria for the solution to the problem are expressed in the develOpment of the needs. They are: a pension which re- stores the value of the pension to the level of the one granted in 1390, a pension which treats all veterans equally and grades them on length of service only, a pension which eliminates the costly mac hinery of the Pension Bureau, and a pension which meets a basic living standard of a dollar a day. The central idea of the speech is not concisely expressed by Kern, but the speech incorporates the theme that the Sherwood bill, if passed, will fulfill the obligation of the government, hon- orably, and will humanely settle the pension question without in- equality and discrimination. Five main points are made in the body of the speech: (1) the Sherwood bill is an obligation of honor, (2) it is too late for discrimination, (3) the substitute bill does not meet the de- mands of the Union soldiers, (’+) denial of the Sherwood pension is misplaced economy, and (5) an appeal to southern Senators is made asking them to share this burden as the burdens have been shared by the North and the South equally in the past. Major supports, or sub—points, for each main point range from three to five in number. The logical develOpment of the speech is largely inductive, -156... moving within each main point from specifics to the general. Ar- gument is used to develOp the first and second main points, the t1xixrd.and fourth by refutation, and the fifth main point by eXpo- ijtcion and argument. The following excerpts from the substance ctrtfiline will illustrate the kind and means of logical develOpment. II. It is too late for discrimination A. Webster did not practice discrimination when ad- dressing the Revolutionary War veterans B. There were many kinds of soldiers who took part in the Civil War victory 27 years ago C. After 47 years, it is also too late to practice discrimination in pension legislation IV. Denial of the Sherwood pension is misplaced economy A. The bill would not cost as much as it is alleged B. This is an honest debt C. The cry of economy has a new and strange sound D. Old soldiers must pay for everything on too small pensions, while Congressmen get many things free and have large salaries E. Our pension list ought to be the largest in the world V. This is an appeal for justice to southern senators A. Your interests are the same as ours B. Our burdens are equally shared C. We have fought together D. We ask you to share this additional burden with us {The transition between the first and the second main points consisted of a summary appeal to the argument contained in the first Point. 1”11‘. President, I now call upon all those men who were so 80111.citous for the national honor in 1896, and whose con- sciences were so quickened at the mere prephecy of 50-cent dollars, to rally to the support of the Sherwood pension bill to the end that the old soldiers of the Union who made hun- dred-cent dollars, or dollars of any kind, possible in this °°11ntry, and who were paid for their gallant services in 5' ‘13ent dollars, may have before they die some measure of Justice at the hands of a Government penitent for its one act of debt repudiation.33 \ 331bid., 3u67. -157- A similar transition was used between the second and third main points, and between the third and fourth points. The transition between the fourth and fifth main points both summarized the argu- ment and introduced the next point. Surely these patriotic gentlemen who are clamoring for pala- tial residences for our ministers and ambassadors abroad, that they maintain our national dignity and prestige, would not advocate a policy respecting the soldiers of the Republic which would place them upon a par with the half-fed and poorly clad of the world‘s poorest nations. Mr. President, I hOpe I may be permitted to address some words to my brethren of the South, who represent theifi several States in this body with such distinguished ability.3 In each of the first three transitions between main points, the transition served to summarize the argument in the preceding point, but did not introduce the next point. Thus, the transition was still somewhat abrupt, as can be illustrated by returning to the first example. . . . a Government penitent for its one act of debt repudia- tion. It was in June, 1825--mark the date, for it is important-- that the cornerstone of the Bunker Hill Monument was laid.35 Even in the case of the transition between the fourth and fifth main Points, the change is almost as abrupt. Transitions between the sub-points within the first two main points are largely summary appeals to the sub-points made within the develoblnent. The arguments are so condensed in the latter three main Points that the sub-points under each are summaries of support- ing aI‘guments. Thus, the transitions consist largely of short con- necting words and phrases. The same kind of transitions are used \ 3“Ibid., 3469. 35Ibid., 3467. -158- to connect the supports under the sub-points in the first two main poilltis. Examples of such transitions are: "Mr. President," “as a rule ," "yet," "the first class," "while the second class," "a little lateex‘," "and," "but," "under," "or," "with great labor," and "if." Internal and external summaries are well represented in the disusxission of the transitions, but these summaries are generally con- cerned with a single argument (the point presently under discussion) and summaries containing more than one argument are not made. While the summary transitions tend to divide the speech into segments, two other factors are operating to give the speech unity. The single word and short phrase transitions cement some of the otherwise disjointed phrases together”, and the major summary appeals at ‘tkie close of the introduction and in the conclusion tie the body of the speech to the introduction and conclusion. The second factor Operating for structural wholeness is the psychological develOpment Of tlier speech. The arrangement closely follows Monroe's pattern of 36 the motivated sequence, as can be illustrated by the following ex- traction from the substance outline. .Attention: Introduction I. The pension bill that will settle the pen- sion question forever II. I am representing the entire state of Indi- ana in advocating the Sherwood bill III. This bill is not extravagance I. This is an obligation of honor (the govern- ment has failed to carry out the provisions of its contract with the soldiers of the _-‘N~‘_‘ Civil War) 6 3 Monroe, op. cit., p. 310. -159- II. It is too late for discrimination Need-Satisfaction: III. The substitute bill does not meet the just demands of the old soldiers Satisfaction: IV. Denial of the Sherwood pension is misplaced economy V. Appeal for justice--made to southern Sena- tors Visualization: Conclusion I. The old soldier in the mid-west (anecdote) Action: II. Alternative is the Sherwood bill But: despite the factors working for unity, the lack of transitions whi<3h introduce the next point or argument and the lack of those WhiuCll relate one or more arguments to another combine to give the SPEBCh a somewhat segmented composition. Therefore, in examining the body of the speech, Kern analyzes the Ipension problem in terms of three needs, while developing the critweria for the solution to the problem within those needs. The central idea of the speech is not concisely expressed by Kern, but seeflnss to dwell in the thesis that the passage of the Sherwood bill Will- fulfill the government's obligation on the issue and settle the Spenfirion question without inequality and discrimination. The logical dev€5lopment of the speech is largely inductive, moving through five main; points from specifics to the general. Argument, refutation, and ejxl’osition are the chief means of logical develOpment. Internal and eXt<3rnal summaries also serve as transitions, but, with the general -l60- lacik: of transitions which introduce succeeding points (the major transition at the end of the introduction is the only important ex- ce1>tuion) and which relate one or more points to another, the structur- al uhholeness of the speech is not complete. This segmentation is paIVtcially offset by the psychological arrangement of the speech which follows the pattern of the motivated sequence. Conclusion. For the conclusion of the speech Kern chose the coznt>ination of an illustration and visualization of the future. The firisil.appeals to sympathy and relief from anxiety are implied rather thsiri direct, as witnessed by the following extraction. 1 have in mind the case of an old white-haired veteran, who served his country faithfully and well, and who, with his old ‘wife, the sweetheart of war times, is waiting for the summons of the Master. . . . They can no longer work, but are trying to live on a pension of 316 per month. . . . The cost of liv- .ing is such that, of course, they can no longer live on that .amount. And the alternative--there are only two places Open to them-~the soldiers' home for the old soldier and the poor- Jhouse for the sweet-faced old wife, for she is not allowed to aaccompany him to the home. God forbid that in a rich Nation Zlike this such a tragedy should be possible in the life of any of its defenders. , But there is another alternative, and that is the passage (Df the Sherwood bill, that will dry the tears in thousands of (Eyes, bring hOpe and joy and happiness into scores of thousands <>f humble homes, and cheer the hearts and quicken the steps of tine hundreds of thousands of old soldiers, who during their 138» remaining years will be living monuments to the generosity C>f a grateful country, which in the days of its greatest wealth axnd power did not forget the men whose valor made glorious so nIany pages of its history.37 Comments on the final appeals contained in the conclusion "111- be made in considering the psychological appeals in the Speech. Whilsé the "illustration" and "visualization" point up the Sherwood bill—'as possible accomplishments as a result of passage, they do not 37Record, 3470. -161- satisfactorily summarize the arguments which were advanced for the bill's passage. Thus, the conclusion is not as strong as some of the conclusions on major points. Summary on arrangement. The introduction of the speech ac- complishes three functions which correspond to its three points: it announces Kern's stand on the issue, it establishes the rationale for that stand, and it introduces his main arguments. The transi- tion from the introduction to the body is somewhat abrupt, but ade- quat e. The inductive logical development of the body of the speech is contained in five main points. Each main point is supported by sub-points which range from three to five in number. The means of logical development in the first two main points is by argument, the next two by refutation, and the final main point by a combina- tion of exposition and argument. Transitions between sub-points and between main points are generally of the summary type, which do not serve to introduce the next point or to relate one or more points With a succeeding point. Transitions between support elements and small er units of thought are generally of the connective type, con- SiSting of single words or short phrases. Internal and external sum- maries are equivalent to the transitions between sub-points and be- tween main points. The psychological arrangement of the speech, following close— ly the motivated sequence pattern, the conclusion, and the transi- . tion at the close of the introduction are main contributors to the E5“"1"“<>‘tural wholeness of the speech. 'But the lack of introductory tranaitions and summaries which relate one or more points to a pre- ~162- ceding or succeeding point partially offset this structural unity, and tend to segment the main points in the body of the 3;;eech. A combination of illustration and visualization of the fu- ture are the main components of the conclusion. The final appeals to sympathy and relief from anxiety are implied rather than direct. The conclusion does not seem as strong as some of the conclusions drawn in the body of the speech. 38 Invention Logical appeals. As has been previously stated, the logical develOpment of the speech is largely inductive, moving within the main points from the specific to the general. The kinds of argument employed follow a division of effort pattern. In the introduction, where Kern is concerned with announcing his stand on the issue and establishing the rationale for that stand, he employs unsupported as- sertions, causal argument, and argument from analog. Specifically, in the first point of the introduction Kern attempts to point out by unsupported assertions that the Sherwood bill will put an end to the pension question forever by eliminating the need for special pension legislation dispensing with the services 0f e3taminers, and by its receiving the support of the veterans. The second point in the introduction is develOped by causal argument. Kern attempts to establish an effect to effect relation- ship between the alleged effect of unanimity of public opinion in Indiana in favor of the Sherwood bill, and the signs of that unanim- ity in the favorable declarations of the state Republican and Demo- 38Analysis and criticism are based upon the same references and Pages as in the case of arrangement. See no. 30, p. 153. -163- crsltcic platforms. The two signs are considered effects since the stsrtce Democratic action is develOped by effect to cause reasoning. The. sadvocacy of the state Republican platform for the Sherwood-type pension is assumed to be an observable fact, while the concluding subm-Iaoint of the unanimity of Indiana public Opinion may be classed as a hasty generalization. It will be remembered that the third point in the introduction is 'tlae major transition from the introduction to the body of the speech. Thus, it is not too surprising that Kern utilizes argument from analogy to relate the public Opinion in Indiana to the pension question on the national scene. The drawing of conclusions unsup- porvt4ed by the evidence characterizes all three of the sub-points-- (A) tan appropriation necessary to maintain the honor of the state is considered extravagant, (B) taxes levied for the purpose of provid- ing :for the unfortunate are paid cheerfully, and (C) whether an Ob- 1igation of honor or a matter of common humanity, the providing for CiViJl.‘War veterans is not extravagance. The assumption of the anal- 083' is that Opinion in Indiana is analogous to national Opinion on the Pension question. The precedent for the kinds of argument employed in the body of the speech was established in the transitional point in the in- tI‘Oduetion. The first main point utilizes argument from comparison, While argument from analogy is employed in the second. The third, four1;}1, and fifth main points are develOped by argument from compar- ison. Specifically, the first point compares the government's ef- fusive concern over the honorable treatment of its Obligation to -l6l+.. Civil War bondholders and businessmen to the (alleged) dishonorable treatment of its pensioned veterans, and argues from this comparison for justice in this Obligation of honor through support of the Sher- wood pension bill. The four sub-points in support of the comparison employ ar- gument from comparison and observable fact. The first sub-point con- trasts the poor men who fought in the Civil War to the business men who made fortunes from government contracts. The second sub-point observes that the value of the dollar has fallen below fifty cents. The third and fourth sub-points also argue from comparison of other features in the government treatment of bondholders and veterans. Argument from analogy is used in developing the second main point. Here, Kern draws an historical analogy between the character- istics of the Revolutionary War veterans present when Daniel Webster dedicated the Bunker Hill memorial and Webster's indiscriminate ad- dress to them, and the characteristics of the Civil War veterans. He argues from this analogy that the government should be indiscrim- inate in the Civil War pension legislation because it is too late for discrimination. Historical narrative and observable fact are the chief supporting elements to the analogy. Argument from compar- ison is used in the second and third sub-points. The third main point returns to argument from comparison. Kern contrasts the weaknesses of the McCumber substitute with the SherWOod bill's ability to eliminate those weaknesses. The function of this main point is refutation of the substitute motion, which is handled by contending that the substitute does not meet the needs and I‘et‘iins evils present in the status quo. Assertions are used to ex- -165- press directly Kern's stand against the substitute motion and for the Sherwood motion, while a quotation and paraphrased comments at- tributed to General Sherwood, an expert but prejudiced authority, are used as chief supports in pointing out the weaknesses and evils of the McCumber substitute. The chief argument raised against the Sherwood bill is that it violates the pledge made by both major parties of economy in the administration of the government. Kern refutes this contention in the fourth main point by appealing to a higher ideal in American gov- ernment than that of economy, specifically, to the ideal of main- taining national dignity and prestige. Argument from comparison is again employed, through which Kern contrasts previous government ex- penditures and present government salaries with the prOposed Sher- wood pension. Kern offers documented statistical evidence in sup- port of his contention that the Opposition has committed the fallacy Of faulty statistics, and draws the conclusion that the Sherwood bill would not cost as much as the Opposition contends. The remain- ing subpoints follow a chain of reasoning which leads to argument by reductio ad absurdum. The reasoning is supported by a repetitive pattern of observable facts and unsupported assertions of which the following is an example: But, sir, this cry of economy in governmental expendi- tures has a new and strange sound. It has been seldom heard during the past 12 years, [unsupported assertionj while the expenses of government have nearly doubled and climbed up to the enormous figure of a thousand million dollars a year [observable fact] . It was not heard in connection with Erunsupported asser- tion: the appropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars for the Panama Canal Cobservable fact: , nor has it been in— sisted upon during the time :unsupported assertion: that the taxpayers have been contributing a half billion dollars or more ~166- Eobservable fact: in carrying out the work of subjugating the Philippine Islands and benevolentlg assimilating the Fili- pan peOple Eunsupported assertionj. 9 In the concluding sub-point Kern points out the Opposition's fallacy of faulty synthesis in comparing EurOpean pensions to those of the .American veterans without taking into consideration the American standard of living. The final main point is also argued from comparison. Kern ap- peals to the senators from the southern states to join in the sup- port Of the Sherwood pension, supporting it as a burden to be car- ried mutually by both the North and South as the burdens and inter- ests have been shared by the sections since the Civil War. The first sub-point is chiefly established by unsupported assertion, but the second stands on the firmer ground of refutation by adaption of the argument of the southern Opposition's complaint that they have al- ready shouldered their burdens arising out of the Civil War, and then by the statement that the North has also shouldered their share of those burdens. The third sub-point reasons from southern participa- tion in the Spanish-American War united with northern participation (cause) to the assertion that this participation resulted in the dis- pelling of doubts concerning southern loyalty to the Union (effect). The fourth sub-point draws the concluding appeal by inference from the comparisons made in the previous three sub-points. Exposition of the common interests and burdens shared by the North and South sets the stage for the refutation by adOption of the Opposition's ar- gument. 3‘9Ibic1., 3469. -167- The conclusion of the speech cont ins only two elements of suPJort: one is an illustration from personal experience or know- ledge and the other is an argument from alternatives set up by the illustration. In summary, Kern emgloys inductive reasoning in the develog— ment of loLiCsl apyecls. It is characteristically imperfect induc- tion because it does not take into consideration all possible in— stances or contingencies. The introduction of the speech employs unsupyorted assertions and causal argument from effect to effect to establish Kern's stand on the issue and the rationale for that stand. The major transition from the introduction to the body of the speech employs argument from analogy. The body utilizes argu- ment from analog and from comparison in introducing and establish- ing three needs, and in refuting three arguments by the cpgosition. Argument from alternatives set up by an illustretion is utilized in the conclusion. Kern places heavy reliance on his own personal experiences, Opinions, and judgments to support the structure of his “rguments. The third main point is an exception in that Kern emphasizes the au- thoritative, but biased, testimony of General Sherwood. The first sub—point under the fourth main point also utilizes the testimony of Sherwood, but its effectiveness is over-shadowed by Kern's reliance on personal conclusions through the next three sub-points in support of the argument. Ethical appeals. Perhaps the chief factor in Kern's use of ethical appeals is his primary sincerity (an unreserved belief in the persuasive prOposition)40 on the issue. He manifests this in OBrembeck and Howell, Op. cit., pp. 254—257. -168- the speech chiefly by the directness of his attack. Kern maintains this atmosphere throughout the Speech, and the following examples can serve only as indications of some of the means employed to cre- ate and maintain it. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a pension bil that will settle the pension question for all time to come; Mr. President, that convention also, by a unanimous vote, nominated me as the party's candidate for the position I now hold. I accepted that nomination, fully advised as to the declaration of principles theretofore made by the convention, and, without hesitation or mental reservation agreed that, if elected, I would honestly and faithfully do what I could to carry out my party promises. The platform declaration for a dollar-a-day pension was not made as a mere empty promise to catch votes-- Measured by its dealings with other creditors, this Govern- ment has utterly failed to carry out the plain provisions of its contract with the soldiers of the Civil War. 2 Who will grudge these old veterans a dollar a day? Mr. President, I grant freely that there was a time when discrimination would have been prOper. But after the lapse of a half century it is too late . . . Mr. President, let there be no more delay in caring for those who bore the battle, their widows and orphans. If we have not the desire as patriots to do so, let us as a Christ- ian peOple have compassion upon them, because they need the Nation's comforting aid. _ Sir, I am Opposed to the pending bill, . . . because it does not meet the just demands of the Union soldiers. I have not been greatly interested in the discussion as to what this or that bill will cost. It is a reflection upon the integrity, the honor, and the financial ability of this Nation to consider a question of that kind in that light. #3 ulRecord, 3465. “21bid., 3466. “31bid., 3467. “41bid., 3468. -169- It is said that our pension list is larger than that of any nation in the world. I have not examined the statistics, but I hOpe it is. It ought to be.45 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O C O O O O 0 0 I 0 If I could carry you with me into some of the homes of the Central West where these old soldiers abide, I am sure your hearts would be so touched that you would agree to the liberal provisions of the Sherwood bill. I have in mind the case of an old white—haired veteran, . . .45 Kern's primary sincerity in dealing with the issue also yields the "by-product" atmosphere of straightforwardness and honesty on the issue. Three attitudes are of primary importance in the building of the ethical appeals, the speaker's attitudes toward himself, his sub— ject, and his audience. The second paragraph of the examples immed- iately above together with this, the paragraph which follows it in the speech, constitute a clear statement of Kern's attitude toward himself in relation to the issue. In develOping this second main point Kern again uses his own attitude as an ethical appeal through implied analogy. Sir, in the county in which I was born and reared there was a solitary grave near the roadside, said to have been that of a soldier of the Revolution who had died in the early pioneer days of that county. I remember the veneration in which that grave was held by me and my youthful associates. The question as to whether he had served months or years, whether he had been the best soldier or the worst, never en- tered our minds. We only remembered that he had worn the un- iform of the Continental Army and had contributed to the cause of American liberty. Just as his attitude toward himself contributed to the ethical appeals, so did his attitude toward the subject. The examples of h51bid., 3469. “6Ibid., 3470. 47I‘oid., 3467. -170- Kern's primary sincerity are excellent illustrations of subject at- titude, but the best illustration is found in the transition from the introduction to the body of the speech}+8 However, Kern's at- titude toward his audience probably detracted from, rather than con- tributed to the ethical appeals. It does not seem reasonable to sup- pose that the best way to build one's own prestige and character in the eyes of others is to attack their own interests. And the men in or out of Congress who go about with micro- scope peering into the individual records of the few, to dis— cover a defect here and there--the men on the hunt for excuses to justify them in refusing justice to the great mass, will not command more attention than would a man at Bunker Hill who tried to break the force of a great oration by reading records showing that a few of the old Revolutionary soldiers before him were unworthy of the tribute which Webster had paid to all.“ Distinguished Senators here have, with great labor, added up all the miserable pittances received by each of these old vet- erans during the past #7 years, and with a horror-stricken air hold up before us the enormous total of nearly 34,000,000,000. When the preposition was made to double the salary of the Pres- ident of the United States and then add 825,000 per annum for travelling expenses, did anyone take the time to give to the public the total sum of all the moneys paid to all the Presidents since the formation of the Government? Or when the preposition was made a few years ago to increase the salaries of the Senators and Congressmen, was any computa- tion exhibited of the total amount paid to the Members of the two Houses during the century and a quarter of our national life? When pork-barrel apprOpriations are asked and made for costly public buildings at crossroads and county seats, . . . no Sena- tor has ever thought of . . . calculating the enormous amount of public money that has been thus wasted during the last half cen- tury. These mathematical prodigies of the Senate never let loose their restrained energies except when the heroes of Gettysburg and Antietam, Chancellorsville and Lookout call the attention of the Government to its broken pledges and its inexcusable in- gratitude to the men who saved its life. This old soldier, who must pay house rent, pay exorbitant prices for everything he eats and wears, and pay all out of a pension of 315 or 320, . . . must sympathize deeply with his 48Ibid., 3466. thecord, 3h67. -l71- unfortunate representatives in Washington, who are compelled to eke out a miserable existence on $625 per month, with all the little accessories furnished by an unsympathetic Government. The distinguished Senator from Ohio impressed us all on yester- day with his fervid declaration that he would be rejoiced to support a measure giving the old soldier a dollar a day if the poor Government could only afford it. How natural it will be for him as a patriotic American to cover back into the Treasury a part of his next month's salary to aid an improverished Nation in its struggle with adversity.5 Just how much effect this criticism had on his audience is impossi- ble to determine. Certainly, as a leading member of the minority party Kern would be expected to level some criticism at the majority while supporting a Democratic measure that had little chance of pas- sage. But, the implications of the remarks apply both to Republicans and Democrats alike, and, therefore, appear to go beyond expectations. It is also true that Kern's long experience and prominence in poli- tics would give him the right to criticize the political actions of his colleagues to some extent, despite his junior status. Thus, the question of to what extent this criticism was a poor attitude for Kern to take toward his audience must remain unresolved. However, in Kern's appeal to the southern senators it would seem that his attitude toward his audience did add to his ethical worth. His reference to them as "my brethren of the south" intro- duced his theme of sectional unity that prevailed throughout the appeal. His deference to them in their objections after meeting the question of economy with scorn indicates at least a measure of sym- pathy for the proffered objections, and his remarks are at least flat- tering to southern pride. I know how you venerate the memories of the great leaders of the Confederacy, who with the great leaders of the Army of 5°Ibid., 3469. -172- the Union have crossed the great river and are freternizing on the father shore. . . . Your interests are the same as the interests of those of us born under northern skies, and I would subject you to no penalties or burdens which I would not willingly share. My ancestors, even to the first American generation, were born in old Virginia. . . . I state this only to show that in my advocacy of this mea- sure I am prompted by no sectional prejudice nor actuated by any spirit of antagonism.5l Therefore, it appears that Kern's attitudes toward himself and toward his subject made material contributions as ethical appeals. However, Kern's attitude toward his audience probably made little constructive contribution. Kern also utilizes personal identifiCation as an ethical ap— peal. His Opening statement in the introduction and the other ex— amples of his direct stand in favor of the Sherwood pension contain elements of a personal identification with the issue. Examples of implied identification with ideals are found in large quantities throughout the speech, and the anaIOgy using fiebster's memorial ad- dress implies identification with historical precedent and the ideals of a national hero. Personal identifications with the "public" (or peOple) and with the audience are used to a lesser extent. An ex- ample of each type of personal identification follows. Mr. President, I favor House bill No. l-—the Sherwood bill-- because it is the nearest approach to a dollar—a-dny tension that is attainable and because it settles once and for all this much-mooted pension question.52 czIdentifiC'tion with the issue: There is no nation in the world so rich us this, nor hrs any nation :0 patriotic a people, nor a peo;le so ready and willing to rally to their country's standard in time on dan- ger, or to make sacrifices, if need be, to contribute of their substance for the core and s pport of its defenders when by reason of service or age they need such care and support.53 L:IdentifiCation with ideals:3 51Ibid. 521bid., 3468. 53Ibid., 3469. -l73- And then we recall the promises that were made in the hour of national stress and storm to induce them to leave their homes and peril their lives and sacrifice health to the end that the Nation might not perish from the earth, not forgetting the pledge of the Nation made by the immortal Lincoln in his second inaugural address, delivered a month before the fall of Rich- mond and five weeks before his tragic death, that we would "bind up the Nation's wounds and care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan."54 C:Identifi- cation with historical precedent and with the ideals of a na- tional hero:] Our peOple can never be brought to the belief that there can be extravagance in any apprOpriation of public moneys for the purpose of providing for the necessities of the old men whose services in that great War between the States made disunion impossible and the Union perpetual, . . .55 Erldentification with the "public":3 Sir, we heard much in a recent campaign . . . . . 56. . . We now can only deal with this rapidly disappearing army as a mass. We can only remember. . . . We only see. . . And then we recall . . . that we would. . . 7 If we have not the desire as patriots to do so, let us as a Christian peOple have com- passi n u on them, because they need the Nation‘s comforting aid.5 EZIdentification with the audience:j Another appeal is introduced in the second point of the intro- duction, seeming objectivity. In the introduction it is manifested by Kern's implication that he is advocating a bipartisan cause. It will be seen that in the great central State of Indiana, . . . there is absolute unanimity of sentiment on the question, . . . so that in advocating the Sherwood pension bill Egre I am representing no party nor faction of a party. . . . His recognition of an argument by the Opposition continues this theme 5”;g;g., 3468. 55;g;g., 3t66. 5621-22. 57;p;g., 3467-3468. 58;2;g., 3u68. 59Ibid., 3h66. -174- in the second main point of the speech, Mr. President, I grant freely that ghere was a time when discrimination would have been prOper. O and his appeal to the southern senators also carries it in his recog- nition of their complaints and problems. However, the total effect of the frequent generalizations, and his frank Opposition to the substitute motion, tend to Cancel out the few appeals to seeming ob- jectivity. The number of characteristics of the speaker that are reflect— ed in the Speech constitutes an indefinite sum, dependent both on the definition and delimitation of the characteristics, and the speaker, audience, and occasion.' Thus, the following characteristics which are exemplified are not exhaustive of the possibilities, but are rather indicative of the major characteristics noted according to one definition and delimitation. I am representing no party nor faction of a party . . .62 C character: 0 O I O I C O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O C And yet, sir, the Government was so jealous of its honor that in March, 1869, by the famous coin act, all such bonds were made payable in coin, thereby giving to the bondholders a clear profit of more than $678,000,000». . .63 :fund of knowledge] Mr. President, that convention also, by a unanimous vote, nominated me as the party's candidate for the position I now hold. :past success: Yet to-day these same financiers, with the same earnestness and zeal with which they shouted for national honor in 1896, are denouncing as a raid on the Treasury a preposition to pay to old soldiers who saved their country for them the pittance of a dollar a day, that they may have food and shelter in their 6OIbid., 3467. . p 6” - . . 61Brembecli and Howell, on. Cit., p. 21H“). 6.3329125}; 340;). 6“Ibid., 3466. 651bid., 3466-3h67. -175- old age, and that some measure of justice be done them because in those dreadful days of civil war they gere paid dollars worth less than 50 cents for their heroic work. 5 Centhusiasm: I have not been greatly iggerested in the discussion of what this or that bill will cost. E:self-confidence:3 Mr. President, these venerable soldiers of the Union to whom we owe so much of our greatness and prosperity make no unreason- able demands, for they only demand that the plighted gaith of the Nation be kept and that they have just treatment. 7 [:Opinion:] I remember the veneration i2 which that grave was held by me and my youthful associates. 8 EeXperience I know how you venerate the memories of the great leaders of the Confederacy, . . .69 Etactj And so, among the characteristics of the speaker expressed in the speech are character, fund of knowledge, past success, enthusiasm, self-confidence, Opinion, experience, and tact. In addition to the above expressed characteristics, there are also certain unexpressed characteristics which are observable simply by looking at the speaker. Among these unexpressed ethical 7O appeals is his popularity in the senate. His age, sixty-two, certainly places him in the customarily "respected" age group, but, in a body characterized by men above fifty years of age, it is doubtful that age was an important factor. However, Kern's intelli- 71 gence was a source of great respect among his colleagues, and his political experience, stretching over the span of forty-two years, 651bid. 66;p;g., 3469. 67Ibid., 3467. 68Ibid. 691bid., 3469. 70 See Chap. iii, pp. 124-126. 71See Chap. iii, pp. Zh-lié. -176- 72 was certainly a strong factor. Kern‘s appearance and bearing are also important character— istics in the building of ethical appeals. Of course, it cannot be determined exactly what Kern wore or how he looked while address- ing the senate on the Sherwood pension bill, but certain general remarks on his appearance and bearing are probably appropriate. Kern had considerably changed his manner of dress within a period of a few years prior to his election to the senate. The familiar Prince Albert coat, which many of the senators still wore, had now been exchanged for a business man‘s sack suit, and the silk hat was now worn only on state occasions. The coat of his suit was a long-tailed cutaway, and a bow tie was fastened at the square- tipped collar of the vhite shirt. The characteristic, long beard had now turned to grey and was kept trimmed close to his chin. His unusual and attractive dark eyes were shadowed by gold-rimmed spec- tacles.73 Thus, Kern was not the well-dressed man of the earlier years. His manner of dress was still formal, but had lost the at- tractiveness that marked the earlier years. His posture was still upright and correct when speaking, but his general appearance was "dolorous," and together with "his whiskers and his gold-rimmed 7# spectacles" contributed "to a saturnine make-up." While his ap- pearance was not particularly attractive, his many enviable personal 72 See chaps. ii and iii. 73Bowers, 0p. cit., pp. 412-413; and Fountain's letter to writer, July 11, 195 . 74 Ibid.; and Bowers, loc. cit. -177- qualitieszsapparently combined to mellow the unattractive appear- ance into what World‘s Work described as the appearance of a "good old honest farmer."76 In summary, Kern's primary sincerity, sincerity based upon personal conviction, is one of the chief contributors to the ethical appeals found in the Sherwood pension speech, and yields a second- ary atmosphere of straightforwardness and honesty. His attitudes toward himself and toward his subject contribute substantially, but his attitude toward his audience is not very constructive. During the course of the speech Kern identifies himself with the issue, ideals, historical precedent, ideals of a national hero, the "public," and the audience. Seeming objectivity is introduced by the implication that he is advocating a bipartisan cause, and is utilized in many places through the speech. Among the expressed characteristics contributing as ethical appeals, Kern employs character, fund of knowledge, reference to past success, enthusiasm, self-confidence, personal Opinion, person- al experience, and tact. The unexpressed characteristics of pOpu- larity, age, intelligence, political experience, and appearance and bearing; each make some contribution to a greater or lesser degree. Psychological appeals. In the first point of the introduc- tion Kern meets the tone of the occasion by making a direct stand in favor of the bill. The attention step is also introduced by the attention factors of startling statement and an appeal to the sel- fish interests of the senators. 755C 6,. . 7 William Bayard Hale, "Friends and Fellow Citizens," The World's Work, XXIII (April, 1912), p. 681. 8 Chap. ii, pp. lZM—le. -178- Kern establishes the rationale for his stand on the Sher- wood bill in the second point. He rationalizes bipartisanship in his advocacy by taking known Indiana attitudes toward the subject, and making the adaptation to the Republican majority in his audi- ence by stressing the bipartisanship of his subject in Indiana. PsycholoLical appeals in the third point of the introduction include an appeal to the known attitude of placing the honor of the nation above the cost of a particular apprOpriation. There is also an idealistic appeal to social consciousness which reflects the tone of the occasion. The need step in the motivated sequence begins with the first main point in the body of the speech. In support of the need, Kern employs the appeal to fund of knowledge in making economic as- sertions about the conditions of the two classes under comparison. This is especially true in the second and third sub-points. In the fourth sub-point he anticipates the reluctance of Republicans to support the Sherwood pension by urging it as a matter of simple jus- tice. This same appeal also presents a preview of the contention contained in the satisfaction step, and may be given the additional classification of an appeal to social consciousness. In the second main point, when Kern moves from the historical narrative to the drawing of the analogy, he begins to move from the needs and toward the step of satisfaction. The exact point of transition is difficult to determine, but seems to fall within the following excerpt: A few years more and the grandest army the world ever saw will have disappeared, and the men who, at Gettysburg, and Antietam, and Chancellorsvill, and Lookout won imperishable -179- glory for themselves and their country will live only in the memories of the younger generations, who will in the years to come enjoy the blessings of a free Government which these old men periled life to maintain.77 (The above paragraph is still a part of the need step.) Mr. President, these venerable soldiers of the Union to whom we owe so much of our greatness and prosperity make no unreasonable demands, for they only demand that the plighted faith of the Nation be kept and that they have just treatment. In this age of luxury they demand no luxuries, nor do they ask to be indulged in any extravagant tastes. They only ask that out of our abundance they be allowed a sum which will provide humble homes, beds on which to rest and to die, raim- ent that will protect their aged bodies from the cold, and food sufficient to sustain them in their declining years. 8 (The preceding two paragraphs introduce the satisfaction step, while the following paragraph makes the appeal to the step of sat— isfaction.) Who will grudge these old veterans a dollar a day? Their days for earning money are past. The road to the grave is a short one. Prior to the beginning of the satisfaction step, Kern's use of his- torical narrative reflects his fund of knowledge by focusing on the historical precedent. The rhetorical questions in the conclusion of the first sub-point reflect Kern's awareness of senators among the Opposition who would discriminate among the veterans of the Civil War. The quoted paragraph immediately above also reflects this awareness, and makes a corresponding idcrlistic appeal to social consciousness. Kern again recognizes the predisposition of some of the sen— ators toward the McCumber substitute by utilizing direct attack of 77Ibid., 3467. Ibid. 79Ibid. -lCC- the substitute as a psychological appeal in the third main point. His substantimfion of General Sherwood as an authority and his use of the quoted material reflect1fl£:fuhd oflnxwfledve,rdmle the contention that the Sherwood bill will settle the pension question forever may be classed as an appeal to the selfish interests of the senate in eliminating a large source of private bills. In pointing out the fallacy of faulty statistics in the first sub-point of the fourth main point Kern increases the pres— tige of his fund of knowledge,-and then proceeds with his direct attack by stating the Opposition's main argument against the Sher- wood pension. He offers additional psychological appeals in his refutation of the argument by eXposing the selfish economic motives and interests of government officials. He concludes the main point with an idealistic appeal to social consciousness, supporting it by comparison with the known attitude of some senators in favor of luxurious residences for American ambassadors. In the final main point Kern first utilizes a psychological appeal to the sectional status of southern senators by claiming he understands their veneration of Confederate heroes. He defers to their political consciousness by directing his remarks to them in- stead of to the President of the senate. He anticipates their op- position to the general pensioning of Union veterans by asserting from the comparisons that this is just an additional burden to be shared by the two sections of the country. The conclusion of the speech contains the visualization and action steps of the motivated sequence. Psychological appeals to sympathy and relief from anxiety are implied, but the strongest ap- -181- peal is made to social consciousness. Much of Kern's speech is also characterized by suggestion. Figurative language, examples of which are cited under stylistic devices, is used extensively. Kern's level of language usage sug- gests that the speaker is an intelligent person, but one whose e- motions have been aroused by sincere convictions. "Loaded" words and striking statements indirectly, but effectively, call to mind ideas which are intended but not specifically stated. Examples of both "loaded" words, which have been underlined, and striking state- ments are contained in the following: And the men in or out of Congress who go about with micro- scepe peering into the individual records of the few, to dis- cover a defect here and there--the men on the hunt £2; excuses to justify them in refusing justice to the great mass, will not command more attention than would a man at Bunker Hillr who had tried to break the force of the great oration by read- ing records showing that a few of the old Revolutionary soldiers befo e him were unworthy of the tribute which Webster had paid all. The rhythm of Kern's atyle in the develOpment of the fourth main point, especially in the argument by reductio ad absurdum, suggests Kern‘s rising emotions in ridiculing the argument of denying the Sherwood bill on the basis of economy in government. It was not heard. . ., nor has it been insisted upon . . . It was not urged . . . It is a cry that is only heard . . . When the proposition was made, . . . did anyone take the time . . . Or when the prOpOsition was made, . . . was any computation exhibited . . . . The salaries of the postmaster . . . are increased steadily, . . . yet we have heard from no source . . . When pork-barrel apprOpriations are asked and made, . . . no Senator has ever thought of undertaking . . . These mathematécal prodigies . . . never let loose . . . except When 0 e e 1 81 801bid., 3a67. Ibid., 5n69. -182- Thus, it can be seen that Kern's use of psychological ap- peals in the speech is extensive. Direct references to basic drives of his audience are found in several places. In the introduction he refers to the veterans as being "so old and infirm as to be un- able to win bread by their labor and anxious and distressed because of their inability to provide for their necessities."82 Here, the basic appeal to food is expressed, while shelter, clothing, and se- curity are easily implied from the term "necessities." Again, in the first point of the body of the speech Kern at- tacks the financiers who oppose paying the "pittance of a dollar a day" to veterans "that they may have food and shelter in their old age."83 But perhaps the best example of Kern's appealing to these basic drives is found in the develOpment of the second main point. They only ask that out of our abundance they be allowed a sum which will provide humble homes, beds on which to rest and to die, raiment that will protect their aged bodies from the cold, gfid food sufficient to sustain them in their declin- ing years. To food, shelter, clothing and security, Kern has added the basic drive of sleep or rest. These psychOIOgical appeals to the basic drives start only as vague references and gradually become more vivid in their de- scription. This trend continues in the fourth main point. "This old soldier, who must pay house rent, pay exorbitant prices for everything he eats and wears, . . . with fond remembrance of the beefsteak now only a memory," sympathizes with the Congressman who 821bid., 3466. 83Ibid. 8“Ibid., 3&67. -183- makes only 3625 per month.85 Finally, in the concluding illustration Kern calls on the basic drives to plead the case of the old soldier who "has earned his bread with his hands" and out of his small pension pays half for "the rent of an humble cottage," while the other half must pay . . .. . 86 for "foes, fuel, clothing, med1c1nes, and medical treatment." But direct references to basic drives are only a small part of the psychological appeals offered by Kern. Secondary motives of shame, sympathy, loyalty and pride receive major attention. Kern evokes shame chiefly in the reductio ad absurdum of the fourth main 87 point. Another example of this motive occurred early in the speech at the close of the first main point. When, a little later, a measure was offered in Congress to protect the national honor by paying to the soldiers the dif- ference between the amounts which the Government agreed to pay them and the amounts actually received by them from the Government, it failed of a respectful hearing, its author be- ing denounced as a demagogue for bringing a preposition so preposterous into the halls of national legislation. Kern appeals to the sympathy of the senators for the Union veterans in almost every argument advanced. The three following ex- amples from the introduction, body, and conclusion are only repre- sentative of the many times this motive appeal is employed. Every delegate in that Indiana State convention at the time he cast his vote for that platform declaration had in mind scores of his neighbors who had served their country in the hour of its distress now grown so old and infirm as to be unable to win bread by their labor and anxious and distressgd because of their inability to provide for their necessities. 9 8§Ibid., 3h69. 86Ibid., 3470. 87Ibid., 3469. 881bid., 3467. 89Ibid., 3466. Who will grudge these old veterans a dollar a day? Their days for earning money are past. The road to the grave is a short one.90 And the alternative--there are only two places Open to them-- the soldiers' home for the old soldier and the poorhouse for the sweet-faced old wife, for she is not allowed to accompany him to the home. God forbid that in a rich Nation like this such a tra;edy should be possible in the life of any of its defenders.9 The motive appeal to loyalty finds its chief use in the ap- peal for the support of southern senators. For many years after the Civil War there was wideSpread distrust of your loyalty in the North--a feeling which, with all my ability, I combated since my boyhood, for I knew you and believed in you and trusted you. But that distrust has been dispelled forever. The war has been ended so long ago that there are only eight men in this body who participated in the conflict-- four who fought with the Confederacy and an equal number beneath the Stars and Stripes-~all now engaged in generous rivalry as to who shall render the best service for the country they all love alike. You have borne your burdens with such cheerfulness and acquiesced in the results of the war so generously and loy- ally that when we ask you to share with us an additional bur- den, . . . we can not but hOpe that your generous hearts will respond to our appeal.92 Loyalty is also evoked by the example of the veterans who ”made dis- union impossible and the Union perpetual,"93 and by Kern's call up- on the Senators "solicitous for the national honor, . . . to rally to the support of the Sherwood pension bill to the end that the . . . E:veterans:J may have before they die some measure of justice at the hands of a Government yenitent for its one act of debt re- pudiation."9l+ Pride, one of the strongest of secondary motive appeals, is 90161.1. . 3467. 91—1b1d' . 3”“ 921bid., 3h69-3470. 9322ifi-’ 3A66° 9n Ibid., 3467. used by Kern chiefly in contrast to shame. An example of this usage of the pride motive appeal appears shortly before the example of motive appeal to shame which was cited above from the body of the speech. On that proud day of review, in May, 1865, the men of that army were in the vigor of young manhood, full of joy that their efforts for the Union had been crowned with suc- cess--full of bore for the future of the Republic for which they had sacrificed so much. Laying aside arms and uniform they returned to the peaceful walks of life and took upon themselves the duties of citizenship. The entire second main point is full of these contrasts between pride and shame, giving the effect of a continuous psycholosical appeal. Many other secondary appeals are present in the speech. Some are closely related to those which have already been mentioned, while others are utilized only once or twice. The following ex- amples cite these appeals in a summary fashion. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a pension bill that will settle the pension question for all time to come; that will forever put an end to special pension legislation; that will, when once put into operation, enable the Govern- ment to dispense with the services of thousands of examiners and special agents, Spies and detectives--a measure which has the support of the great majority of the soldiers of the Na- tion who served in the ranks of the Union Army as privates during the Civil War and who by the thousand are registering their protest against the McCumber or Smoot substitute now under consideration.9 c:solution to audience problem; economy of effort, time, and money; and potential approval by otherszfl That convention was not made up of mere politicians, but was composed for the most part of earnest, serious-minded men from every walk of life, who for the time had left the plow, the anvil, the ShOp, the office, and the store and assembled to declare their political faith, to express themselves upon public questions, and as patriotic citizens organize their party for the contest for better government and more equal 95Ibid. 96Ibid., 3h65-3h66. -186- and beneficial laws.97 C:ideal democratic Operation in re- presentative government It was in line with the promise of "generous pensions" made in the last Democratic national platform . . . and with the promises made in the platforms of aél political parties since the commencement of the Civil War.9 Crespect for political promises:J Then, again, the taxes levied for the purpose of providing for the care and education of our unfortunate peOple--the blind, the deaf and dumb, the soldiers' orphans, and others of that claSs--that their lives might be brightened a little, seemed heavy and burdensome, but they were paid cheerfully, because the common instincts of humanity required it.9 Echarity: Daniel Webster Was the orator of the day. The day, the place, the occasion, the audience, the surrounding! What inspiration for the greatest of all American orators! And Webster rose grendly to the occasion and delivered an oration thzt will live as long as men and women who love liberty read our language. who has read his words addressed directly to the venerable men of the revolution, recounting their sacrifices in the cause of liberty, and expressing the everlasting gratitude of the bene- ficiaries of their valorous deeds, without such emotions as bring the tears unbidden to the eyes?100 c:honor, patriotism, devo ion to others:3 The blessings which under the providence of God will be enjoyed by the countless generations which follow them.101 t:respect for Deityzj I remember the veneration in which that grave was held by me and my youthful associates.102 :worshipful respect: And then we recall the promises that were made in the hour of national stress and storm to induce them to leave their homes and peril their lives and sacrifice health. . . .103 [:danger, health:J Under its provisions but a few thousand of the surviving veterans could ever receive a dollar a day, and it is so full of inequalities and unjust discrimination that it has received unstinted condemnation at the hands of the soldiers of the country,10h :fairness 97Ibid., 3466. 98Ibid. 99Ibid. 100161d., 3467. 1Ollbid. lozIbid. 1°3Ibid., 3468. loalbid. -187- The Sherwood bill, . . . will, . . . be a distinct and posi- tive proof of the gratitude of the Nation to its defenders.105 E gratitude: When pork-barrel approPriations are . . . made, . . . no Senator has ever thought of . . . calculating the . . . money . . . thus wasted during the last half century.105 c;honesty through its antithesisZ] Your interests are the same as the interests of those of us born under northern skies, and I would subject you to no pen— alties or burdens which I would not willingly share. My an- cestors, even to the first American generation, were born in old Virginia. My father having removed to the North long be- fore the Civil War, was a Douglas Democrat and for the Union, and yet, after the war was over, he so longed for the mountains and valleys of his native State that he returned there, and after a citizenship of 30 years, died at a ripe old age and peacefully sleegs in the bosom of the dear old State that he loved so well.1 7 :parental affection, common ties: In summary, Kern employs psychological appeals in references to the tone of the occasion, known audience attitudes, and in ideal- istic appeals to social consciousness in the introduction of the speech. The attention step is also included, introduced by the attention factors of startling statement and an appeal to selfish interests. The body of the speech utilizes the broad psychological ap- peals of fund of knowledge, appeal to social consciousness, known attitude, selfish interests, sectional status, and political con- sciousness. The need ste; in the motivated sequence is introduced in the first point of the body, and the satisfaction step begins where Kern moves from the historical narrative to the drawing of the analogy. The conclusion of the speech contains psychological appeals to sympathy and relief from anxiety, which are implied, but the strong- 106 1”Mid. Ibid., 3469. est appeal is made to social consciousness. The visualization step is represented chiefly by the illustration in the conclusion, while the action step is expressed in the final appeal. Suggestion is achieved in the speech through the extensive use of figurative language, and level of language usage. "Loaded" words and striking statements, and the rhythm of the style also contribute to suggestiveness. Specific psychologiCul appeals to the basic drives for food, shelter, clothing, and security are made, and almost of equal im- portance are the secondary appeals to shame, sympathy, loyalty and pride. of lesser importance are the specific psychological appeals to solution of audience problem, economy of effort, economy of time, economy of money, potential approval by others, ideal democratic Operation in representative government, respect for political prom- ises, charity, honor, patriotism, devotion to others, respect for Deity, worshipful respect, danger, health, fairness, gratitude, honesty, parental affection, and common ties. Style108 Force. Kern's style is characterized by force achieved through the choice of words. He uses short and specific words, the active voice, and emotional language. He does not practice the principle of brevity in the number of words used to express an idea, 108While following the classical tradition, modern terminol- ogy in the analysis and criticism of style is based upon Mills, 0 . gi£., pp. 267-310; Harry R. Warfel, Ernst G. Mathews and John C. Bushman, American College Egglish: A Handbook of Usage and Composi- tion (New York: American Book Company, l9h9); and John M. Kierzek, The MacMillan Handbook of English (3d ed.; New York: The MacMillan Company, l95h). -189- but instead he is copiously diffuse. However, the selection of the words within the sentences achieves the forceful expression of ideas deSpite the handicap of lack of brevity. Short and Specific words are not always used, but usually ap- pear in points of emphasis and major illustrations. The following examples illustrate the use of short and specific words, first in a major illustration and then in a point of emphasis. They can no longer work, but are trying to live on a pension of $16 per month. Half of that sum goes for the rent of an humble cottage; out of the other 38 per month must come food, fuel, clothing, medicines, and medical treatment. The cost of living is such that, of course, they can no longer live on that amount.109 They only ask that out of our abundance they be allowed a sum which will provide humble homes, beds on which to rest and to die, raiment that will protect their aged bodies from the cold, and food sufficient to sustain them in their declin- ing years. Who will grudge these old veterans a dollar a day? Their days for earning money are past. The road to the grave is a short one.110 The division between the active and passive voices in refer- ence to past events is about equal in the introduction and the first two main points of the speech, although the last three main points and the conclusion of the speech generally utilize the active voice. A major exception occurs in the fourth main point where the active voice is used in contrast to the passive voice during the argument by reductio ad absurdum. Even in this instance, the active voice is dominant. The example is taken from the fifth main point. If you say that you have patiently and uncomplainingly borne the burdens entailed by the war for nearly half a cen- 109 Record, 3470 . llolbid., 3u67. -190- tury, I agree with you, but remind you that we have carried our full share of the same burden and at the same time have contributed something to the develOpment of the new South, in every way so marvelous a transformation of a Nation laid waste by war into a rich, prosperous land that blossoms as the rose.111 ’ Emotional language is utilized throughout the Speech, but rises in frequency during the many summary appeals that are made at the conclusion of sub-points and main points. The following exam- ple is given without reference to the emotional devices employed since the stylistic devices will be dealt with a little later, and the psychological appeals have already received consideration. Who was there on that historic occasion to sound a note of discord by protesting against the tribute of the great orator because it was paid to all of the survivors? Who, on that great occasion, had it in his heart to say, "No, Webster, you are mistaken. In the rapidly thinning ranks of these old grey- haired soldiers there are men who faltered in the hour of dan- ger--men who served only months instead of years-~men who do not deserve to be honored by this peOple." There was no such thought in any mind, and the harmony of the occasion was not marred by such utterance, and no old soldier who heard that great oration returned to his home that day heavy of heart be- cause of any intimation that he Was less deserving than his comrades who had served longer or even better.112 In his selection of supporting details Kern achieves force by using figures of speech, recalling vivid experiences, develOping striking illustrations, making allusions and direct references to history, making allusions to the Bible and to tradition, using vivid description, pointing up a dramatic struggle, and by a COpious use of hyperbole. Figures of speech will be exemplified under the later discus- 113 sion of stylistic devices. Examples of the narration of vivid 111 112Ibid., 3467. Ibid., 3469. 113See pp. 193-202. -191- experiences have been previously cited; specifically, the experience . . . q 114 of the ViSits to the grave of the Revolutionary Jar veteran, and the eXperience of the state Democratic convention.115 Striking il- lustraLions are exemplified by the quoted materials from General Sherwood in the third main point, and by the several illustrations develOped in the argument by reductio ad absurdum contained in the fourth main point.116 Direct references and allusions to history are 117 seen in the second and third points of the introduction and in the contrast between Webster's oration and the treatment of Civil . . . 118 War veterans made in the second main p01nt. Allusions to the Bible are minor, but contribute to the emo- tional justification of the arguments advanced, as seen in these ex- amples: Did Webster on that historic day in that hallowed place stOp to draw a line of distinction between the old grey-haired veterans?ll Within that time hundreds of thousands of those brave men have answered their last roll call and have been called to their reward.120 If we have not the desire as patriots to do so, let us as a Christian peOple have compassion upon them.121 I know how you venerate the memories of the great leaders of the Confederacy, who with the great leaders of the Army of the Union have crossed the great river and are fraternizing on the farther shore.122 God forbid that in a rich Nation like this such a tra edy should be possible in the life of any of its defenders.l 3 11AM, 3467. 15.1.1111 ., 3%6. 11622i§-, 3u69. 117£Elg., 3h66. llBEEiQ°9 5h67-3h68. llg;gi§., 3h67. leoIbid. lellgig,, 3&68. 122 Ibid., 3u69. 123Ibid., 3470. -192- The major allusions to tradition are contained in Kern's ap- peal to the historical precedent of Webster's or: tion, L} and the appeal for southern senators to share mutually with the North the additional burden of the Sherwood pension (allusion to the southern tradition of generosity).125 The use of vivid description is best exemplified by Kern's description of the setting and occasion for .. . 126 . Nebster's oration, and also contains an excellent example of 127 dramatic struggle. Examples of hyperbole are found in abundance. In fact, Kern is guilty of intemp-erance in its use, which weakens its effectiveness in contributing to psychelo-bical appeals. For example, the exaggera— tions contained in the argument by reductio ed absurdum over-emphasize the bad government expenditures of the past, and cloud the real 128 point that denial of the Sherwood bill is misplaced economy. Sentence arrangement helps to achieve the forceful style de- spite Kern's weakness for run-on sentences. It helps, first of all, because Kern arranges hi1; sentences in an order of an ascending pat- tern from suspense to climax, with each pattern covering the devel— The introduction is a good example. It be— opment of a key idea. gins with a point of climax on "a pension bill that will settle the pension question for all time to come," descends to the suspense of seeming digression in the exposition of Indiana's state Democratic convention action, rises on the statement of sentiment unanimity in Indiana for the Sherwood pension to the point of climax on Kern's lZLPIbig.’ 3&67. See p. 190. lzslbid” 31169-3470. See p.184. 126Ibid., 3467. See pp. 186. 1‘27Ibid. 1281bid. , 3469. ,J “.1 V .7, -19}- declaration of bipartisan representation in his stand on the issue, and then repeats the pattern to the next point of climax in Kern's statement that the Sherwood pension is not extravagance when the claim is made on the basis of government obligation or on grounds of common humanity.129 The antithetical arrangement of the sentences in the argument by reductio ad absurdum in the fourth main point is a good example of force achieved by antithesis. Supporting and transitional state- ments within the antithetical arrangement are also good examples of the contrasting balance that contributes to the force of the 130 style. Kern employs compound-complex sentences almost to the ex- clusion of other kinds, and therefore, the lack of variety does not contribute to a forceful style. But the placing of key ideas in sentences apart from support materials is a distinct contribution. The following is an example: Measured by its dealings with other creditors, this Govern- ment has utterly failed to,carry out the plain pig‘iisions of 9 its contract with the soldiers of the Civil War. Emphasis is also given by Kern's practice of packing the less important supports and ideas into long paragraphs and sentences, and utilizing shorter paragraphs and sentences for the more important supports and ideas. Restatement and repetition of sentences are. also used, but with moderation. Two examples are cited as an indication of this 129Ibid . , 3465-3h66. \Ju 4;- O\ OH 1301 bid. , 31.69. 131mm. , -19u- moderation. No,no;tme war had ended #2 years before. It Was too late fin'diandmination then. The time had long gone by for nice discriminations. O Nr.¥%esident, the great war for the preserv tion of the Union ended 47 years ago. Fbrty-seven years h‘ve rolled by. O 0 C O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I C O . Kr.Ires'dent, I gr nt freely that there was a time when cfixmrimination would hrve been prOper. 132 Butedter the lapse of a half century it is too late. Busimaxsmen, as a rule, remained at home and made money while clerks and employees went to war. The first class had remained at home engaged in the pleasant pursuit of money making, while the second class had endured during all those long years all the privations incident to the greatest war of modern times.l33 The moderate use of restatement and repetition for emphasis is indi- cated by the fact that the first example immediately above covers a span of fifteen paragraphs, while the second example spans five par- agraphs. In summary, Kern's style is characterized by force through the use of effective word choice (short and specific words, the ac- tive voice, emotional language), prOper selection of supgorting de- tains (figures of Speech, vivid eXperiences, allusions and direct referenuwas to history, allusions to the Bible, vivid description, dramatic struggle, and hyperbole), and effective sentence arrange- ment (suspense and climax, antithesis and balance, separate sentences for key ideas, contrast in paragraph prOportion, restatement, and repetition). lBaIbid.,;fl67. 133Ibia., 3466. -195- Generally, Kern's style may also be characterized Accuracy. luracmnecy. While the length of the run-on sentences makes it cfiifimflt‘uafollow grammatical forms, it appears that Kern uses corrmfl;grmmmr within the limitation of common usage of the period. Thethe appeals of solution to audience problem, economy of effort, economy of time, economy of money, potential ap- proval by others, ideal democratic operation in representative gov- ernment, and others. Suggestion through figurative language, loaded words, level of language usage, and rhythm also contributes. Kern's attitude toward himself and toward his subject con- tribute to ethical appeals, but his attitude toward his audience is of little help. Personal identification with the issue, with ideals, with historical precedent, with the public, and with the audience also aid in some instances, as well as seeming objectivity. While characteristics of the speaker are ineydiaustiv'e of definition, the characteristics of character, fund of knowledge, past success, enthusiasm, self-confidence, opinion, eXperience, and tact are ex- pressed. The unexpressed characteristics of age, intelligence, political experience, and appearance and bearing also contribute to ethicalappealswlBut the chief factor is Kern's primary sincerity in the speech, which is based upon personal conviction on the issue. §£yl_. Kern's style is characterized by force achieved through the use of effective word choice, proper selection of sup- -21h— porting details, and effective sentence arrangement. Accuracy is achieved largely through precision in the denotative and connota- tive meanings of words used in the speech. Directness of the style is aided by Kern's adjustment in language to the southern senators, language suitability to the occasion, language suitability to Kern's personality, language suitability to the purpose and type of speech, personal pronouns, occasional questions, and approPriate illustra- tions. But the style calls attention to itself through the use of run-on sentences, exaggeration and poor euphony. Clarity of style is hampered by unnecessary amplification and reenforcement of ideas, and variety in sentence structure is minimized by the fondness for compound-complex sentences. However, some variety is obtained by ef- fective word choice, effective ordering of sentences and phrases, and the use of vivid and figurative language. Stylistic devices have been previously summarized, and another listing would accom- plish little. Those which are prominently featured include analogy, antithesis and contrast, personal pronouns, and acclamation. Using the classical definitions of levels of style, Kern exemplifies the grand style of the period in this particular speech. pelivery. While nothing specific is known about Kern's deliv- ery of the pension speech, certain general remarks may have been true of this speech. His physical bearing was relaxed but in good taste. His delivery was characterized as being simple, direct, and conversational. While he was fluent and sincere, he was not robust or flamboyant. He did not speak in the Hoosier regional accent, and his articulation and pronunciation were considered good. Response. The response to the speech may be characterized as -215- unfavorable in the case of his immediate audience but favorable in the case of the reported reactions from his remote audience. -216- CHAPTER V A RHEEORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SPEECH IN FAVOR OF THE MINORITY RESOLUTION ON SENATOR LORIMER OF ILLINOIS The Issue Chronological history of the Lorimer issue. william Lorimer was elected to the United States Senate by the Illinois state legisla- ture on may 26, 1909, and within a year his right to that elective office was being challenged by charges of corruption in his election by the legislature. The following chronolOgical table briefly summa- rizes the events of this issue as it passed through its early develop- ment in Illinois through its conclusion following two investigations by the senate. may 26, 1909 -- Lorimer elected by Republican and democratic votes to the United States denate April 30, 1910 -— nap. C. A. White confessed he received $1,000 from Lee O'Neill Browne for voting for Lorimer and $900 from Rep. R. d. Wilson as his share of general corruption fund may 5, 1910 -- Rep. H. J. Beckmeyer confessed to receiving $1,000 for his vote Lmy 6, 1910 -— cook county grand jury indicted browns for bribery, and Wilson and dep. L. B. Link for perjury may 7, 1910 —— Link confessed receiving wl,000 for his vote fiery 28, 1910 - Lorimer made speech in senate denying bribery and charging "conSpiracy." State Sen. Holstlaw confessed he received $2,500 for voting for Lorimer June 29, 1910 —- Browne jury in Chicago disagreed September 9, 1910 -- Second Browne jury acquitted defendant -217- September 20, 1910 -- Investigation committee of the U.S. Senate began work in Chicago October 29, 1910 -- Attorney Erbstein indicted on charge of bribing Juror Grant McCutcheon December 12, 1910 -- U.S. Senate subcommittee exonerated Lori- mer reporting charge not substantiated December 17, 1910 -- Erbstein jury disagreed January 9, 1911 —- Minority of the U.S. Senate committee, led by Sen. Beveridge, reported to senate its conclusion that Lorimer was not legally elected January 22 to February 28, 1911 -- Lorimer case debated in U.S. Senate March 1, 1911 -- U.S. Senate by a vote of ho-AU permitted Lori- mer to retain his seat April 6, 1911 -- Sen. LaFollette introduced resolution to re- open Lorimer case in senate May 18, 1911 -- Illinois state senate by vote of 39—10 declared its belief that Lorimer was sleeted by bribery and corruption June 7, 1911 -- Senate ordered Lorimer investigation by special committee January 8, 1912 -- Testimony by Lorimer and Detective Burns be- gan before special committee in Washington February 9, 1912 -- Testimony by Lorimer and Burns ends March 28, 1912 -- Special senate committee voted 5-3 in exone- ration of Lorimer and Edward Hines April 6, 1912 -- Hines, as witness before senate committee, de- nied Funk's testimony and afterward sued Funk for $100,000 damages may 20, 1912 -- senate received majority report signed by Sena- tors Dillingham, Jones, Fletcher, Johnston, and Gamble exonerating Lorimer, and minority report signed by Senators Kern, Kenyon, and Lea recome mending his seat be declared vacantl 1Fort wgyge Journal-Gazette, July 1A, 1912, p. 1. -218- Senate action_in the second investigation. 0n April 6, 1911, Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin introduced a resolution into the senate calling for the reopening and reinvestigation of the election of Senator William.Lorimer. The resolution was subsequently approved, and a committee appointed to conduct the investigation.2 For 102 days the committee listened to a parade of witnesses that included all types of men, from leaders of government to bar- tenders. However, shortly'after the hearings began it became apparent that there was a sharp division of opinion among the committee members. Kern and Senators William S. Kenyon of Iowa and Luke Lea of Tennessee were fimufly'convinced of Lorimer's guilt, while Senators Nilliam.P. Dillingham of Vermont, Wesley L. Jones of Hashington, Duncan U. Fletcher of Florida, Joseph F. Johnston of Alabama, and Hobart J. Gamble of South Dakota subscribed to Lorimer's innocence.3 During the committee hearings, the examination of witnesses called by the committee and the cross-examination of witnesses brought before the committee by Lorimerrmnwaconductcd largely by Kern, henyon and Lea with Kern the most active.h After the hearings closed, the three senators round that the inactivity of their committee colleagues during the hearings was also to apply to the filing or a report. The hearings closed on February 9, 1912, and it was not until May twentieth 2Ibid.; and Claude G. Bowers, The Life of John Worth Kern (Indianapolis: The Hollenbeck Press, 1918), p. 228. 3Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, July 11., 1912, p. 1; and Bowers, op. cit., pp. 229 and 232. thid., p. 235; U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee to Investi- gate the Election of William Lorimer, Election of William Lorimer: Hearings Pursuant to S.R. 60, senate doc. 484, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., vols 10-24, 1912. -219- that the insistence of the minority was able to force the filing of a report.5 When the committee had met to draw up the report on March twenty-seventh, all of the resolutions offered by the minority met with failure by the predetermined vote of five to three. There was nothing left for the minority to do, but to file a minority report.6 The majority report was a lengthy, argumentative document which made two main points. First, the majority felt that the senate in this action constituted a judicial body bound by judicial prece- dents, and, therefore, was without power to recall this case before the senate because it had already received prior adjudication (res adjudicata) before the senate in the previous investigation. Second, they argued that beyond this no new evidence of any significance had been uncovered by this second investigation.7 The minority report, on the other hand, was a comparatively brief document of twenty-two pages. It vigorously expressed its dissent from the majority by briefly reviewing the evidence placed before the committee, and then by stating: "Believing that the confession of the members of the legislature, strengthened by corroborating circumstances and by other evidence relating to the members of the legislature who did not confess, establish conclusively not only that at least ten members were purchased for the purpose of eleCting William Lorimer to the senate, but that the record reeks and 5Bowers, op. cit., pp. 238-239. 61bid. , pp. 239-241. 7Ibid., p. 243; U.S., congress, Senate, Committee to Investi- gate the Election of William Lorimer, gloation of William.Lorimer: Re rt Senate Report 769, Part 1, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., vol. C., pp. I- 2, May 20, 1912. (Hereinafter referred to as Lorimer Report.) who Lea -220— teems with evidence of a general scheme of corruption, we have no hesitancy in stating that the investigation eatab- lishes beyond contradiction that the eleCtion of William Lorimer was obtained by corrupt means and was therefore invalid, and we submit the following resolution: "Resolved, That corrupt methods and practices were em? ployed in the election of William.Lorimer to the senate of the United States from.the state of Illinois, and that his election.was therefore invalid."8 Kern's role in the issue to this point is indicated by Senator of the minority in the committee, and by John Uallan U'Laughlin was the washington correspondent for the Chicagogggily Tribune. believed that: "Senator Kern was a dominating force in that part of the Lorimer committee that resulted in the full investigation of the case. The committee was intended by some to be a white wash and it was Kern's determination to prevent that. His insight into human nature and knowledge of men enabled us to extricate from unwilling witnesses incidents in Illinois politics which gave color and meaning to much teatimony that would otherwise have been barren of significance. Again Senator Kern's tact prevented much friction in the committee that might have resulted in outbursts that would have diverted attention from the main issue -- the guilt or innocenCe of lorimer. Again hern's droll and ridiculing sense of humor so discomfited many of the witnesses that they could not adhere to their prepared testimony." O'Laughlin, whose paper held a vital interest in the successful prose- cution of Lorimer, comnented: "His conduct in connection with the Lorimer case in itself justifies the country in holding up his memory to remind future generations of what they owe him. "Mr. Kern, when he began his duty as a member of the Lorimer investigating committee -- it was a distasteful duty -- realized as did we all that the country stood at the parting of the ways. Whether corruption was to continue in connection with the eleCtion of United States senators or whether the people were to be given an Opportunity to have their own representatives in the upper house was the question 8Bowers, op. cit., p. 21.2; and Lorimer Repgrt, Part 2, pp. llB-llh- 9Bowers, op. cit., p. 244. -221- he was called upon to investigate and determine. 1 know the pressure that was brought to bear upon him directly, indirectly, openly and insiduously, and I know that he stood up against it with that wholehearted courage which he mani- fested in other matters he faced. "As a member of the investigating committee it was Mr. Kern's cross-examination which frequently brought out points that even members of the committee were endeavoring to cover up. If he had not been on the committee, I hesitate to say what the result might have been."10 The stage was now set for the second senate debate on the Lorimer election. Senator Beveridge of Indiana had been the major speaker for the minority in the previous debate, and Kern was chosen to carry the prosecution banner in this second debate. The debate opened on June fourth with Kern beginning his remarks. He spoke again on June fifth, and again on June seventh and eighth. On June eighth the senate agreed by unanimous consent to vote on the Lorimer question on July sixth. The agreement was made after a full meeting of the investigating committee had taken place. Senator Lea requested the delay in the voting because it was necessary for him to be absent from.the senate during the immediate future due to the serious illness of his father. The supporters of Lorimer were quick to agree to the request since the time interval involved would ease the public pressure in favor of Lorimer's expulsion.ll On July sixth the debate was resumed with Senator Dillingham speaking for over three hours in support of Lorimer. He did nOt com, plete his remarks before relinquishing the floor to Senator Porter McCumber of North Dakota who also spoke in favor of Lorimer. Senator -”- -- 1°1bid., pp. 244-249. llNew York Times, July 9, 1912, p. 11. -222- Henry L. layers of ...ontana then spoke for the remainder of the afternoon in refutation of the remarks of Dillingham and LicCumber, and in support of the minority resolution asking for Lorimer's expulsion.12 On July eighth Senator Dillingham continued his remarks in support of Lorimer. He spoke four hours without concluding, and then turned the floor over to Senator Duncan U. Fletcher of Florida who spoke for two hours and fifteen minutes in support of Lorimer without concluding either.13 Senator Fletcher concluded his remarks on July ninth, followed by Senator Dillingham who also concluded before the end of the session. Since Senator Lorimer was not prepared to offer the concluding argu- ment at that time, the senate recessed until the next day.14 Senator Joseph F. Johnston of Alabama spoke with few interrup- tions in support of Lorimer on July tenth, and was followed by Senator Wesley L. Jones of 'washington who was frequently interrupted. At a number of points in the speech these interruptions took on the prOpor- tions of extensive general debate involving several senators. The senate recessed after approximately seven hours devoted to these two Speeches and the accompanying debate.15 Senator John R. Thornton of Louisiana continued the debate on 1206., Congressional Record, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., 1912, XLVIII, Part 9, 8671-8682. (Hereinafter referred to as m.) 131333., 8685-8696. 14M” 8723-8771.. 15933., 8812-8849. -223- July eleventh as the final supporting speaker for Lorimer. Senator Lea, followed by Senator James A. Reed of hissouri, then spoke in favor of the minority resolution. It is significant to note that six major addresses were made in.support of Lorimer, while only three relatively short speeches were made in further support of Kern's speech on the position of the minority. Lorimer now took the floor in his own defense, but did not conclude before the senate adjourned for the day.16 Lorimer spoke for five hours on July twelfth without concluding his defense. His only interruptions were two occasions of support by Senator Jones and Senator Dillingham, and for a mid-afternoon recess prOposed by Senator Shoot.17 On July thirteenth Lorimer concluded his remarks. Two short explanations of votes followed, and then the senate proceeded to vote on the minority resolution. It was adopted, and Senator Lorimer's election to the senate was invalidated by a vote of fifty-five to twenty-eight.18 Preparation19 Knowledge of Kern's specific preparation for this speech is not as limited as in the case of his other senate addresses. hern lfimm,%&swr 17Ibid 0 ’ 8936‘89159 0 13Ibid., 8968-8987. 19The method of rhetorical criticism is identical to that outlined in chapter four. See chap. iv, pp. 1A1-lh2. -224- approached the task of preparation with a basic thesis well in mind. It closely follows his original theory which he adhered to during the investigation: Edward Hines, interested in the lumber schedule of the Payne- Aldrich bill and lobbying in Hashington, was urged by Aldrich and Penrose to help hurry a new Republican vote into the senate from.Illinois to help out in the tariff fight. After conferen- ces it was agreed that Lorimer should be the choice, and Hines undertook to put the agreement into effeCt. He financed the fight for Lorimer. The money was used through the management of Lee O'Neill Browne, the clever leader of the majority wing of the Democrats in the lower house of the legislature, and with the knowledge of Lorimer. He [Kern] was absolutely positive that the wholesale defection of the Democrats to Lorimer could only have been the result of corrupt influence because the eleCtion of a reactionary Republican senator might, in view of the conditions surrounding the tariff fight in the senate, determine a national policy to which Democrats were elementally opposed and upon which they had made their campaign one year before. Had these Democrats gone to a Republican who would vote with Dolliver and Beveridge he might not have been so sure. Going to Lorimer, he was pre- disposed to the belief that money had been used. The months of testimony and inquiry only served to strengthen that predisposition and add what Kern believed to be indisputable new evi- dence of Lorimer's guilt.21 Thus, Kern came to his task of preparation firmly convinced of Lorimer's guilt. His task was largely the role of chief prosecutor, while the senate sat as jury and judge in proceedings which were some— what analOgous to an impeachment. As a prosecutor before a high court, it was his task to open the debate on the committee reports and review the evidence upon which the minority based their conclusion of Lori— mer's guilt. ZOBowers, op. cit., pp. 235-236. ZlIbido’ pp. 239-2430 -225- Reviewing the testimony would not be an easy task. One hundred eighty witnesses had appeared in 102 days and had filled 8,588 pages with testimony. This was Kern's first task in preparation. His training and skill as a lawyer helped him.to get immediately to the essentials, but it was still necessary for him to review the greater part of the testimony in order to obtain necessary facts and proper authority. Several days were spent in this task of going through the testimony and jotting down notes on scrap paper. Kern wrote out the major part of his speech in his room.at Congress Hall during the week preceding its delivery. It was at this point that this speech takes on some unusual aspects. The "speech" was delivered before the senate in four "parts" on four separate days. He prepared each day's presentation separately, and no succeeding part was prepared before the delivery of the prepared part. In fact, he was working on each part right up to the time for its delivery, and almost none of the manuscript was typewritten.22 The separate preparations and separate deliveries of four parts over four days would indicate that there are aetually four speeches dealing with segments of a general subject. Yet, Kern con— sistently refers to his remarks as a continuous address, implying a single speech. However, an examination of the text reveals that the remarks on three of the four days bear no relationship to each other, other than that each is concerned with the same general subjeCt. This is most clearly illustrated by the fact that Kern is chiefly concerned on the first day with refuting an argument raised by Lorimer supporhas, 221bid., p. 246. -226- while on the second day he proceeds to develop the background for his entire "speech." Thus, it seems quite clear that the "parts” of the "speech" are actually at least three separate, but related, speeches. The speech delivered on the first day was selected for detailed analysis as being representative of Kern's speaking on the issue since the length of his total effort on the issue defies adequate examina- tion except as the subject of an entire study; Textual Authenticity The text of the four speeches, including the one to be examined in detail, was taken from.the Congressional Record since the original manuscript was not preserved. Its accuracy was checked again3t the quotations from the delivery of the speech which appeared in various newspapers. The primary check was made against the stenOgraphic report of all four speeches which was carried by the Chicago Dgily Tribune. The report contained almost all of the remarks made by Kern during the four days, and the check revealed only minor word devia— 23 tions from.the text found in the Congressional Record. Immediate Setting and Occasion Kern, of course, had become the spokesman for the minority on the basis of his leadership in the inveSLigating committee. His chief Opponents in the debate which was forthcoming would be Dillingham, 23Chicago Daily Tribune, June 9', 1912, p. 1, June 6, 1912, p. I, June 8, 1912, p. A, and June 9, 1912, p. a; Kokomo Dispatch, June 9, 1912, p. 1; Indianapolis News, June 4, 1912, p. 1, June 5, 1912, p. 1; Indianapolis Sun, June A, 1912, p. 11, and Indianapglis Star, June 5, 1912, p. 2, June 6, 1912, p. 2, June 7, 1912, p. h, and June 8, 1912, p. 3. -227- Jones and Lorimer. Their defense of Lorimer would be based first of all on the plea of res adjudicata (the case had received prior adjudi- cation). However, senate opinion was in Kern's favor. In a poll re- leased by Vice—President James Sherman on June second, senate opinion was divided 95 to 38 in favor of ousting Lorimer.24 Lorimer's support- ‘1 ' ' ' I ~. ’ ' o ' " ' I r \‘o “an ' P;‘~‘/~,‘~ ‘. r “‘ . . -‘-- d“ 7) .- . 'r , ~‘r " .. -. - -~ - . .- -~ » 6‘0, 41- ‘U;.LJ.LJJ.;-Q ., .. 1‘- ---.'"‘ -- v‘ .af-l‘ J" 3.1. ’1... _ .. . \- 3-0.: ‘ " ,9‘JZC-f. \‘r - P. L - .f v . .x, -9 . , ' J ' '- a ‘ z | j 1 - A (‘1 as . - . H - -. I to get o.imtr .0 ice- n, are L: htti .1 1101. 1"ia::;3,;:: 3-1". dis Kern's first speech was given on June fourth. Lorimer mani- fested his attitude against resigning by introducing several resolu- tions and bills during the morning hour of the session. After the usual morning business, the minority resolution of the Lorimer inves- tigation committee was called up, and Kern rose to speak. Lorimer sat a few feet away from Kern in the seat usually occupied by Senator hoses E. Clapp or hinnesota. Behind Lorimer Was Jones, and Dillingham was seated a few chairs from him. Nearly every Democratic senator was present to hear Kern and observe how he would act in his firSt full- scale senate debate as a major participant.2O There was also a large gallery audience.27 Kern made his second speech on June fifth. It seems likely that there were fewer senators present in the chamber. Lorimer sat across the aisle from.hern, and Senator George E. Chamberlain of 2[“t‘hicago Daily Tribune, June 3, lyl2, p. l. 251bid., June 9, 1912, p. 1. Zélbid. 27lndianapolis News, June a, 1912, p. l. -228— Oregon sat near hern. Prior to Kern's speech Lorimer attracted atten— tion by crossing the aisle and shaking hands with Kern. Chamberlain rose and said to Lorimer, "I suppose that you.mu3t think each or us who is going to vote against you is a devil of a fellow." "Not at all," replied Lorimer. "I don't think so at all.ll The three men talked with each other in a friendly fashion for about five minutes before Lorimer returned to his seat.28 The size of the gallery audi- ence is nOt known. The third speech was made on June seventh and eighth. The Chicago Daily Tribune reported that "the senators evidently nave made up their minds and the speeches are not expeCted to change any v0tes." The case had become one "of going through the appropriate motions and cf waiting for the end." The Tribune regarded it as "doubtful that Lorimer will have the v0te cf 1) of the 9) senators if the question should ever go to a roll call."29 Kern's audience consiSted mainly of senators who had taken oxfice since the conclusion of the firSt inve3tigation and who had not heard the case discussed. The other senators remained within calling diStance in the clean rooms, in case the absence 01 a quorum should be suggeSted. Lorimer remained in the 3U chamber in a seat on the center aisle. 28Chicago Daily iribune, June 0, lylz, p. 1; Indianapolis news, June 9, 1912, p. l; and Indianapolis Star, dune o, 1912, p. 2. ”Chicago Daily_‘1‘ribune, June 8, 19.1.2, p. 4. 3Ulbid. -229- Arrangement31 Introduction. Kern begins his address by stating his purpose: I shall content myself by giving to the Senate as briefly and concisely as I can my views on the single question of law presented in the case, and as plainly and as briefly'as I can I shall present to the Senate the salient points in this vast volume of testimony, as I conceive them to be salient points, with the sole view of informing Senators respecting the evi- dence adduced at the hearings.3 In the second point of the introduction he expresses his own feelings of unpleasantness for the task that faced him in the speech. however, he justifies his acceptance of the taSk in the third point on the basis of the momentous questions involved in the case. The fourth point of the introduction serves as the major transition between the introduction and body by introducing his specific subject. Aside from this wholly adequate major transition, the transitions between the points of the introduction are largely accomplished by the salutation "Er. President," and the transitional words ”but," "now,” and "before." Therefore, the introduction accomplishes three funCLions within its four points; it announces and limits hern's purpose in addressing the senate, it establishes the rationale for his speech, and it introduces his specific subject. Body. Kern analyzes the problem posed by the plea of res adjudicata by examining the events leading up to and surrounding that 31The method and sources used for the analysis and criticism of arrangement are the same as those used in chap. iv. See chap. iv, p. 153, no. 3U. Excerpts from the speech, utilized as examples, are sometimes repeated in different parts of this section and other sections of the chapter to illustrate different lactors of rhetorical analysis. 32Record, Part 8, 7994. -230- plea. In analyzing the problem he cites the apprOpriate legal bases and precedents. The criteria for solution to the problem are expressed within the analysis. They include (I) if the senate has the power under the Constitution to reinvestigate a case, then the plea of res adjudicate must fail. (2) If the previous investigation was incomplete, then the case ought to be reopened. (3) If the case was reopened, then the plea itself is res adjudicata. (4) If there is new evidence, then the case ought to be reopened. (5) If the honor and integrity of the senate is threatened, then the case ought to be reopened. (6) If the result of permitting the plea will be confusion and bewilderment by inaction, and derision by the peOple, then the plea should not be permitted. The central idea of the speech is not concisely expressed by Kern, but the Speech incorporates the theme that the plea of res adjudicate should not be permitted because it comes too late, and because the senate possesses sufficient reason and authority above and beyond the plea to reopen the Lorimer case. Three main points are made in the body of the speech: (1) the senate has the power under the Constitution to reOpen the case, \2) the case ought to be reopened because there is new evidence in the case, and \3) the case ought to be reOpened regardless of the plea of res adjudicata. major supports, or sub-points, for each main point range from.three to four in number. The logical development of the Speech is largely inductive, moving within each main point from the specific to the general. Refu— tation supported by argument is used in the develOpment of each main -23 1... point. The following excerpt from.the subStance outline indicates the kind and means of IOgical develOpment. I. The senate has the power under the Constitution to reopen the case A. The senate acted under this authority in the case of Lorimer 8° The Constitution gave the senate this power so it would be unfettered by judicial decisions or prece— dents U- The plea of res adjudicata not heard until hearings had ended D. If the power of the senate under the Constitution to reinvestigate a case for any reason is conceded, then the plea of res adjudicata must fail II. The case ought to be reopened because there is new evi- dence in the case A. The former investigation was incomplete B. The majority contended that new evidence would have justified reconsideration of the case C. If there is new evidence, then the case ought to be reopened III. The case ought to be reopened regardless of the plea of res adjudicata A. The principle of res adjudicata is the same now as it was when the senate voted to reopen the investigation B. If the plea of res adjudicata applies, why were the majority report participants ready to volunteer for a useless task C. If the plea is permitted, the decision will meet with derision of the senate from.the people of the country The transition between the first and second main points con- sists of a summary of some of the arguments contained in the first point. The time for a plea of former adjudication was when the Senate was considering the queStion as to whether the case should be reinvestigated. After acquiescing in that action --aye, taking part in that action-—and, without objection or proteSt, taking part in the proceedings before the comp mittee, using the process of the Government in procuring the attendance of his witnesses before the committee at public expense, it is now too late for Senator LORIIJR to be permitted to urge this remarkable defense.33 331bid., 7595. -232- The only introductory transition to the second point is furniShed by the salutation, "Hr. President." No transition is used to bridge the gap between the second and third main point. Thus, the transition between the first two main points of the speech is abrupt, as can be illustrated by the following: ...it is now too late...to urge this remarkable defense. hr. President, I do not know what prompted other Senators to vote for a reinvestigation of this case.3 The following excerpt illustrates the lack of transition between the second and third main points: These things which I have juSt enumerated I propose in a subsequent part of this address to show. [End of second main point] Beginning of third min point] byery member of the majority of this committee is a lawyer of experience and ability.3 With the exception of a summary appeal similar to that previously cited, the transitions between sub—points and supports consist large'y of short conneCting words and phrases. Examples of such transitions are: "Mr. President," "and also," "but,” "if," "then," "and here," "and yet," "although," and "yet." Internal and external summaries appear to be entirely adequate When the length of the speech is considered. in example of each follows: Whatever the causes that existed for ordering the rein- vestigation, it was ordered; that order was acted on; the new investigation has been.made, Senator Lorimer freely and without protest participating in it; and the report of the committee is here for final disposition. It will be quite apparent to lawyers that this plea comes too late, if it 34Ibid. 351b1d., 7596. -233- ever could have been made. The plea itself is res adjudi- cata .30 [external sunmaryj The confessions of seckmeyer and Holstlaw and Link were repudiated by the Senate, in speecnes made on the floor of this body, for the sole reason that they had been coerced into making them by methods intolerable in a civilized coun- try. And yet, sir, the prosecuting officers charged with the employment of these methods were not asked a single word on the sub’ect as to whether or not the charges were well grounded.3 {internal summary: The structural wholeness of the speech is maintained largely by the fact the speech is concerned with the refutation of a single argument advanced by the Opposition. hithin that framework, there is little danger of that unity being weakened. Certainly, the lack of a transition between the second and third main points tends to disrupt the easy flow of ideas, but the singleness of purpose prevents this from becoming a major point of concern. The psychOIOgical arrangement of the speech also works for unity within the speech, but cannot be identified as an example of the motivated sequence. In this speech Kern employs repetition Of a con— stant theme as a psychological means of achieving unity. The following excerpts from the speech illustrate the develOpment of that theme: I do not propose to discuss this question at length, because a majority of the Members of this body are lawyers by profession and those who are not are men of affairs, n0t H likely to be misled by this eleventh-hour technical defense.30 The time for a plea of formal adjudication was when the Senate was considering the queStion as to whether the case should be reinvestigated. After acquiescing in that action 36Ibid. 37Ibid. 381bid., 7594. -234- --aye, taking part in that aCtion--and, without objeCLion or protest, taking part in the proceedings before the com- mittee, using the process of Government in procuring the attendance of his witnesses before the committee at public expense, it is now tee late for Senator LORIHER to be per— mdtted to urge this remarkable defense.39 Whatever the causes that existed for ordering the rein- vestigation, it was ordered; that order was aeted on; the new inveStigation has been made, Senator LORIMdfl freely and without protest participating in it; and the report of the committee is here for final disposition. It will be quite apparent to lawyers that this plea comes too late, if it ever could have been made. The plea is res adjudicata.40 If it is the law now that the Senate was without power to reopen and cause the reinvestigation of the case, it was without power on the 7th of June, 1911, and it muSt have been known to every lawyer in this body, including the members of the investigating committee. Gentlemen, this charge is too serious and this evidence too strong for the course of justice to be thwarted by this miserable technical defense which was born out of the travail of the closing scenes of the committee's hearings. Thus, in examining the body of the speech, Kern analyzes the problem posed by the plea of res adjudicata by examining the events leading up to and surrounding the plea, and six criteria for solution to the problem are expressed within the analysis. The central idea of the speech is that the plea of res adjudicata should not be permitted because it comes too late, and because the senate possesses sufficient reason and authority above and beyond the plea to reopen the case. Each of the three main points are supported by three or four sub- points, and their lOgical development is largely inductive. wefutation supported by argument is the means of development in each case. Tran- sitions between main points are inadequate, but the transitions between 39l§iQ-, 7999- hUlbiQ., 7990. hilbia. 42Ibid., 799v. sub-points and supports (consisting largely of conneCting words and Phrases; help maintain the easy flow of ideas. The chief contribu— tions to structural wholeness, however, are made oy internal and ex- ternal summaries, the singleness or hern's purpose, and the repetitive theme in the psycLCIOgicwl arrangement of the speech. Conclusion. The conclusion of the speech contains two ele— ments; an abbreviated summary appeal, and a word of explanation. Gentlemen, this charge is too serious and this evidence too strong for the course of justice to be thwarted by this miserable technical derense which was born out of the tra— vail of the closing scenes of the committee's hearings. hr. President, having concluded this part of my speech, as I have been indisposed all the forenoon, I should like to continue my remarks tomorrow. The conclusion is not a strong one, nor is it necessary for it to be strong in this case. Kern had just completed prior to the summary an extensive ridicule of the defense of res adjudicata, and anything that would follow this ridicule would of necessity be either anti-climax or an incongruity. The presence of the summary as the last point in the psychological arrangement of the speech also makes anything stronger seem unnecessary. :immniy'of arrangement. The introduction of the speech accom- plishes three functions within its four points; it announces and limits Kern's purpose in addressing the senate, it establishes the rationale for his Speech, and it introduces his specific subject. The body of the speech is concerned with the inductive development of the central idea, that the plea of res adjudicata should not be permitted, in three main points through refutation supported by argument. The A31bid. .J‘rl. ..:| . in! . Tut“. . -236- conclusion of the speech consists of an abbreviated summary appeal and a word of explanation. Structural unity is maintained in the speech chiefly through internal and external summaries, the singleness of Kern's purpose, and the repetitive theme in the psycholOgical arrange- ment. Invent ion“ Legical appeals. As has been previously stated, the logical develOpment of the speech is largely inductive, moving within the main points from the specific to the general. Causal argument and argument from.sign constitute the chief means of lOgical development. Specifically, in the first point of the introduction Kern is simply stating his purpose, and argument is not involved. His second point is developed by exposition of his personal feelings toward his task. However, his third point is developed by sign reasoning. hern discovers signs of the gravity of the case and the momentous questions involved in the preconceived opinions of the committee, the thorough— ness of the investigation, and the present diversity of opinion arising out of the investigation. In the fourth point of the introduction Kern states his specific subject and intent as a means of introducing the body of the speech. The first main point of the speech utilizes causal argument in establishing a relation between the power of the senate under the AhThe.method and sources used for the analysis and criticism of invention are the same as those used in chap. iii, p. 162, no. 38. -237- Constitution to judge the qualifications, returns and.elections of its members \cause), and four effects of that power in the cas of Lorimer. The four effects constitute all but one of the sub—points of the first main point. The first effect, that the senate acted under this authority, is an observable fact. The second point alleges a cause for the Constitution's granting this power to the senate (to keep the senate free from judi- cial precedents and decisions so that each case could be decided on its own merits), turning the main point momentarily into an effect. However, the third sub-point returns the main point back into its role as a cause by establishing the effect that the plea of res adjudicata was not heard until after the investigation was completed. Thus, Kern implies that the plea was not made prior to this because the Lorimer supporters were aware that the senate did have power to reinvestigate the case. Sign reasoning is employed within the supports : —. a, .-.—° .L : —. w JJLJ'VUU... ;:_o...011. some Q (L! ofiflmasub—yoint to indicate lorimer's assent to th of the signs given by Kern are that Lorimer appeared in person and by counsel before the committee, that he cross—examined witnesses, and that he called witnesses in his own defense without mentioning the plea of res adjudicata. Sign reasoning is also employed in the second support of the sub-point where Kern cites the committee's expenditure of $50,000 on the investigation as a sign of their disbelief in the plea of res adjudicata. The fourth sub-point, or effeCt, states that if the power of the senate to reinvestigate a case is conceded Kcause), then the plea or res adjudicata must fail \effect). Kern utilizes argument from -238— comparison in its develOpment. He compares the cause—effect relation— ship between the granting of a new trial in a civil action and the subsequent reopening of the case for a complete investigation, with the senate action in the Lorimer case of reopening it to a complete investigation. The fifth sub-point utilizes causal argument in summarily indicating the causes for the effect \that it is too late for Lorimer to be permitted this defense). Among the causes indicated are that the plea should have been made at the time the senate was considering reinvestigating the case, that Lorimer participated in the investiga- tion, and that he utilized committee powers and funds to summon wit- nesses in his own behalf. The second main point uses causal argument to establish a relationship between the effect that the case was reopened, and its causes as expressed by the sub-points. The first cause is that the former investigation had been incomplete. Sign reasoning is employed to indicate that the failure of the previous committee to question the accused county prosecutor is a sign of the incompleteness of the in- vestigation. Causal argument is employed in the second support to tie the argument contained in this first sub—point of the second main point to the summary argument contained in the lifth sub—point of the first main point which is reiterated in this second support. The second sub-point is simply evidence of fact quoted by Kern to indicate that the majority report consents to the fact that new evidence would be justification for reOpening the Lorimer case in spite of the plea of res adjudicata. Kern's interpolation within the -239- quotation is classed as ridicule of inconsistency in the stand of the majority on the plea of res adjudicata, while adnitting in the same breath their willingness to ignore the plea of res adjudicata if sig— nificant new evidence had been found in the case. The second cause, that there is new evidence in the case, is then expressed in the third sub-point. Argument by condition, the only inStance of deductive argument, is used in building the conten— tion of the existence of new evidence on the assumptions of the audi- ence that certain elements of the investigation contain new evidence. Kern utilizes a "scatter-gun" approach in reaching these assumptions on the part of the audience. A running analysis of this argument follows . If there has been new evidence which intended to impeach the title of the sitting Lember, I assume they Lthe majority of the con'mzittee] would agree that the case ought to be re- Opened and that the Senate ought to act upon the report. [Granted on the basis of the evidence cited in the second sub-point.) I assume that if the new evidence discovered fortified or confirmed the evidence already introduced the same rule would obtain. [Granted on the basis of the accept- ance of the first conditionfi] [The following are dependent upon the assumptions made by the audience in the casezr If, then, it be shown in this evidence new and old, that four malefaCtors have confessed participation in the corruption charged; if it be shown that these men were corrupted by Lee O'Neill Browne and his accredited agent, Robert E. wilson; if it be shown that Lee O'Neill Browne was the aetive and duly accredited agent of Senator LORILER; if by the new evidence or by the new and old the relationship be- tween hhite and Browne and LORIHER has been traced and shown to have continued until very nearly'the time of the exposure, and if it be further shown that Browne and LORIMER attempted to quiet White by providing him, a Democrat, with an appoint— ment in a Republican county office in Chicago; if it be shown that Senator LORIKER'S interest in Browne continued to be such that he paid 310,000 out of his own funds to aid in his de- fense in a case where his guilt was unmistakable; if it be shown that about the time of the payment of the corruption money to Uhite, Beckemeyer, link, and Holstlaw, a number of other Democratic members who had betrayed their people in the -240- matter, were exhibiting almost simultaneously in various parts or the State $100 bills which they had in their pos— session and ror which they were unable to account; i: cir- cumstances have multiplied since the former hearing dispel- ling all doubt as to the bribery of Holstlaw and the other com‘essing malei'actors, El‘he acceptance 01' the following, the argument, is dependent upon the acceptance or one or more of the conditions set forth in the preceding part or the sentence;] then, according to the report of the majority, the honor and integrity or the Senate would demand affirma- tive action regardless of the deiense or res adjudicata. These things which I have just enumerated I propose in a subsequent part or this address to show.49 Causal argument is utilized in the third main point to estab- lish a relationship between the effect that the case was reopened regardless o: the plea or res adjudicata, and three causes that correspond to the three sub-points. The firSt sub-point, that the plea of res adjudicata is the same now as it was when the senate re- opened the case, is eatablis.ed by causal argument. in example or the use of the enthymeme, the only one neted, is round in the Iirst sup- port . Every member of the majority or this committee is a lawyer 01 experience and ability. do every such member, in common with every lawyer in the country, is entirely Iamilia with the law or res adjudicata.“b Sign reasoning is employed in the last support to indicate that the vote or the Senator Irom,Vermont kprobably Senator Dillingham) for the reinvestigation is a sign or a prior conviction that the law or res adjudicata did nOt apply in cases of this kind. hern also poses a dilemma lor Dillingham in any Luture explanation he may have about how it is possible for him to support the plea or res adjudicata when he 451bid., 79/0. z"ibis. _241_ v0ted lor the reopening of the case Iully aware 01 the existence of such a plea. The second and third sub-points are eStablished from argument by reductio ad absurdum. The causes (or sub-pointS) contribULing to the efiect, that the case ought to be reopened regardless 01 the plea or res adjudicata, are; why were senators ready to take on a useless task i1 they believed in the plea or res adjudicata, and if the plea o; res adjudicata is permitted it will meet with the derision or the people. Senators supporting the plea or res adjudicata are again placed in the dilemma of explaining why they were willing to enter into the 'gveSLigation if they really believed in the plea or res adjudicata. hern supports his argument in the third sub-point by taking circum- Stances or the evidence in the case and imagining their coniusing elfeCt on the people 0; the country ii the plea or res adjudicata is 13ermitted to prevail. He then builds on this argument by reduCLio ad absurdum to eStablish the contention that the ellect ol admitting the plea or res adjuticata in the race Ol the evidence would be to bring the derision or the people down on the senators. ihe Drier conclusion then closes the speech with a summary argument and a word ol explanation. In summary, hern employs inductive reasoning in the develOp— ment of lOgical appeals. It is characteristically imperfect induction because it does not take into consideration all possible instances or contingencies. lhe introduction employs statement of purpose, exposi- tion, sign reasoning, and sta’ement of specific subject. The three —‘ ' hblbid. l, I- -242- main points utilize causal argument in establishing their contentions. Sign reasoning, causal argument, evidence of fact, argument by condi— tion, enthymene, and argument by reductio ad absurdum are used in the sub-points within the main points. 1 ethical appeals. One of the major factors in Lern's use of ethical appeals is his primary sincerity (an unreserved belief in the speech in his rationale for addressing the senate, nd in the vigor of his attack on the defense 01 res adjudicata. he maintains this atmos— phere throughout the speech, and the following examples can only illus- trate some of the means employed to create it. hr. President, in addressing the Senate in support of the resolution declaring vacant the seat of one of its Members because of corrupt methods and practices employed in his election, I am performing one of the most unpleasant duties ever devolving upon me in the course of my life. It has never given me pleasure, sir, to inflict pain upon my fellow men, nor by word or act to do them injury. But, sir, from.the moment I accepted the responsibilities attaching to a membership on this committee of investigation I have been deeply impressed with the gravity of the case, the momentous questions involved--questions momentous alike to the Senator whose right to a seat here is involved and to nearly an hundred million people interested vitally in the perpetuity of their Government and the stability of its in- stitutions.+9 The time for a plea of former adjudication was when the Senate was considering the queStion as to whether the case should be reinvestigated....lt is now too late for Senator LORIMER to be permitted to urge this remarkable defense.50 4736 e chap. iv, p. lo7, no. to. 481bid., 7594. A91bid. SOij-d' : 73$)? - -243- It was net solely on account of the newly discovered evi- dence that I voted for this second investigation. I was very largely influenced to that aetion by the firm belief that the first investigation had been utterly incomplete and had failed to develop facts which must have been acces— sible.>1 If, then, it be shown in this evidence new and old, that four malefactors have confessed participation in the corrup- tion charged;....then, according to the report of the majority, the honor and integrity of the Senate would demand affirmative action regardless of the defense of res adjudicata. 2 Gentlemen, this charge is too serious and this evidence too strong for the course of justice to be thwarted by this miserable technical defense which was born out of the travail of the closing scenes of the committee's hearings.93 Kern's primary sincerity also contains a "by-product" atmosphere of fairmindedness which makes a strong contribution to the ethical appeals. The three main attitudes which are important in the building or ethical appeals (the speaker's attitude toward himself, his subject, and his audience) make strong contributions. Kern's attitude toward himself is best indicated in the introduction of the speech. It has never given me pleasure, sir, to inflict pain upon my fellow men, nor by word or act to do them injury. In the practice of my profession, which covered a period of 40 years, my voice was raised many times in defense of men charged with wrongdoing, seldom.in a demand for their condemnation, and in the few cases of that kind in which I succeeded in the conviction of men charged with crime, the pride of professional victory vanished as I witnessed the downfall of the men against whom.my efforts had been directed, and the lamentations of the mothers, wives, and children of such men were so distressing that, exceat in cases of excep- tional public importance, I abandoned that field of praCtice altogether.>4 His attitude toward his subject is indicated in two ways; his personal 5lIbid. 52Ibid., 7590. 53222g., 7>97. 541bid., 799A. - 21,4- attitude toward Lorimer, and his attitude toward the case. iw'duty here is particularly painful, because the man against whose right to a seat here is in question is a rellow Senator, representing a State adjacent to my own, a.man of pleasing personality, whose private life, as I understand, has been pure and whose home life is ideal. my personal relations with him during my short stay here have been 3X! ceedingly pleasant, and I can but regard him as a genial and kindly man. The fact that he is a Republican while in every nerve and fiber I am a Democrat does not mitigate the unpleasantness of my work, because throughout my life my dearest and most valued personal friends have been Republicans. But, sir, from the moment I accepted the responsibilities attaching to a membership on this committee of investigation I have been deeply impressed with the gravity of the case, the momentous questions involved-~que3tions momentous alike to the senator whose right to a seat here is involved and to nearly an hundred million people interested vitally in the perpetuity of their Government and the stability or its institutions.99 His attitude toward his audience also makes a significant contribution to ethical appeals, largely through complimentary references to their intelligence. I believe, sir, that every member of that committee realized from the beginning that he was handicapped by these opinions already formed, but that all were determined that there should be a full and complete investigation--a thorough exploration of every known place where facts might possibly exist which would in any degree illuminate the questions to be investigated.) 30 that, while in the remarks I shall make I may with earnest— ness and zeal endeavor to enforce my views of this case upon the Senate, I trust that no part of this address may be con- strued as an attempt to belittle or stigmatize the members of the committee who do not agree with me, for they are gentlemen for whom I entertain the kindliest feeling when I commenced service with them, and the long months of con— Stant association have resulted rather in Strengthening than 55Ibid. Sélbid. , . . . ,. _ . . I diminisning that ieeling 0; personal regard.9‘ I do not propose to discuss this question at length, because a majority 01 the hembers of this body are lawyers by profession and those who are n0t are men of affairs, not likely to be misled by this eleventh—hour technical defense.)8 The reductio ad absurdum argument in the third main point probably does little harm to Kern's ethical appeals for two reasons. First, the argument levels ridicule only at the reasoning Ol the committee and nOt against the senators as a body, and secondly, th majority of the audience were already in agreement with Kern's point of view. Conse— quently, the reduCLio ad absurdum argument does not spoil the favorable attitude which Kern has careiully built. Personal identification is utilized extensively by hern as an ethical appeal. In the example given above of his attitude toward himself, he identifies himseli with ideals in humane feelings. In the third paragraph of the example of hern's attitude toward his subject, he identifies h'xself with the issue, and with the people Cl the country. The following is an er mple of nern identifying himself with the audience. If we are sitting as a judicial body, bound by judicial pre- cedents--if, as a court, we are bound by the lar--what Warrant is there for the suggeStion here that the Senate ought not under any circumStances to apply those judicial authorities and precedents?59 Kern's explanation of his personal fee‘ings toward Lorimer adds the ethical appeal to seeming objectivity in his decision arising out K.) 57Ibid. 581bid. 59Ibid., 7295. 0!. 01' .. 211,6- " the investigation. This same appeal is reiterated in his admission holding preconceived opinions on case. The following examples reveal certain charaCteriSLics of the Speaker which constitute ethical appeals that are utilized in the speech. It has never given me pleasure, sir, to inflict pain upon my . s ' O l V Iellow men, nor by word or act to do them injury.°~) [character] I shall only remind the Senate that under the Constitution it is the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications or its own hembers; that aCting under this authority on the 7th of June, 1911, it passed the resolution naming this comp mittee and specifically autn rizing and directing it to in? vestigate whether corrupt methods and practices were employed in the eleCtion of tlLLIAh LOdIlEd as a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois, and also to inquire fully into and report upon the relation to and effeCt if any, upon the eleCLion of WILLIAH LOdIhER to the Senate.bi ‘und of knowl ed gs] 30 that, while in the remarks I shall make I may with earneSt— ness and zeal endeaVor to enforce my views of this case upon the Senate, I trust that no part of this address may be con— Strued as an attempt to belittle or Stigmatize the members of the committee who do nOt agree with me, for they are gentlemen for whom I entertained the kindliest feeling when I commenced service with them, and the long months of con- stant association have resulted rather in strengthening than diminishing that feeling of personal regard.°4 Ctactj I was very largely influenced to that action by the firm belief that the first inveStigation had been utterly incomplete and . had failed to develOp iacts which must have been accessible.°5 (opinion: In the practice of my profession, which covered a period of 40 years, my voice was raised many times in deiense of men charged with wrongdoing, seldom.in a demand for their condemnation, and in the few cases of that kind in which I bulbig., 799A. ollbiu., 729p. 62Ibid. °3Ibid. succeeded in the conviCLion or men charged uith crime, the pride 01 prOiessional Vietory vanished as I witnessed the downfall of the men against whom my errorts had been cireCted, and the lamentations oi the mothers, wives, and children of such men were so diStressing that, except in cases or excep- tional public importance, I abandoned that field or practice altOgetherJfl+ [East success, and eiperiencd] Thus, among the characteristics or the speaker expressed in the speech are character, fund or knowledge, taCt, opinion, pa3t success, and experience. In addition to the above expressed characteriStics, there are also certain unexpressed characteriStics which are observable simply by looking at the speaker. Among these unexpressed ethical appeals is his popularity in the senate.07 his age, sixty-two, certainly places him in the cu3tomarily "respected“ age group, but, in a body character- ized by men above Iiity years or age, it is denotiul that age is an important Iactor. however, Kern's intelligence, eSpecially in his knowledge of Constitutional lav, was a source of great respeCt among 6 0\ his colleagues; and his political experience, stretching over the 67 span of forty-two years, was certainly a strong factor. Finally, Kern's appeararce and bearing, as discussed in chapter four, als _. ‘3 Q C 4. 0 (Q 68 made its contribution to the ethical appeals. In summary, Kern's primary sincerity is one or the chief con- tributors to the ethical appeals found in the Speech on the plea 01 res adjudicata, and also yields an Important secondary atmosphere of Ohlbid., 7594. 653ee chap. iii, pp. lily-1:35). 66 (‘ M o a o («I I) ' see Chap. 111, pp. léh—lgb. 673ee chap. ii and iii. éssee chap. iv, pp. 176-177. -243- 1 fairmindedness. his attitudes toward himself, his subject, and If“ F“ L} U) audience also contribute substantially to his ethical appeal During the course of the speech Kern identifies himself with the issue, ideals, the people of the country ("public”), and the au‘i- ence. Seeming objectivity is introduced by Kern's explaiaticn of his personal feelings of friendliness toward Lorimer, and reiterated by his admission to preconceived opinions on the subject. The expressed characteristics contributi.; as ethical appeals include character, fund of knowledge, tact, Opinion, past success, and experience. Unexpressed characteristics are popularity, age, intelli- gence, political experience, and appearance and bearing. All of these characteristics make some contribution to ethical appeals, some more so than others. Psychological appeals. In the first point of the introduction Kern employs an appeal to the selfish interests of the senators as an attention factor. In a question which the senate is tell aware will take up considerable time at best, they would certainly be interested in being spared the unessentials and rhetorical flourishes. In the second point Kern establishes the rationale for his stand on the Lorimer question by first stating "reasons" why he might support Lorimer. He also meets the tone of the occasion in describing IniS'task as an unpleasant one. An appeal to friendship above the strife of politics is also made. The third point of the introduction concludes the rationale ‘for Kernfls stand by indicating that the gravity of the case and the nxxmnxtous questions involved are a call of a higher priority than J -449- which can be accorded to personal feelings. References to known audience attitudes and to the ideals of intensity and thoroughness of work are also made. Praise is also used in an appeal of good will directed toward the majority of the investigating committee. The fourth point of tie introduction contains largely an appeal to the tone of the occasion, but reference is also made to the occupational status of the senators. The first point in the psycholo- gical pattern of reiteration is also made in this point. In support of the first main point of the speech, Kern employs an appeal to the fund of kn nledge of the senators in passing lightly over the action and the basis for it in the Lorimer case. The occu— pational status of the senators is reflected in Kern's allusion to their freedom under the Constitution from the poner of judicial de- cisions and precedents then they are dealing with the case of one of their own members. He also appeals to the senators' sense of self intelligence, indireCtly, to indicate that the actions of Senator Lorimer and the majority committee members suggest that their adoption of the plea of res adjudicata came only after all other possibilities of acquittal had been exhausted. This latter appeal also contains the second point in the psychological pattern of reiteration. Kern uses a psychOIOgical appeal to a known attitude toward the subject in the second main point when he refers to the incomplete- ness of the first investigation. This is followed by the third point in the psychOIOgical pattern of reiteration, which also serves as a psychological bond between the first and second main points. Again, 'the appeal is made to the audience's prediSposition against the majority report, and the plea of res adjudicata. Kern closes the second main point with an appeal to the senators'ability to reason through the "mounting” evidence of Lorimer's guilt, and to reason to the conclusion that the evidence is substantial enough even in light of the majority report to warrant the reopening of the case. Occupational status is the first psycholOgical appeal made by Kern in the third main point. he then points out the conflict between the actions of the majority of the investigating committee and the plea of res adjudicata. An idealistic appeal to the social conscious- ness of the committee majority to induce them to release themselves from the conflict is implied. Kern follows this with a direct appeal to the selfish interests of the senators by dramatizing the reaction of the people if the plea of res adjudicata is permitted. He closes the speech by making an idealistic appeal to social consciousness, and an appeal to the intelligence or ”reason" of the senators by pointing up the strength of the evidence and the weakness of the plea of res adjudicata. The predisposition of the audience .against the defense is also inferred, and the closing point in the psychological pattern of reiteration is made. The reiteration acts as a bond between the beginning and con- CJJlSiOH in the refutation of the plea of res adjudicata. Suggestion also characterizes Kern's speech, and makes a strong :contribution to psychological appeals. Figurative language, examples oijzshich are cited under styliStic devices, is used extensively. ,Kerui's level of language usage suggests that the Speaker is a reason- alile, intelligent person tho is going methodically about the task of destroying an obviously weak argument. ”Loaded" words and striking statements indireCtly, but effectively, call to mind ideas which are intended but not specifically stated. Examples of both "loaded” words, which have been underlined, and striking statements are contained in the following: If, then, it be shown in this evidence new and old, that Iour maleIaCLors have confessed participation in the corruption Charged; if it be shown that these men were corrupted“bere O'Neill Browne and his accrediteg grant, dobert E. Xilson; if it be shown that Lee O'heill Browne was the active and dgly accredited agent of Senator LORIE”?; if by the new evidence or by the new and old the relationship between white and Browne and LOR KER has been raced and shown to have con~ tinned until very nearly the time of the ex. sure, and if it be Iurther shown that Browne and LORIMER attempted to cuiet Uhite by providing him, a Democrat, with an appointment in a Republican county office in Chicago;....if it be shown that a number of other Democratic members who had betrayed their people in the matter, were exhibiting alhwst'simultane- ously in various parts of the State $100 bills....09 The rhythm of Kern's style in the above example, and as the conditional argument continues, suggeSts hern's rising emotions in ridiculing the committee majority's ignoring or the evidence berore them. however, Kern makes only slight use of appeals to the basic drives of his audience. These appeals are made to the basic drive of security, specifically to security of position. The appeal is present throughout the reductio ad absurdum argument contained in the thir‘ .main point. Kern implies in the dramatization and the succeeding argument that the application or common sense, should the plea or res adjudicata be permitted, would result in placing those senators sup- porting the plea in a precarious position with their constituents. 69. xtecord, 729C) 0 The use of secondary motives is more pronounced. ksych0103ical apq;eals to the secondary motives include one which is given Ireguent \ise armlis difficult to identity. in many respects, it appears to be a.rust too distant relative of our.modern day concept of "guilt by association.” Hilder in lorm, it has been labeled in this study 'khnplication by action.” essentially, this is the psych0l05ical appeal which is made when hern rex‘ers to the fact that Lorimer and ‘the negority members or the committee voluntari v participated in and approved 01' the actions taken in the committee's investigation, and 'that cvfly'aiter the investigation was completed was the plea or res .adjueicata made. The psycholOZical appeal simply states that since Lorimer and the coxmittee majority participated voluntarily in r.- action, with the principle of res adgucicata knOtn to them prior to aetion which they now allege is in conflict with that principle, they do not "really" believe that the plea of res adjudicata applies in this aetion. Otherwise, they would not have participated in the action. This appeal appears to have its basis in the secondary motive of AOHGSLy of conviction. The secondary metive is given further ex— pression in the third main point of the speech, where Kern calls up another secondary active as well in the argument by reductio ad absur- 9_U_I_I_1_. The other motive, honor, also iinds extensive expression through- out the second and third main points of the speech, largely through its antithesis, shame. Another inmrtant feature 01' Kern's use or secondary motives is the hierarchy that he establishes in the case 0.“ three such motives. —2>3- 'rriendsh Iip is placed above political striie, and duty is pal ced above I‘rienciship as can be seen in the lollouin; example: 1.3, personal reiations with him during my Short Stay have been e;-ceedin;;ly pleasant, and I can out re~a rd him as a genial and L'indls mar "ihe fact that 1e is a .Iep ablican while in every nerve ar d iiber I am a Democrat does not mitigate the unpleasaxtness 01 my . .zor.., because throughout my liie some 01' my dearest and most valued personal iriends have been Republicans. But, sir, from the moment I accepted the responsibilities attaching to a IIIeIIbershi 1I> on this committee 01 inveStication I have been deeply impressed 'II1th the gravity oI the case. [U Other secondary appeals are present in the speech. I.I05t 01‘ th em are utilia ed 0113., once or twice, and one or t\ 0 ans closely re- lated to those which have alreaty been IIIentioned. The rollowing examples indicate these a”. peals in sunny i'ashion. IIIr. President, in speaking to the Senate on this question I have no purpose to indulge in rhetorical ilourishes; I shall employ no words 01‘ mere ornamentation; but I shall content Irgyseli" by giving to the Senate as briefly and cor- cisely as I can my vie'II‘s on the single queSLion 01’ lat repre- sented in the case. [economy 01' time] 1he pride or professional viCtory vanishec as I witnessed the downfall of the men against 1’11’10171 my e1‘1‘orts had been directed, and the lamentations 01 the numbers, wives and children 01‘ such men were so distressing; that, except in cases or excer- tional public importance, '1' abandoned that i'ieid 01' practice altogether. 2 [sympathy Ior others? I believe that every member 01 this investigating committee entered upon the (3.1 ' scIIarge 01 his duties fully alive to the inqmrtance 01 the case anti hi-jh13.’ resolved to render 1‘air, iJzIp-artial, and 1 atriotic service to the courfltryJi fiwaisej I shal1 only re:::ir.d the Senate that under the (Jonstitu- tion it is the judge OJ. tII-e emotions, returns and (zualii’ica- tions 01 its own :IeII'Ibers; that aeting; under ti is autho it3, - “a- -- 7Ulbid . , 7'28". --,-0 (Jl‘DiU 0 72min . 731nm . ....it}a.% en the rmcrol ion naming this no mittec and WfWiIMHJND authorizing and nirectinj it to inVGSLigate, ’ . ; 1.7 ' I" _._ _ _ '1 __ r unthe election 01 11111111.. uglier» to the senate/4 fixnmr] And;wmn sir, the prosecuting o111cers charges Hith LLQflMRw o1 yuuoo Methods texe not asked a word on the suoject 1l grounee :1. Z) Lil-Le 61.:- as Usmiwther or not the charges were me Ejustice] 1 might cite numerous Other instances 0 that committee to inveStigate important que necessity press-ed upon t er, but the one ins fairly illustrative.7 instances not name ‘1 f the failure of stions which of canoe named is :91» 1‘)“ Such a decision would be received with derision in ever" 01 the country by the men and women th believe in lair and oeria‘mi-nistration of justice ans whose cozlmon sense tel.Ls then that the interp031tion 01 such a deiezse is 101 the Isurpose 01 thwarting justice r3ther than promoting it. 77 fcoa'uhson uense, and aFl/l‘o‘fal blr Cullers Several attention factors are utilized by K3“: throughout creeiric details in outlining the aetions or ‘ Y ". f‘ I “' feecu. nis use 01 s,c Lorimer and the committee majority draws attention to the implication that they do not really believe that the plea of res injuuicati agglies. ..is direct reierence to Senators Dillingham and LorL .er, who were present in the au:1i ence, attracts the audience to the noizbs oeilg inade about thems hern's aference to the audience's ecumon background .| L '1'“ U1 $;~ L! as lauvers or men 01 airairs 1unctions as an attention lactor 1. it serves as a comnon frame of rei'erence i'or1J1e magi mzce irom'which they (EH3 follow nern's refutation. He emgloys vitalness as an atten- 'tion ituflxir in the introduction‘nhen he stresses the gravity of the ‘3 utilizen in the reductio ad Lorimer case. Humor through ridicule .Lo “. .-—- *--- 7A22521., 7595. 751bid., 7535. 7611311 7Ib___1__d.7 , 7397. -255- absurdwn argument or the third 1min point. Iiox-vaer, the claim“ sus- ewrloyed by horn is the factor of conflict. V.-.‘ -- taining latter 01' attention It is emloyed in the first Iz‘ain point in stressing; the inconsistency "'s actions with the plea of res of Lorimer's and the cozznzittee najoritJ e."m1 eyed in the second main 1.2021111} to stress the in- adjudicata. It is “ti nee or the evidence consistency of the majority report with the imports“ discovereu. And it returns ix: the third Lain point to stress again the incorsistency betteen the actions oi‘ loriiuer and his suborters and the It also stresses in this last main point the Plea of res adjudicata. conflict between "public" opinion and the admission 01‘ the plea or res adgudicata. In summary, hern employs psychological appeals to selfish interests, tone of the occasion, Lnown audience attitudes, praise, and occugational status in the introduction. The first point in the psychOIOgical pattern of reiteration is also made. The body of the speech utilizes Wsychological appeals to fund of knowledge, occugational status, sell intelligence, known audience attitudes, "reason," confliCt, selfish interests, and idealistic The second point in the psycholo— agspeals to social consciousness. ‘gical , qttern 01" reiteration is nude in the closing sub-point or the first Jz'LaiI; point, while the third point in the 1.3;,1'cholo 'ical jchhological bond 31 is given in the second main mint and forms 0 {3 f.) :3 *7: O F. Cl” (1 o J.“ between the algments COI'HQJiIIGG in the tr: i‘he conclusion 01' the hological appeals to e attitudes. 1he ”reason,” and 111mm audienc r- 0 social consciousness, final point in the Is-sycliolofical pattern or reiteration is made in the » / -293... mastery appeal, tying the conclusion'to the beginning; or the rel'uta- tion. Suggestion in the speech is achieved through the extensive use of figurative language, and the level or language usage. "Loaded" words and striking statements, and the rhythm of the style also con- tribute to suggestion. Specific psychological appeals to the basic drives are not abundant. Those found are made only to the basic drive 01' security. of greater importance is Kern's use or psychological appeals to secondary motives. Appeals are made to "implication by aetion” and its related secondary :zlotive of honesty or conviction. Appeals to honor are usuall ' mde through its antithesis, slwlme. 'rlern also utilizes a hierarchy of psychological appeals in which he places friendship above political striie, and duty above trierdahip. Other secontary appeals present in the speech include amtxeals to econogn;r or tine, S;"::‘L}ELhV i'or others, praise, power, justice, instances not nailed, cozruion sense, and approval by others. are utilized by hern throughout the 1““ Several attention recto“) speech, and chief among these is the sustaining attentiox‘x actor or coni‘lict. other factors employed include the use or specific details, direct references to audience members, common ground, and vitalness. 8 Style7 Force. The style of the speech is characterized by stores (I) . . a a Q 7°The method and sources used {or the analysts and critiusn of style are the same as those used in chap. iv, p.188, no. 1J8. achieved in several ‘..'ays. In his choice oi‘ words, tern 3e2‘u31'all;r utilizes those which are short and 33.ecil'ic. 'i‘he active voice and emotional languafi are also employed. he does not practice the prin- ciple or brevity in the number 01' words used to express an idea, but instead tends to be c0piously diffuse. Yet, the selection and place- ment or key words within the sentences achieves the l‘orceiul expression 01' ideas despite the handicap o: acl: ol' brevity. . ‘ 1.65;] 0—4-1.oE‘.-irs . " 9 while shortness and specii'icity in 'v-sording a charaCteristics in the style or the speech, it is certainly generally true, especially when considered Within the confines 01." the senate which is Imam :or expressions of ai‘biguity and multiple syllabli ica- tion. it is especially present in points 01" emphasis and mayor illus- trations. The .;;‘ollo*.=.'in;; examples illustrate the use or short and specizic words, first in a najor illustration and then in a point of xapi'zasis. ".a'hen your committee net he appeared in person and by counsel, and was present throughout the months or investigation cross- ezcaraining all witnesses called by the coxmittee and examining scores 01' witnesses in his own behalf on every lossible phase of the case, not on v as to’matters not called to the at ten- tion of the former committee, but bearing upon all questions investigated by that committee, and it was net until the hearings had ended that intimation was cgive: that the power 1" the Senate to order, or that of the committee to state a full investieation oi‘ the questions submitted, was to be questioned.7 But you must be aware of the impression that would be made upon the public mind by a decision that this hair-splitting defense of res adjudicata is a sufficient ansv.'er to these serious charges. Such a decision would be received with derision in every part or the country by the men and tomen who believe in fair and open acmiiiistration 01‘ justice and ~ ———— 79Record, 799‘" . .. ‘Il’lvllll‘ -1 ll -253- sense tells them that the interposition of such for the purpose oi thwarting justice rather than 8U whose 0011111011 3. defense is promoting i . The aetive voice dominates throughout the speech. however, the passive voice is utilized by Kern in referring to past events where he is emphasizing directly or by implication the receiver of the action. Examples of the dominance of the active voice, and hern's usage of the passive voice follow. Conceding i‘or the moment that this proceeding is ana103ous to a civil aetion at law, the granting oi' a new trial, even on the sole ground or newly discovered evidence, opens up the case for a i'ull and complete reinvestigation. And here the Senate, without reciting the reasons why, reopened the case and direCted the committee to investigate the question not as to the truth of the alleged newly discovered evidence, to in- vestigate n0t the question as to whether there was newly discovered evidence of such weight and character as to justiiy action, but to investigate the question as to whet} er corrupt methods or praCtices had been employed in Senator LOP. SEW-3 election; not to examine new evidence which might be seduced, but to hunt out, hear, and report all evidence bearing; upon the subject to be investigated. CUnderlining indicates the use 01 the passive voicea l'hotional language is mployed frequently oy Kern, out is especially im;'>or‘tan't in the third IrLain point. rl‘he following example 01‘ its usage is given without reference to the emoeional devices employed since stylistic device'st'ill be dealt with a little later, and the psychological appeals have already received consideration. One Senator here, a member of the committee, has declared in an address to the Senate that he was so intent upon his duties as a member 01' this committee that he did nor, pem‘ait himseli’ to read newspaper accounts 01' the investigation during, th seven or eight months that it dragged along. his ii‘e durin; that period must have been a dream taste. 1hr did he subject himself to such cruel privation if, as a lal'ryer, he met; that the commit tee Was powerless to condemn and the Serate rower- m— 80 paid” 7996-7997. 81 Ibid., M5. -259- less to set except in violation 01' law and precedents? In his selection of supporting details Kern achieves force by using figures of speech, recalling a vivid experience, developing striking illustrations, making allusions and direct references to legal precedent, making allusions to tradition, using vivid description, pointing up a dramatic struggle, utilizing factual data, and employing sparing use of hyperbole. ’l’he develOpment of striking illustrations and the pointing up of a dramatic struggle are perhaps the most prominent factors of force in supporting details. Figures of speech will be exemplified under the later discussion of stylistic devices, but examples of the other types of supporting detail follow: In the practice of my profession ,....I witnessed the downfall of the men against when my efforts had been direc- ted, and the lamentations of the mothers, wives, and children of such men were so distressing that, except in cases of rtance, 1 abandoned that field of exceptional public in practice altOgether.8 [vivid experience The confessions of Beckemeyer and holstlaw and Lin}; were repudiated by the Senate, in speeches made on the floor of this body, for the sole reason that they had been coerced into making them by methods intolerable in a civilized coun- try. And yet, sir, the prosecuting officers charged with the employment of these methods were not asked a word on the subject as to whether or not the charges were well grounded.8 [striking illustration] I shall only remind the Senate that under the Constitu— tion it is the judge of the election, returns, and qualifica- tions of its own Lembers. [direct reference to legal pre— cedentj The time for a plea of former adjudication was when the 82%., 7596- 831bid., 7591;. 851.222., 7596. 351bid., 7:39». -260- Senate was considering the question as to whether the case should be reinvestigated. [allusion to legal precedent] The fact that he is a Republican while in every nerve and fiber 1 am a Democrat does not mitigate the unpleasantness of W work,....and while 1 come from a State noted for the fierceness of its political conflicts 1 am proud to say that in that Commonwealth the people are big enough and broad enough to yield to others the same liberty of thought they claim for themselves, and when the conflicts have ended and the smoke of battle blown away they recognize in each other the same good neighbors and friends that they were before they were sunmoned into action.87 [allusion to tradition, and vivid description? I could not fail to observe that the confessions of Link, Beckemeyer, and Holstlaw had been discredited by that commit-— tee because of the claim that they had been coerced into making them by barbarous methods alleged to have been employed by the prosecuting officers of Cook and Sangamon Counties, and yet these prosecuting officers were not permitted to come before the committee and reggte these charges, as they have done in this investigation. [pointing up a dramatic struggle That this investigation has been complete, and of an en- tirely different character from that of the Burrows committee, is attested by the fact that whereas the testimony taken by that committee is contained in a single volume of 71.8 pages, the testimony adduced before this committee fills 8 volumes, and covers 8,587 pages.89 [citing factual data] His life during that period must have been a dreary waste. Why did he subject himself to such cruel privation if, as a lawyer , he knew that the comittee was powerless to act ex— cept in violation of law and precedents? [hyperbole] Sentence arrangement helps to achieve the forceful style des- pite Kern's weakness for run-on sentences. Kern arranges his sentences in an ascending order from suspense to climax, with each pattern of ascension covering a significant idea. A good example of this ordering 871bid., 7594. 861bid. 88%. ’ 7595 O 89Ibid0 ’ 7591+. 9°Ibid. , 7596. -261- of sentences occurs in the first main point where Kern first reviews the action of the senate in the case , follows this by citing Lorimer's and the comittee majority's actions during the investigation, then draws a comparison between the retrial of a civil action and the re- investigation of the Lorimer case, and concludes that it is now too late for the plea of res adjudicata to be made. Antithetical arrangement of sentences also contributes to the forcefulness of the style. In the introduction Kern first states what he is not going to do before stating what he will do. He first states reasons for feeling inclined toward Lorimer before indicating why he is speaking against him. In the first main point of the speech Kern first states that Lorimer did not suggest during the committee hearings that the case was res adjudicata before he tells what Lorimer did. Other examples of this antithetical arrangement could be cited but these are sufficient to indicate the emphasis given to the ideas. The kinds of sentences employed are largely compound—complex, and do not contribute to a forceful style. However, the short, compact clauses present in the expression of the key ideas clarify the com- plexity of the sentence when given oral expression. Consequently, these clauses make a distinct contribution to forcefulness of style. The following examlile illustrates the use of these short, compact phrases. Whatever the causes that existed for ordering the rein- vestigation, it was ordered; that order was acted on; the new investigation has been made, Senator LORIMER freely and with- out protest participating in it; and the report of the com- mittee is here for final disposition. It will be quite apparent to lawyers that this plea comes too late, if it -262- ever could have been made. The plea itself is res adjudi- cata.9l Restatement and repetition of sentences are used 1;, Horn, with moderation, for emphasis. Most prominent in restatement and repetition is the theme that it is too late for this plea of res adjudicata, as can be seen in this example. I do not propose to discuss this question at length, because...the Members...are,...not likely to be misled by this eleventh-hour technical defense.92 It was not until the hearings had ended that intimation was given that the power of the Senate to order, or that of the committee to make a full investigation of the questions sub- ufitted, was to be questioned.93 It is now too late for Senator LORIMER to be permitted to urge this remarkable defense. It will be quite apparent to lawyers that this plea comes too late, if it ever-could have been made. The plea itself is res adjudicata.99 ' The interposition of such a defense is for the purpose of thwarting justice rather than promoting it. Gentlemen, this charge is too serious and this evidence too strong for the course of justice to be thwarted by this miserable technical defense which was born out of the travail of the closing scenes of the committee's hearings.9 In summary, Kern's style is characterized by force through the use of effective word choice (short and specific words, the active 'voice, emotional language), proper selection of supporting details (figures of speech, recalling a vivid experience, striking illustra- tions, allusions and direct references to legal precedent, allusions gllbid. 92mm. , 7594. 93lbid., 7595. 91mm. 95Ibid. 961bid. , 7597. -263... to tradition, vivid description, pointing up a dramatic Struggle, factual data, and hyperbole), and effective sentence arrangement (suspense and climax, antithesis, compact clauses, restatement, and repetition). The overwhelming use of compound-complex sentences does not contribute to the force of the style. While the length of run-on sentences makes it dif- Accura y. ficult to follow grammatical forms, it appears that Kern uses correct gramnar within the limitations of common usage of the period. The words are selected carefully for proper denotative and connotative meanings when considered within their context and within the limits of the vocabulary of the audience. An example of this pre- cision is found in the third main point of the speech. Words employed chiefly for their connotative meaning have been underlined. But you must be aware of the impression that would be made upon the public mind by a decision that this hair-splitting defense of res adjudicata is a sufficient answer to these serious charges. Such a decision would be received with derision in every part of the country by the men and women who believe in fair and open administration of justice and whose comon sense tells them that the interposition of such a defense is gar the purpose of thwarting justice rather than gromoting it. The above example also illustrates Kern's ability to express shades of meaning, but, as can also be seen, he is not always careful to select specific and concrete words. This is not a distinct defect in the style since style is aimed generally at creating a total effect. The lack of specificity usually occurs where the idea is less important than the psycholOgical reSponse that its expression evokes. 971mm, 7596-7597- -201+- Directness. Since Kern is a popular member of the body which composes his audience, the audience is thoroughly accustomed to hearing him speak, and he is accustomed to the language of the group. Thus, little adaptation in language to the audience is necessary. However, Kern makes some adaptation to the subject, his purpose, and the occa- sion. While this adaptation is difficult to describe, it seems to lie in the fact that Kern's language is the language of a lawyer speaking generally in non-technical terms on a point involving a legal argument. The composition is that of a prosecutor who is engaged in the task of sunmarizing his case before a jury that consists largely of lawyers. He is in this speech refuting a legal argument advanced by the defense, and he realizes that while the lawyers will understand his refutation in technical terminology, the other "jury" members will not. Thus, his . composition is organized along the lines of legal argument, but the terminolOgy is that which is understood by the entire body. The language is well-suited to the occasion and to Kern's personality, as well as to the purpose and the type of speech. The use of personal pronouns adds to the directness, and occasional ques- tions and appropriate illustrations also contribute. The chief deter- rent to directness in Kern's style is his fondness for elaborate state- ment 3 . Unobtrusiveness. Kern's weakness for run-on sentences tends to call attention to the style of the speech. However, the frequency of short, compact phrases and the use of devices of direct discourse (exemplified later) override the tendency in the oral expression of the ideas. Basically, the style is conversational in nature when -205- placed within the confines of the audience and the occasion. It is as conversational as the formality of the occasion and Kern's ethical ap- peal of primary sincerity will permit. Euphony is present in the word order, which generally flows smoothly in oral expression, and in the use of words which are relatively easy to pronounce. Therefore, Kern's style may be characterized as being unobtrusive. Clearness. Kern's identity as a member of the body that is also the audience establishes a frame of reference between the speaker and the audience, and there is evidence to indicate that Kern remains within the boundaries of accustomed language usages which he holds in conmon with his audience. word choices generally follow the accepted principles of selecting concrete and specific words to express specific ideas, and general and abstract expressions for general and abstract ideas. Amp plification and the reenforcement of ideas defeats brevity to some extent, but this does not seriously detract from the clarity of the style. As can be seen in the examples cited in previous and Variety . succeeding sections of this chapter, Kern displays considerable variety in word choice, ordering of phrases and sentences, and the use of vivid and figurative language. Variety in sentence structure, however, is practically non- existent. Simple sentences are very rare with compound sentences and complex sentences only a little less so. are in the overwhelming majority. Compound-complex sentences ~266- Stylistic devices-u-figgres of comparison 'and contrast. The following excerpts are examples of stylistic devices that Kern employs during the speech. Antithesis and contrast and anaphora are two of the more important devices in Kern's use of figurative language. Underlining is used in the examples to indicate the major parts of each device. Conceding for the moment that this proceeding is analogous to a civil action at law, the granting of a new trial, even on the sole ground of newly discovered evidence, opens up the case for a full and complete reinvestigation. And here the Senate, without reciting the reasons why, reopened the case and directed the coxmnittee...9 [anaIOgy And while I come from a State noted for the fierceness of its political conflicts I am proud to say that in that Common- wealth the people are big enough and broad enough to yield to others the same liberty of thought they claim for them- battle blown away they recognize in each other the same good neighbors and friends that they were before they were summoned into action.9 99 (metaphor: ...to invesiséate__ not the question....but to investigate the question... [antithesis and contrast] If then, it be shown;...if it be shown;...i.f it be shown; . . . 01 fanaphoraj If the Senate was without power to act, and the committee, its creature, was undeiO Ehec law to be sent forth to c__9_____mbat imaginary windmills. . . [oxymoron] So every such member, in common with every lawyer in the country, is entirely familiar with the la___1_v 9_f res adjudicata. The law of re_s_ adjudicata...103 Eanadiplosis 981923., 7595. 99Ibid., 7591.. 100%., 75950 lOIIbido, 7596. 102mm. 103113111. -267- If, then, it be shown;...if it be shown ;...if it be shown; if by the new evidence,...and if it be further shown;...if it be shown; ...if it be shown,” .then, according to the majority report, . . .104 [progression] I could not fail to observe that the confessions of Link, Beckemeyer, and Holstlaw. ..109 fiaarticularizationj art in that After acquiescing in that action-«aye, taking [inter- action-~and, without objection or protest,... jectionj Stylistic devices of dire_c_t discourse. The devices of direct discourse, exemplified below, are employed by Kern during the speech. Personal pronouns and acclamation are prominent devices. Mr. President, in speaking to the Senate on this question I have no purpose to indulge in rhetorical flourishes; I shall ...but I shall...as I can g,...as I conceive,...because I lmow...IO7 cpronouns in the first person] Again from page 1.1: Under’all the authorities...108 Cquotationj If this defense prevails, the plain people of the coun- try,...wil.l ask: "Is it true that four men confessed to taking bribes, two of whom connected the bribe with the election of the Senator?" and the answer ust be, "Yes, it is true, but it was res adjudicata." dialOgue, and question and answer Gentlemen, this charge is too serious and this evidence too strong for the course of justice to be thwarted by this miserable technical defense which E born 93$; 2; the travail 2;: 133.12 closing scenes 31; the comittee's hearings. aper- sonificationj 'u‘vhatever the causes that existed for ordering the rein- vestigation, it was ordered; that order was acted on; the new investigation has been made. [acclamation] 105Ibid., 7595. 104mm. 106mm. 107nm. , 7591.. 103mm . , 7596 . 109nm. 110%. 9 7997 0 111113511 o a 7396 o -268- If these gentlemen believed then as they believe and declare now, why did they not decline this useless and fruitless task? If the Senate was...112 Crhetorical question, and deliberation] In addition to the two general cate- Examples of Other stylistic devices . gories of stylistic devices, Kern employs certain others. these follow. His life during that period must have been a dreary waste. thy did he subject himself to such cruel privation if, as a lawyer, he knew that the committee was powerless to condemn and the Senate werless to act except in violation of law and precedents? 13 Diumor through ridicule and satire] If the Senate was without power to act, and the committee, its creature, was under the law to be sent forth to combat imaginary windmills and be compelled to report after seven long, weary months of effort iihaE its work according to law sarcasm and precedent was a joke,... I know that a very large majority of the Members of this body have not had time to wade thrth the thousands of pages of testimony offered in the case. 5 Emetonymr] The innocent voter will puzzle his brain as to how there could be escape in such a case.ll [synecdochej ....and the comnittee, its creature, was under the law to be sent forth to combat imaginary windmills...1l7 [literary allusion: The plea itself is res adjudiCata.118 [paradox] Summary of stylistic devices. During the Speech Kern employs many stylistic devices. Anaphora and antithesis and contrast are prominent among the figures of comparison and contrast, while Kern's use of personal pronouns and acclamation are najor devices of direct The following table summarizes the other devices employed. discourse. lulbid. 113mm. 114nm. 115Ibid., 7594. 1161mm, 7596. 1171mm. 113mm. -269- figures of comparison and devices of direct discourse contrast quotation analogy dialogue metaphor question and answer oxymoron personification anadiplosis rhetorical question prOgression deliberation particularization interjection other devices humor through ridicule synecdoche satire literary allusion sarcasm paradox metonymy Summagy'of_§gng. Kern's style is characterized first of all by force. It is achieved through the use of effective word choice in selecting short and specific words, employing the active voice, and utilizing emotional language. Figures of speech, a vivid experience, striking illustrations, allusions and references to legal precedent, allusions to traditions, dramatic struggle, factual data, and the sparing use of hyperbole are examples of the proper selection of sup- porting details in contributing to a forceful style. Another contri- bution is made by effective sentence arrangement. Sentence orders which include suspense and climax, antithesis, compact phrasing, re- statement, and repetition provide additional emphasis. Accuracy in Kern's style is achieved through the use of correct grammatical forms and precision in the denotative and connotative meanings of the words used in the speech. Specificity and concreteness are not always maintained in the selection of words, but the lack of these characteristics usually occurs where the ideas expressed are nOt as impOrtant as the emotional responses evoked by their expression. Since Kern is a member 01 the body comprising the audience, -270- and is familiar with its accuStomed language usage, little adjustment in language usage is necessary. However, hern does make some adjust- ment which is in keeping with his role as a prosecutor, and in keeping with his subject, purpose, and occasion. Essentially, that adjustment consists of the ordering of sentences and phrases along the lines of legal argument, while keeping the termin010gy employed non-tecnnical and free from legal jargon. In general, the language is well-suited to the occasion, the speaker's personality, and the purpose and type 01 the Speech. While Kern's weakness for run-on sentences tends to call at— tention to the Style of the speech, the frequent use of compact phras- ing and devices of direCt discourse override this tendency and preserve the unobtrusiveness of the style. The style is as conversational as the formality of the occasion and the primary sincerity of the speaker will permit, and euphony is generally present in the smooth-flowing oral expression cf the word order. The clarity of the style is evident in the word choice and in the selection of language usage which remain within the boundaries of common understanding between Kern and his audience. Amplification and the reenforcement of ideas defeat brevity to some extent, but in this speech do not seriously detract from.the clarity of the style. Variety in the style is indicated in Kern's choice of words, ordering of phrases and sentences, and the use of vivid and figurative language. However, the overwhelming use of compound-complex sentences provides little variety in sentence structure. Comparison on style. In comparing the analysis of the style ‘- Jillrl II, - 1:..th dual of this speech with the general comments made by Bowersllg on Kern's style, certain deviations are noted. Sarcasm, ridicule and satire in humor are utilized extensively by horn in the development of the third main point, although not even a single instance of the use of puns was discovered. Kern's style could not be considered natural almost to the point of being colloquial in this speech. Taking into account the nature of Kern's audience and the times, the Speech, according to the classical divisions of style, is considered an example of the middle style. Aside from.these deviations, the analysis of the style in this speech is in agreement with the general remarks on style made by Bowers. Delivery Hhile consideration of delivery is of necessity largely limited 120 a few specific remarks to the general remarks found in chapter four, on the delivery of the speech in refutation of the plea of res adjudi- cata, and the two succeeding speeches on the Lorimer question, can be made. One of the major factors influencing the delivery of these speeches is the fact that Kern.was in a weakened physical condition all during their preparation and delivery. ”He was physically almost exhausted when he began and almost ill before he concluded."121 1n the speech in refutation of the plea of res adjudicata, Kern indicated his condition at the close of his Speech. "Mr. President, having 119See chap. iv, p. 204. lZOSee chap. iv, pp. 205-207. 121Bowers, op. cit., p. 247. -27 2.. concluded this part of my speech, as I have been indisposed all the forenoon, I should like to continue my remarks tomorrow."122 The Chicago Daily Tribune reported, "Mr. Kern was not in condition to speak more than an hour, and will resume his address tomorrow."123 On June fifth Kern spoke for a little under two hours without apparent c.iiscomfort,121+ but his three-hour addresslz? on June seventh exhausted him. Mr. WILLIAMS (at 3 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.). Evidently the Senator from Indiana is veny.much fatigued. He has not been well. I request that he be permitted to resume his speech tomorrow. He informs me that he can finish in about half an hour. Jr. KERN. It will take me a very short time to con- clude. I expected to finish this evening, but I have been indisposed for some days6 and I find the effort this after- noon has exhausted me. 2 An examination of the length of the text delivered by Kern on June eighth.indicates that it took him a little over an hour to complete his speech.127 Response The response to the speech is divided into three categories: the response during the speech, the immediate response following the 122Record, 7597. 123Chicago Daily Tribune, June 5, 1912, p. 1 124m, 7706. usIndianapolis 343, June 8, 1912, p. 3. 126933., 7786-778". 127By comparing the length of the text of the speech given on June fourth which was an hour in delivery, with the text of the Speech on June eighth, the length of time expended in the delivery on June eighth was determined. See no. 123. -273- speech, and the remote response (response which begins with the con- tinuation of senate debate on the question one month after Kern's speech). Each of these types of response will be considered in turn. Response dunipg the speech. On June fourth Kern was interrup- ted only twice during the speech by challenge. Senator Weldon B. Hey; burn of Idaho interrupted hern shortly after Kern had stated that the senate had the power under the Constitution to reopen the Lorimer case. Heyburn offered the counter-argument that it was his understanding that only the senate concurrently elected with the case in question could reopen the case. Kern met this challenge by replying that the Senate was a continuing body, and that if every member here should die the senate would continue to exist.128 Dillingham interrupted Kern fol? lowing the statement that the committee majority had voted for the reopening of the case to clarify his reasons for voting for the reopen- ing. Dillingham stated that his vote was given on the basis that the allegation of new evidence in the case ought to be investigated, and if there was no new evidence then the plea of res adjudicata ought to apply. The interruption gave Kern the Opportunity to lead Dillingham to admit that he did not object to the reopening of the case on any grounds.129 On June fifth, Kern was interrupted at several points in the speech. Several of these interruptions were of a minor nature, but one of significance occurred when Kern was discussing the existence of corruption funds for the Illinois state legislature which had been the 128Ibid., 7595. 129Ibid. -27h- practice in that state for several years. Dillingham challenged Kern to show a single witness who testified of his own knowledge to the existence of such a fund. Kern started to answer him, but Dillingham evidently realized the embarrassing position which this challenge put him.in (the existence of such funds had been common knowledge for some time), and stated that he believed in the existence of such funds but that none of the witnesses had personal knowledge of their existence. This only placed Dillingham in a more awkward position, because the majority report had only mentioned that there was no first-hand know- ledge of the existence of the corruption funds, and had neglected to state that the Opinion of the majority was that these funds did exist. Whether or not the omission from.the majority report was intentional, Kern made the most of the verbal admission of Dillingham, pointing out that the conclusionscf the majority should have stated their belief as to the existence of a corruption fund.130 The only other interruption of some significance was that by Lorimer in which he made clear his personal feelings toward Governor Deneen of Illinois.131 On the seventh of June Kern's recital of the salient points in the testimony.met with no significant challenges by Lorimer and his supporters. He was interrupted only four times in three hours for questions and points of clarification of a minor nature.132 Kern was not interrupted at all on the eighth of June.133 Immediate response following_the speech. The reported response 13OIbid., 7702-7703. 131Ibid.. 7704. 1321bid., 7775-7787. 1331bid., 7eaa-7848. -275- to Kern's speech in refutation of the plea of res adjudicata (June fourth) was generally favorable. The Chicago Daily Tribune reported that it was the universal opinion of the Democratic side of the senate that Kern "conducted himself like a veteran" during the debate”!+ Prior to Kern's address the next day, Lorimer, an intent listener of the day before,135 made a gesture of good will by crossing the aisle and talking with Kern in a friendly fashion.136 In response to Kern's speech on June fifth the Indianapglis ‘lggg stated in an editorial favoring Kern's arguments and stand in the case, "The clear and studied Speech made on the Lorimer case by Senator Kern should influence the senate in its action on the Illinois corrup- tion investigation."137 During the speech the Chicago Daily Tribune reported that Lorimer's "face was flushed, his manner more irritable than heretofore."138 The address by Kern to the senate on June seventh was followed on June eighth by the Chicago Daily Tribune's reference to the three days of speaking by Kern as "a masterly legal analysis of the plot to 'put Lorimer over' and of the subsequent efforts of the guilty ones to cover up their crimes."139 The Tribune continued by noting that 134Chicago Daily Tribune, June 9, 1912, p. l. 135%. lBéIndianapolis News, June 5, 1912, p. 1. 13?;gig., June 6, 1912, p. 6. 138Chicago Dally Tribune, June 6, 1912, p. 1. 139Ibid., June 8, 1912, p. a. -276- the defenders of Lorimer were becoming scarcer each day, and that it was doubtful that Lorimer would receive fifteen votes if a roll call vote was held.lh0 No response was reported in the newspapers for Kern's closing remarks on June eighth. However, Bowers reports that "the consensus of opinion among the lawyers of the senate was ...that it was a powerful, unanswerable, logical and eloquent arraignment of the accused senator,...and while other senators spoke with comparative brevity in favor of the minority report, the ground had been so exhaustively and conclusively covered by Kern that these confined themselves to one or two features of the case."141 Remote respgnse. The supporters of Lorimer were not given an Opportunity to reply to Kern's speech until July sixth. Senator HcCumber was one of the first supporters of Lorimer to take advantage of that opportunity on the sixth. McCumber attacked directly Kern's Speeches in refutation. He affirmed his belief in the application of the plea of res adjudicata on the grounds that the country and a major- ity of the senators were so influenced by their beliefs that they were incapable of deciding the case on its own merits. He denied that the new evidence was of sufficient character and strength to justify a new trial, but offered no evidence to substantiate his claim until the discussion of his next main point. Then, he contended that even if some corruption existed, the evidence did not implicate enough members 140nm. 141Bowers, op. cit., p. 247. -277- of the Illinois state legislature to make a difference in the outcome of the election. He spent the remainder of the speech offering evi- dence from.the testimony which was designed to discredit the chief witnesses of the minority, whose testimony Kern had reviewed in the last two days of his speech.142 Senator Myers followed ucCumber, and bolstered Kern's argument against the plea of res adjudicata by citing legal precedents for Kern's stand and by substantiating the existence of new evidence in the case.143 On July eighth Senator Fletcher began his speech in support of Lorimer by returning to the question of the strength of the evidence. He first established the basis for reopening the investigation as being the question of new evidence in the case. He then proceeded carefully to review the testimony given before the committee in an attempt to discredit the evidence of testimony given by Kern in his speeches.1M+ On July ninth Fletcher concluded his remarks by further con— tending that the evidence offered by the minority was not only unre- liable, but was insufficient to warrant trying lorimer again.149 The major speaker in support of Lorimer, Senator Dillingham, also concluded his remarks on that day. He had been speaking each day since July sixth. Dillingham first traced the origins of Lorimer's candidacy for lhzaecord, Part 9, 8672-8677. 1431bid., 8677-8682. 1441616., 8686-8696. 145Ibid., 8723-8726. -278— the United States Senate, then proceeded to give his views on the election of Lorimer, and followed that by a discussion of the evi- dence offered by the minority in Kern's speech in an effort to dis- credit that testimony. Following this, Uillingham discussed his interpretation of the move to unseat Lorimer, charging that forces were at work who wanted Lorimer's ouster for selfish reasons. He then moved on to a discussion of the confessions of the four Illinois state legislators in an attempt to discredit them. In his conclusion, Dillingham argued that the new evidence had proven conclusively that Lorimer's election was a result of natural political conditions in Illinois, and that the pressure of public opinion for Lorimer's ouster should not be permitted to prevail upon the senators in the face of the evidence of his innocence.1A6 Following a short speech by Senator Johnston in support of Lorimer and the plea of res adjudicata, general debate on the question of sufficient new evidence in the case prevailed for better than an hour with Senator Jones the chief speaker. At several points the position of the committee majority was certainly a losing one on this question, as can be indicated by the following exchange between Jones and Kern: Mr. KERN. Does the Senator from washington agree,... that Lee O'Neill Browne distributed some kind of fund...to ...members of the legislature in June? Mr. JONES. Oh, yes; I will agree to that. Mr. KERN. Very well. Then, is it not true that that evidence of the distribution of money by Lee O'Neill Browne in June and Robert E. Wilson in July and the payment by Broderick of money to Holstlaw is entirely new evidence that was not conceded at all by the friends of Senator 146mm. , 8726-8771.. -279- LORIMER in the previous investigation? Mr. JOKES. Certainly not. That evidence was all brought out in the other investigation and was all con- sidered by the Senate. Mr. KERN. But did not the friends of Senator LORIHSH here in the former investigation utterly discredit that testimony as to the diStribution of money by Lee O'Neill Browne and Robert E. Wilson? Hr. JONES. I am.not here to say what the friends of Senator LORIMER did. I do not know just what relevancy the Senate attaches to that matter at this point.le7 Kern continued to debate with Jones his views on the case with as much success,1A8 and the general impression received from an examination of these exchanges is that Senator Jones did Lorimer little good. The entire position of the committee majority was placed in a very bad light. Following the debate, Jones continued his remarks with only occasional.interruptions. He devoted his time in attempts to discredit the testimony offered in evidence by Kern, and support the majority's plea of res adjudicata.149 Senator Borah then spoke in opposition to the plea of res adjudicata, and in support of Kern's viewpoint that the plea was not applicable and had come too late in the case even for consideration. Senator Jones regained the floor during the ensuing debate to challenge Kern's argument that the people would meet the decision of the senate to admit the plea of res adjudicata with derision. He stated that the people were interested in the case, but were interested in seeing it decided justly and fairly. "The people expect us to do our duty re- gardless of public clamor and Prejudice.vl50 14712221... 8818-8819. 1481mm, 8819-8821. 149%., 8821-8842. 1501bid., 881.7. -230. On July eleventh Senator Thornton made a short speech in sup- port of Lorimer which did not bear significantly on the case as pre- sented by Kern. Senator lea followed Thornton, and spoke in support of Kern's refutation of the plea of res adjudicata, and then in support of the evidence offered by the minority.151 Senator Lorimer followed Lea in his own defense. Near the beginning of his remarks Lorimer attacked Kern's ridicule of the de— fense of res adjudicata: This is no joke. It is a solemn, serious matter, and if the Senate shall adopt the recommendation submitted with the views of the minority of the committee;...it will be a de- claration that the Senate of the United States has decided to follow the red flag and that it has adopted the doctrine of anarchy, the recall of judicial decisions. The senator from.Indiana argues that the doctrine of res adjudicata is a technical defense which does not apply in this case, and that the people would not understand it... The rule of...former adjudication...is understood by the most humble citizen of this country as a guaranty to him against repeated assaults upon his liberty, his property or his rights.152 Lorimer then went on to offer evidence to support his contention that the move to unseat him had been organized by special interest forces. Lorimer continued his remarks on July twelfth, and it became increasingly clear that he was not feeling very friendly towards Kern: Probably the Senator from.Indiana has the idea that all public men devote their time to pulling down people and things and that none of them.devote their time to building up. For 17 years I have devoted my time to the deep waterway project.153 In every contrast, as can be seen from.the examples cited, it becomes 151Ibid., 8882-8892. 1521bid., 8892. ls3Ibid o ’ 8942 ° ~281- increasingly clear that Lorimer was attempting to create for himself the role of a misunderstood martyr. Lorimer next shifted to an attack of the language used by Kern in the report of the minority, claiming that it was full of "vile insinuations." Here is another statement-~and oh, Senators, this is a vile insinuation, because it involves a man who is in no way connected with the case: Listen to this language- "Some one else"—-mind that-~"some one else"-- Why was not the governor's name used. The expression "somebody else" was more suspicious.l)4 Lorimer then attacked Kern's speech of June fifth. He accused Kern of "setting the stage" by deliberate exaggeration of Illinois politi- cal conditions in order to protect Senator Lea, a member of the minor- ity, from criticism resulting from the fact that he was also elected by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans by the Tennessee state legislature. That is all there is to it-—the setting of the stage-- to cover up the LEA Republican votes, to cover up the Tennes— see bipartisan combination, to make Senators forget it. What are the facts in this case? Almost every Democrat that voted for LORIMER was LORIMER'S warm, close, personal friend. Almost every Republican that voted for Senator LEA was delivered to him by the leaders of the Republican or- ganization of that State and did not vote for him for reasons of personal friendship, as was the case in my eleCLion. That is the record in the case. It can be the only purpose of putting the case in that way.155 On June seventh Kern had told in his speech how a young man by the name of McCann had been given a position in a county clerk's office in Cook County for corroborating the testimony of one of the men .__4I_ lSthid,, 3942. 155Ibid., 89h3. -282- involved in the corruption. Kern stated that this treatment indicated a pattern of providing for those who were witnesses for Lorimer. Lori- :ner called it: The most vile insinuation that has been made: Mr. President, if the above statement means anything in connection with this case, it means that I have been suborn- ing perjury. If that is the intent of the Senator from Indiana, I desire to characterize this statement in the only manner in which it can properly be characterized--a deliberately false statement. Suborning perjury is the insinuation; LORIhER the guilty man.l> From this point the attack on Kern became quite vicious and defamatory to Kern's character. Among several paragraphs of scathing digression into personalities, the following stands out: Because he [Kern] made that charge against his colleague ivelfi], it makes no impression on me. I never knew a character of his sort who was a good loser; and seldom are they willing to attribute the success of their opponents to anything but unfair dealing. until it is proven, I will never believe, after reading the views of the minority that he signed, and the statements that he made in his speech on this case, that there is a word of truth in it....And as he sat there before me with assumed self-righteousness and an expression of "more holy than thou" on his countenance, then was I reminded of the Pharisee in the parable, with his hands reaching to the high heaven in prayer: God, I thank Thee that I am not as other men are,...even as this publican.l57 Lorimer continued his remarks by giving his analysis of the teatimony, with a few references to Kern in the same uncomplimentary vein which has been previouslyobserved.”8 ' Lorimer concluded his remarks on July thirteenth in a state— .ment which was saturated with psychological appeals. Only minor lfiélbid. 157Ibid., 894). 1531bid., 8949-8949. -283- . u . . 'c references were made to hern during these concluding appeals.lb} Fol- lowing Lorimer's remarks and two short explanations by senators of their votes, the vote was taken and Lorimer was ousted by a vote of 55 to 28 with 11 senators not voting because of absence.100 In connection with the attack by Lorimer on Kern, Bowers stated: It is not surprising in view of the important part he played in the development of the case against Lorimer and Lorimerism that the anonymous attacks that had been made upon him should find open expression on the floor of the senate. The attack came in the course of Lorimer's speech in his own defense. 6 Bowers continued to describe the nature of Lorimer's speech. It was a masterly appeal to the emotions from.a consummate criminal lawyer conscious of a desperate cause and bent on diverting the jury 1rom.the irresiStiole facts to the non- essentials. The manner of the delivery would have rejoiced the heart of a Belasco. It was draratic, intensely so. No one listening to Lorimer as he spoke that day to a packed gallery and with the floor of the senate thronged with attaches and members of the house would have been surprised had he been told that the speaker was one of the greatest jury orators in the country. It was in the course of this speech that Lorimer entered upon a bitter attack upon hern which indicated unmistakably the object of his special animus.162 The hew York Times described the effect of that attack on the senate. hr. Lorimer's attack upon Senator Kern seemed to daze the Senate. Mr. Kern was out of the chamber at the time. But Mr. Kern came in later and much surprise was then felt that he made no attempt to defend the statements he had made and which hr. Lorimer denounced as "lies."153 Bowers relates the reasons for Kern's absence from the chamber, and 159Ibid., 8968-8986. 1601bid., 8986-8987. 161Bowers, op. cit., p. 248. 162Ibid. 163New York Times, July 13, 1912, p. 1. -28[+_ the reasons why Kern did not reply to Lorimer. hhen the attack began, one of Kern's friends sent word to him, and Kern started for the capi- tol. Kern had been ill for a month and unable to attend the senate sessions. He had been lying down in his room.at the Senate Office Building when word reached him. he was met in the subway by some of his supporters and told of the nature of the attack. During the en- suing conference it Was decided that unless the attack became too venomous, Kern would ignore it. It was felt that a personal exchange between Kern and Lorimer would only divert attention from.the real issue and possibly delay the vote on the issue. Kern proceeded to the chamber following the conference, found a chair within a few feet of Lorimer, turned it so as to sit facing the speaker, and remained in 161; that attentive position until Lorimer finished. After the Speech was over and the hew York Times correspondent asked Kern to comment on it, hern stated, "I will have no colloquy with Senator Lorimer. He is in his death agonies."165 Kern's comment appears to be a fairly accurate description. The New York Times correspondent described the scene the next day as Lorimer concluded his speech as an intensely emotional one. The galleries were packed, and the women among them.were sobbing as Lori- mer's eloquence drew to a close. But his eloquence in those two final hours changed no votes, and Lorimer was disqualified from.the seat that he had held for three years.166 16hBowers, op. cit., p. 2A9. 165 1661bid., July 11., 1912, p. 1. New York Times, July 13, 1912, p. l. -285- Thus, it appears that the passage of a month since Kern's deliveny of his major addresses had done nothing to harm his cause. The 55 votes against Lorimer, indicated in Sherman's poll prior to the debate, remained firmly against him. It is a tribute to the strength of Kern's speeches on the question that despite the fact that his op- position had a full month in which to prepare an answer, it was not possible for them to present a convincing indictment against the minority's case. But perhaps a better indication of the importance of and re- sponse to Kern's address is given by the Chicago Daily Tribune corres— pondent, John O'Laughlin, after the interval of several years from the time of the event: His arguments, or rather his presentation of facts, were absolutely convincing, but more than this, the fact that he had come to the conclusion that Lorimer's seat had been pur- chased unquestionably influenced senators who rg$0gnized his integrity and the reliability of his judgment.1 From O'Laughlin's comments it becomes apparent why Lerimer's personal attack against hern.won him no converts, and why Kern and his support- ers felt that it was unnecessary to reply to him. §ygggry on responsg. The immediate response to Kern's speech may be generally classed as favorable. Even the members who supported Lorimer found little to challenge during the delivery of the speech. The remote response, as measured by the speeches given on the subject one month later, reveal that Lorimer's supporters were more adept at meeting Kern's prosecution than Iorimer himself. Even they, however, failed to substantiate their arguments satisfactorily to the senate 167Bowers, op. cit., p. 2AA. —286- and the interested public. Lorimer resorted to an attack on Kern's character, rather than confining himself to iern's arguments and the evidence. He tended to dwell on minor points and irrelevant issues. with the result that his final appeal was lost on the senators and impressed only the galleries. Lorimer's response to Kern's speeches and the minority report is probably one of the most dramatic and emotionally-charged scenes ever experienced by the senate. Thus, the total response to Kern's speeches on the Lorimer question is favorable from three standpoints. First, Kern's speaking was considered by his immediate and remote audiences as a carefully constructed legal argument and an adequate presentation of the views of the committee.minority. Second, the speeches by Kern were inade- quately challenged by Lorimer's supporters, thereby indicating the strength of Kern's arguments. Finally, the fact that the number of votes against Lorimer, indicated in the pro-debate polls, was the exact number of votes against him on the final votes indicates that Kern's speeches did not result in a loss of support for the minority 168 resolution. Summary Preparation. A primany source for Kern's preparation was his original theory on the Lorimer case which had been substantiated during the investigation. Firmly convinced of Lorimer's guilt, Kern began his 163At the close of the first investigation opinion in the senate had been quite evenly divided with those in favor of Lorimer's ouster believed to have a slight majority. However, after Lorimer's speech, the final vote was registered in favor of Lorimer and his defense. Bowers, op. cit., pp. 226-229. ~287- preparation by reviewing and taking notes on the 8,588 pages of testi- mony that had been collected by the committee. He had his purpose and his role of prosecutor firmly in mind as he went about his preparation. Each day's address was prepared separately, and no part of one day's address was prepared before the address preceeding it had been given. He was so rushed by the preparation that he was usually working on the day's speech right up to the time for its delivery. The separate pre- parations and separate deliveries, when considered in light of the context of the four days of remarks, clearly indicate the remarks are not one continuous speech, but in reality are three distinct speeches. Immediate setting and ocgggigp. Kern was the spokesman for the minority of the investigating committee, and he approached his task with the knowledge that senate majority opinion was in his favor. The speech under examination was given on June fourth with the Demo- cratic side of the senate present in force to observe Kern's conduct in the debate. His audience during the remaining days was generally confined to new senators who had entered the senate since the close of the first investigation, while the other senators retired to their cloakrooms. Lorimer and his chief supporters were usually present. Arrangement. The introduction accomplishes three functions within its four points; it announces and limits Kern's purpose, it establishes the rationale for his speech, and it introduces his speci- fic subject. Three main points, each with three or four sub-points as support, are inductively develOped through refutation supported by argument. The conclusion of the speech consists of an abbreviated summary and a word of explanation. The structural unity of the speech -288- is maintained through internal and external summaries, singleness of Kern's purpose, and the repetitive theme in the psychological arrange- ment . Invention. Imperfect inductive reasoning is used in the development of IOgical appeals that concentrate on refutation of a single argument through three main points. The introduction employs exposition and sign reasoning as the chief lOgical appeals, while the three main points of the body are developed by causal argument. Sign reasoning, causal argument, evidence of fact, argument by condition, enthymeme, and argument by reductio pg absurdum are used in the sub- points within the main points. Primary sincerity is one of the chief contributors to the ethical appeals found in the Speech, and is accompanied by a secondary atmosphere of fairmindedness. His attitudes toward himself, his sub— jeCt, and his audience also make substantial contributions. Personal identification with ideals, the "public,” and the audience offer ethi- cal appeals, as does Kern's seeming objectivity on the subject. Ex- pressed characteristics of the speaker include character, fund of knowledge, tact, opinion, past success, and experience. Unexpressed characteristics include popularity, age, intelligence, political ex- perience, and appearance and bearing. PsychOIOgical appeals also make their contribution. The kinds employed include appeals to selfish interests, tone of the occasion, known audience attitudes, praise, occupational status, self-intelli- gence, "reason," conflict, and social consciousness. The psychologi- cal arrangement of the speech is based upon a pattern of reiteration ~289- of a summary appeal. Suggestion in the speech is achieved through extensive use of figurative language, the level of language usage, "loaded" words, striking statements, and the rhythm of the style. Specific psychological appeals, few in number, are made only to the basic drive of security. Major secondary motive appeals include "implication by action," honesty, honor through shame, friendship above political strife, and duty above friendship. Other secondary motive appeals include appeals to economy of time, sympathy for others, praise, power, justice, instances not named, common sense, and approval by others. Attention factors employed include conflict, specific de- tails, direct references to audience members, common ground, and vitalness. fl. Kern's style is characterized by force achieved through the use of effective word choice, prOper selection of support- ing details, and effective sentence arrangement. Accuracy is achieved through the use of correct grammatical forms and precision in the denotative and connotative meanings of the words used in the speech. Directness of the style is aided by Kern's adjustment in language, and the language suitability to the occasion, Kern's personality, and the purpose and type of the speech. Clarity of the style is preserved through the conversational tone of the speech and the presence of euphony, despite Kern's weakness for run-on sentences. Variety is indicated in Kern's choice of words, the ordering of phrases and sen- tences, and the use of vivid and figurative language. Stylistic de— vices are numerous. Using the classical definitions of levels of style, Kern's speech in refutation of the plea of res adjudicata exemplifies the middle style. ~290- Deliverz. The general remarks in chapter four on delivery apply in this instance.169 In addition, Kern was hampered in the delivery of the speeches by his weakened physical condition. On June fourth he spoke for an hour, June fifth for a little under two hours, June seventh for three hours, and June eighth for a little over an hour. Response. The response to the speech may be characterized as favorable before his immediate and remote audience of the senate and before the remote audience of the interested public. Unfavorable response was registered only in the case of Lorimer and his supporters. lWSee chap. iv, pp. 205-2U'/. 429L- CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS DeveloPment of Kern Essentially three features in the life of John Worth Kern prior to his senate career are of significance in examining his senate speaking: his character and personality development, his political develOpment, and his speaking. Character and personality develgpment. Kern's early years were spent in the pioneer regions of Howard County, Indiana and Warren County, Iowa. His parents, while not wealthy, were able to provide more of the comforts of living for their family than was true of the general population. Kern's early formal education took place in a school in Iowa, while his advanced teacher train- ing was received at Indiana Normal School of Kokomo when he was only fifteen years old. He was characterized as being financially economical, industrious toward his education, ambitious, gentle in disposition, and religiously inclined. Determined to become a lawyer, Kern taught school for two terms from late 1865 to early 1867 in order to finance his legal education. A sense of discipline, responsibility, and deep re- ligious conviction were revealed in this period as additional traits of Kern's personality and character. His method of teach- ing also reveals that Kern was inclined to be creative and original in his thinking. After attending the University of Michigan law school, Kern Opened his private practice in law in Kokomo, Indiana in -292- May of 1869. Other traits of his personality and character now became apparent as he entered young adulthood. His social gregariousness, high degree of intelligence, pOpularity, under- standing of human nature and emotions, capacity for deep feelings on firm convictions, analytical mind, depth and rapidity of per- ception, sense of humor, and loyality to his beliefs manifested themselves as the young lawyer progressed in his private practice. Kern achieved state-wide prominence as a lawyer shortly after entering into a partnership with Leo O. Bailey. His customary dress in 1895 was considered to be in excellent taste, with his Prince Albert coat and black silk hat. His manner was cordial and inspired confidence in his ability and sincerity. His social affiliations included membership in the Knights of Pythias and the Order of Elks, and he had advanced in the Masonic order to the thirty-second degree. Although still orthodox in his religious beliefs, he was not now a member of any church. The other traits of his personality and character were still very much in evidence and contributed to his social success at parties and friendly gatherings in Indianapolis. Kern's physical health had never been excellent, and the strain of public life weakened him further until in 1906 he con— tracted tuberculosis and spent three months in recuperation at a sanitorium, leaving before the recovery period was completed. His illness served to deepen his devotion to his family and his home life, but his sense of devotion to principles was strong enough to keep him from drapping out of public life. The development of Kern's character and personality ~293- resulted in an enviable personal pOpularity which served as a strong foundation for a career in public life. But more impor- tant, perhaps, Kern's character and personality contained qualities that provided a sound basis for the position of leader- ship that he held during his public career. These qualities also served as personal reservoirs from which he could draw decisions when they had to be made and causes that could be advocated with an intenseness of sincerity and purpose. Political Deve10pment. Kern's political develOpment was nurtured by his father's example. Dr. Jacob W. Kern had risen in politics by 1849 to the presidency of the Howard County Democratic Convention. Kern, himself, became an intensely loyal Democrat at an early age, and manifested his convictions in the campaign of 1860 by his yelling and cheering for Douglas on trips to Indianola, Iowa. His early legal practice made him a potential candidate for public office, but his chances of success were slim in a county which consistently piled up impressive 1,200 vote majori- ties or more for Republican candidates. His devotion to the party of his choice, however, led him to accept his party's call regardless of the hopelessness of his task. In 1870 he ran for the state legislature and was beaten by less than 200 votes. By 1874, his leadership in the Democratic party had advanced him to the office of principal Secretary of the State Democratic Conventions, a position which he held until 1884, and to the position of Howard County representative to the State Democratic Committee a -294- In 1874 and 1880 Kern ran for the office of Prosecuting Attorney for Howard County, each time exceeding his party in the number of votes cast for his election and losing to his Republican opponent by only a few hundred votes. He was known within the county and state Democratic circles as a strong advocate for reform. His loyalty to the Democratic party was so intense that by 1876 even personal convictions could not stand in the way of his support of Democratic candidates, but he was against the use of money to purchase support in elections and predicted the downfall of this practice before.the court of public opinion in the near future. By 1884 he had become known across the state as a politi- cal figure, and he decided to run in the fall elections for the state office of Reporter to the Supreme Court. Kern won election to the office and ran 1500 votes ahead of the Democratic ticket in an unusual year when Democrats were very successful in the state. He lost the fight for reelection to the office in 1888 but had gained considerable experience and valuable political friends while in office. The election of 1892 placed him in the state legislature as senator from Marion County, where he became known chiefly as a friend of organized labor. By 1895 he had advanced within the state senate to the position of minority leader for the Democrats, his chief role being that of critic of the Republican majority. During the 1890's Kern became associated with Thomas Taggert who was later to become the Democratic state political boss. As mayor of Indianapolis, Taggert named Kern corporation ~295~ counsel in 1895, and City Attorney in 1897 and 1899. This led to Kern's nomination in 1900 by the Taggert-dominated state con- vention as Democratic candidate for Governor. While running well ahead of the national Democratic ticket in Indiana, Kern was defeated in the election. He was persuaded to run again in 1904 for Governor by the Democratic presidential nominee, Alton B. Parker, and lost in a landslide Republican victory, While a Republican-dominated legislature assured a Republican United States Senator, Kern received the complimentary vote of his party for the office in 1905. Kern now enjoyed considerable national Democratic pres- tige, and had many friends among national Democratic leaders. This popularity, together with his friendship with Bryan and his identification with Bryan's political principles, won him the Vice-Presidential nomination in the National Democratic Convention of 1908, despite his personal reluctance to accept it. Although it was his third major politiCal defeat, Kern remained a strong Democratic contender for public office since Republican domination was the rule during this period on both the national and many state levels. The Democrats, however, dominated the Indiana state legislature after the election of 1908, and Kern was considered a pOpular choice for United States Senator. Three major factors (the defeat of Taggert forces in the State Democratic Convention by anti-machine forces, lack of support from Governor Marshall and Taggert, and Kern's self-confidence) combined with other lesser factors to defeat Kern's candidacy and elect Benjamin F. ~296- Shively. Papular reaction and the "freak" adaption of Governor Marshall's plan to commit the Democratic party in advance of the election to a particular candidate for United States Senator, combined to bring about suitable conditions for the nomination and election of Kern to the United States Senate in 1910. Kern was already known as a champion of the political principles of Bryan and the principles of reform, as well as having the reputation of being a friend to labor. In the campaign of 1910, Kern placed himself firmly in favor of the Specific measures of government subsidization of merchant shipping and the national income tax. He condemned extravagance in government eXpenditures and the Payne-Aldrich Tariff and advocated a dollar- a-day pension for Civil War veterans. Thus, Kern brought with him into the United States Senate a considerable store of political experience covering a period of forty-two years. He also came to the senate with considerable national prestige and pOpularity among members of his profession, and he possessed a considerable reputation as a successful politi- cal leader in Democratic circles. Riding the crest of a national reform movement, his role as Bryan's lieutenant also advanced his stature among the Democratic senators. His eXperience with the political issues of the day well qualified him for a position of leadership in the national legislature. Experience and training in public speaking. Kern's experi- ence in and study of public speaking began at about the time he entered the Indiana Normal School of Kokomo. He studied the great speakers as a boy and practiced oratory on the rides to and ~297- from school. As a student, he excelled in oratory and forensic contests and was known to have a clear, incisive and earnest manner in his delivery. His teaching experience contributed to his growing reputa- tion as a young orator, not only in the classroom, but also in the Dyar school literary and debating society which Kern organized. Kern's public Speaking training and practice continued during his attendance at the University of Michigan. Club courts, moot courts, and the Douglas Literary Society offered Opportunities for a great deal of public speaking practice, while attendance at student-Sponsored lectures provided modern contem- porary examples of public speaking. Kern's formal training in public Speaking, however, was obtained largely from lectures in elocution given twice each week to the law students by Professor Moses Coit Tyler, an instructor with a deep understanding of the classical concepts of rhetoric. As a country lawyer, Kern began to build his reputation as an orator chiefly by his practice before the justice of the peace courts. His oratory was characterized by the display of great skill in the marshalling of facts and circumstances, and in the use of pathos, ridicule and invective. He was highly persuasive, skilled in reaching the minds and hearts of his audiences. His oratorical skill and ability were of significance in the success of his early criminal law practice. His political oratory also won a favorable response, first in Howard County and later on the state and national scenes. Beginning in 1874, Kern gave the major address on reform at each —298- Howard County Democratic Convention for a number of years. Many of his early campaign Speeches also centered on this general theme, with special emphasis given to economy in government ex- penditures. Kern's use of ridicule in pointing out extravagant expenditures of the Republican office-holders was esPecially effective in the develOpment of this theme. In the campaign of 1884 be concentrated his oratorical efforts on the tariff question, usually speaking for two hours ' each time. His Speaking was characterized as being eloquent, logical, convincing, highly persuasive in matters of pathos, and cognizant of matters of giggg. He was principally known as a highly logical Speaker in contrast to his highly emotional Speaking of ten years previous. He had now achieved a state-wide reputation as a skilled political stump orator. While a member of the state senate in the late 1890's Kern's Speaking attracted attention for containing more evidence for better support, greater variety, and more originality than was true of the Speeches of most Indiana legislators. His sense of humor and ability in ridicule remained as strong features of his oratory. The campaigns of 1900, 1904, and 1908 made substantial contributions to his oratorical experience and broadened his reputation to include the national scene. His Speaking in the campaign for the United States Senate in 1910 was highly logical, dealing with the issues in a frank and straightforward manner, but satire and ridicule were major weapons in his successful campaign against the veteran Republican orator, Albert J. Beveridge. ~299- In summary Kern's Speaking was the product of a man whose character, personality and political eXperience had brought to the fore leadership qualities that abundantly suited him to his new career as a United States Senator. His speaking, while highly logical, could still play on human emotions and made ex- tensive use of the weapons of ridicule and satire in humor. His political experience included a store of encounters as an advocate of reform, and he was entering the senate at the advent of an era of reform. Behind both his Speaking ability and his political experience was the firm foundation of an idealistically oriented and highly affable character and personality. Kern's Informal Speaking in the United States Senate Influence of his leadership. Perhaps the chief sources of Kern's success in informal speaking situations while a senator were his political experience, his persuasive ability, and his leadership qualities. During the first two years that he was in the senate his informal speaking was felt in a number of ways. His leadership of the Democratic progressive senators resulted in political concessions from the Democratic conservative senators that gave voice to the ideas of the progressives on important committees and placed Kern in a recognized position of leadership. During the investigationcnfthe election of William Lorimer to the senate Kern's leadership played a major role in the successful outcome of the investigation, deSpite the pro-Lorimer report of the committee's majority. In other issues his voice was raised -300- during the debates both on the floor and in committees, and, while his efforts were not always successful, his influence was felt. His insistent refusal to become a "dark horse" candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1912 was of some Signifi- cance in the eventual nomination of Woodrow Wilson for President and Thomas Marshall for Vice-President. But the real significance of Kern's informal Speaking was not felt until the formation of the Sixty-third Congress. During this Congress and the one which followed, Kern served as majority leader in the senate. Kern posSessed some character- istics which made his selection a reasonable one deSpite his lack of senority. He was a nationally known progressive, possessed the tact necessary to deal with a Small majority, and exhibited a conciliatory and kindly manner based on years of political experience. Immediately following his selection, the long-standing principles of seniority in committee selection and in the senate rules were destroyed, and under Kern's direction the committees 'were formed without dissatisfaction being expressed on the senate floor. Kern's leadership was quickly put to the test during the Special Session of the Sixty-third Congress in the summer of 1913. He faced the constant task of maintaining the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill during the hot Washington summer, and by personal and party pressure (by speaking personally to the senators and through the instrument of the Democratic senate caucus) success- fully accomplished that task. There were always some who were dissatisfied, and on one occasion a Democratic senator bolted Ar . -301- the caucus decision on a measure and accused Kern's leadership of machine tactics. Under Kern's leadership, however, the instru- ment of the majority caucus became a potent weapon in the success of Wilson's first administration. Under its shadow the senate accomplished a downward revision of the tariff and passed the Federal Reserve Act, two of Wilson's major campaign promises, before adjournment on December 23, 1913. The weapon of the caucus and Kern's leadership continued to be successful during the next session in 1914. In March of 1915, Kern's control over the caucus failed, and seven Democrats joined with the Republicans to defeat the administration Sponsored Ship Purchase bill. Again, in 1916 Kern's leadership of the caucus came near to failure when the caucus decided not to pass the Child Labor bill prior to adjournment, but, through the personal intervention of the President and Kern's renewed persuasive efforts, the caucus action was reversed and the bill passed. Influence in conferences. In addition to his leadership in the caucus, Kern's informal Speaking was felt in other avenues. In his relations with the President there often were occasions for conferences and meetings which utilized this means of com- nnunication. While no causal relationship can be drawn, favorable legislative action usually followed these conferences between Kern (and sometimes other Congressional leaders) and the President, and a list of these measures include the Child Labor bill, the defeat of the Gore resolution, the Adamson Act, the Underwood tariff bill, and the Federal Reserve Act. Conferences between Kern and individual senators of both parties also played a ~302- significant role in obtaining support for these and other measures. His insistent persuasiveness in these individual meetings made it much easier for the other senators to follow his reasoning and his opinions on the measure than to Oppose him. Influence of personal relations. Kern's personal rela- tions with the members of the administration and with other senators also played a major role in the success of his informal Speaking. President Wilson placed considerable reliance upon him and his judgment, although he may have felt some distrust of Kern because of his status as a professional politician. Secretary of the Treasury William G. McAdoo, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels, and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan were among his close friends, and he was admired and reSpected by many of the administration who were not as close to him. While not universally liked in the senate, several senators claimed that he was universally admired and respected by his colleagues in the senate on both sides of the aisle. Among the adjectives used to describe him are reSponsible, patient, tactful, loved, respected, kindly, efficient, practical, ideal leader, resourceful, courteous, generous, unbending integrity, candid, sympathetic, conciliatory, wise, helpful, patriotic, honorable, loyal, dignified, able, and upright. These attributes, which were applied to Kern during and at the close of his term in the senate, are indications of the strength of his character and personality, and suggest some of the reasons for the success of his leadership and informal Speaking in the senate. Probably Kern's informal Speaking in -303- conferences, caucuses, and individual meetings represents his most important contribution to the senate as a speaker. Kern's Formal Speaking in the Senate Introduction. Kern's formal speaking falls essentially into the three categories of responsive debate, non-issue connec- ted speeches, and issue connected speeches. The first two categories were eliminated from detailed consideration because of their relatively slight importance, and two speeches were selected from the third category for detailed rhetorical analysis. The other Speeches in this third category centered in Kern's desire for improved laboring conditions (the speeches on the Paint Creek Resolution), his reforming desire to eliminate waste in government expenditures (the speech on the Public Buildings bill of 1912), and his personal loyalty to his party and the President (the Speech against the Gore resolution of 1916). The first Speech selected for analysis (the Speech on the Sherwood bill) fulfilled Kern's campaign promise to support dollar-a-day pension legislation if he was elected to the senate, and the second speech (the speech in refutation of the plea of res adjudicata in the election case of Senator William Lorimer) re- flected.Kern's desire to eliminate corruption in elections. Cgmparison of the two speeches examined. In comparing these two speeches certain similarities and dissimilarities are noted. Both Speeches follow an imperfect inductive pattern of arrangement, make extensive use of ethical appeals, utilize :ridicule and satire in humor, employ argument by reductio 3g -304- absurdum in building the major climax, and contain the weakness in style of a preponderent usage of run-on sentences. Force, accuracy, directness, clearness, and variety characterize the style of both Speeches. The Speeches are dissimilar in purpose in that the speech on the Sherwood bill relies heavily on psychological appeals to advocate a measure which was based upon the ideals of humane and charitable treatment for the veterans who were no longer able to care for themselves. On the other hand, the speech on the plea of res adjudicata was designed to refute a legal plea by making a logically constructed attack on the legal basis for that plea. Thus, heavy reliance was placed on the logical appeals with psychological appeals still receiving some emphasis. Dissimilarity in purpose also led to dissimilarity in the kinds of logical appeals employed. In the speech on the Sherwood bill, argument from comparison and contrast is utilized 'while support elements include a great many unsupported assertions. 'However, the Speech on the plea of res adjudicata utilizes largely causal argument with more substantial support elements including further causal argument and Sign reasoning. In matters of style, the speech on the plea of res ad- judicata possesses greater clarity, more variety, and is more direct. The speech on the Sherwood bill, however, is character- ized by a greater forcefulness of style. Figurative language plays a more prominent role in the Speech on the Sherwood bill. Essentially, the preparation and delivery of both speeches are the same. Kern prepared each Speech by writing out in ‘— ‘u—w. A -305- long-hand a manuscript which was probably largely free from de- letions and additions. It is probable that a great deal of mental selection and rejection of ideas occurred before Kern placed any- thing down in writing. It does appear that he made more detailed preparation for his Speech on the plea of res adjudicata than on the Speech in favor of the Sherwood bill, since a great deal more information was involved in the Lorimer question. Positive con- clusions on Kern's preparation are thwarted by the lack of authoritative information and the absence of original manuscripts of the speeches. Specific information on the delivery of these two Speeches in the senate is lacking, but certain general remarks about his delivery may have applied in these instances. Generally, Kern's delivery in the senate was conversational in tone without em- bellishments. He spoke directly to his audience with fluency and sincerity and only occasionally raised his voice in an emotional .response to the strength of his convictions. His articulation and pronunciation were considered good, and he did not speak in the Hoosier regional dialect. His physical bearing was relaxed and in good taste. Response to the two Speeches was largely favorable, but, i1: the case of the Speech on the Sherwood bill, the reSponse of his immediate audience of the senate was largely unfavorable to the central idea of the Speech. The reSponse of the remote audience of Civil War veterans to this Speech was quite favorable witiilumndreds of letters received by Kern indicating this. Both ~306- the immediate and remote audiences reSponded favorably to the speech in refutation of the plea of res adjudicata. The favorable response in the case of the Sherwood bill Speech was largely in- dicated in the letters expressing agreement with Kern's view- points on the bill, while the response to the other speech con- tained a considerable amount of praise directed at the Speech itself. It was considered a highly logical, very persuasive, and completely adequate presentation of the case against retaining William Lorimer in the senate. Summary Kern's formal and informal speaking in the Senate of the United States was, of course, a direct result of the issues that confronted the senate, but he can be termed a good speaker not only because of the issues upon which he spoke, but because of his personality and character, his public Speaking experience, his political experience, and his leadership ability, all of which were acquired as a result of his long experience in public life. His informal speaking appears to us today to be of greater significance than his formal Speaking, but when the need arose :for Kern to address the senate from the floor on an issue of concern to him, he presented his case forcefully and well. U.S. U.S. U.S. -307- BIBLIOGRAPHY -Public Documents Congressional Record. Vols. XLVII-LIV. House of Representatives, Committee of Conference. Service Pension to Certain Defined Veterans of the Civil War and War with Mexico. Report No. 647, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., 1912. House of Representatives, Committee on Invalid Pensions. Service Pensions for Certain Defined Soldiers of the Civil War. Report No. 160, 62d Cong., lst Sess., 1911. Senate, Committee on Pensions. Remarks of Porter J. McCumber. Document No. 645, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., 1912. Senate, Committee on Pensions. Service Pension: Report of the Committee on Pensions Together With the Views of a Minority on H.R. 1. Report No. 355, Part 1, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., 1912. Senate, Committee to Investigate the Election of William Lorimer. Election of William Lorimer: Hearings Pursuant to S.R. 60. Document 484, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., 1912. Senate, Committee to Investigate the Election of William Lorimer. Election of William Lorimer: Report. Report No. 769, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., 1912. Books Alsop, Em Bowles (ed.). The Greatness of Woodrow Wilson. McGill, Ralph. "The President." New York: Rinehart and Company, 1956. Baker. Ray Stannard. Woodrow Wilson: Life and Letters. Vol. III. GovernorL 1910-1913. Vol. V. Neutrality, 1914-1915. Vol. VI. FacingWarL 1915-1917. 8 vols. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran and Company, 1927-1939. BljJflgley, Wilfred E. President and Congress. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1947. -308- Biogpaphical Sketches of Members of the Indiana State Government; State and Judicial Officials, and Members of the Fifty- fourth Legislative Assembly,g1885. Indianapolis: The Indianapolis Sentinel Company, 1885. Blanchard, Charles (ed.). Counties of Howard and Tipton, Indiana: Historical and Biggraphical. Chicago: F.A. Battey and Company, 1883. Bowers, Claude G. The Life of John Worth Kern. Indianapolis: The Hollenbeck Press, 1918. Brembeck, Winston Lamont and Howell, William Smiley. Persuasion: A Means of Social Control. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1952. Bryan, William Jennings and Bryan, Mary Baird. The Memoirs of William Jennings Bryan. Chicago: The John C. Winston Company, 1925. Commemorative Biographical Record of Prominent and Representative Men of Indianapolis and Vicinity. Chicago: J.H. Beers and Company, 1908. Cumback, Will and Maynard, J.B. (eds.). Men of Progress: Indiana. Indianapolis: The Indianapolis Sentinel Company, 1899. Davis, Oscar King. Released for Publication: Some Inside Histogy of Theodore Roosevelt and His Times,p1898-1918. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925. ‘Esarey, Logan. A History of Indiana: From 1850 to the Present. 2 vols. Indianapolis: B.F. Bowen and Company, 1918. Vol. I. . History of Indiana: From Its Exploration to 1922. Rabb, Kate Milner and Herschell, William. Vol. IV. An Account of Indianapolis and Marion Coungy. 4 vols. Indianapolis: B.F. Bowen and Company, 1922. Ewbank, Henry Lee and Auer, J. Jeffery. Discussion and Debate: Tools of a Democracy. 2d ed. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1951. (Georgew Alexander L. and George, Juliette L. Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A Personality Study. New York: The John Day'Company, 1956. Hechler, Kenneth W. Insurgency: Personalities and Politics of the Taft Era. "Studies in History, Economics, and Public TEEN, No. 470." New York: Columbia University Press, 1940. Hibben, Paxton. The Peerless Leader: William Jennings Bryan. ‘NeW'York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1929. ' ‘9 A. _ “AA -309- Historical Atlas of Howard County, Indiana. Chicago: Kingman Brothers, 1876. Jones, Howard Mumford. The Life of Moses Coithyler. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1933. Kierzek, John M. The MacMillan Handbook of English. 3d ed. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1954. Lief, Alfred. Democracy's Norris: The Biography of a Lonely Crusade. New York: Stackpole Sons, 1939. Link, Arthur S. Wilson: The New Freedom. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956. . Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive EraL 1910-1917. "The New American Nation Series." New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. Long, J.C. Bryan: The Great Commoner. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1928. Marshall, Thomas R. Recollections of Thomas R. Marshall: A Hoosier Salad. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1925. McBurney, James H. and Rance, Kenneth G. Discussion in Human Affairs. revised ed. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. Mills, Glen E. Composing the Speech. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1952. .Monroe, Alan H. Principles and Types of Speech. 4th ed. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1955. Morrow, Jackson. History of Howard CountyJ Indiana. 2 vols. Indianapolis: B.F. Bowen and Company, 1910. National ProgressL 1900-1917. "The Ogg , Frederick Austin . New York: Harper .American Nation: A History, Vol. 27." and Brothers, 1918. John Sharp Williams: Planter-Statesman Osborn , George Coleman. Louisiana State University of the Deep South. Baton Rouge: Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Indifl ~— State Bar Association. Indianapolis: Indiana State Bar Esociation, 1922. Reed, George Irving (ed.). Encyclopedia of Biograptgy of Indiana. 2 \H318. Chicago: The Century Publishing and Engraving Company, 1899. Vol. II. --310- Shaw, Wilfred. The Universityypf Michigan. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920. Shaw, Wilfred B. The University of Michigan: An Enoyclopedic Survey. 4 vols. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1951. Stoll, John B. History of the Indiana Democracyl 1916. Indianapolis: Indiana Democractic Publishing Company, 1917. Sullivan, Mark. Our Times: The United States, 1900-1925. 6 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932-1935. Taylor, Charles W. Biographical Sketches and Review of £22 Bench and Bar of Indiana. Indianapolis: Bench and Bar. Publishing Company, 1895. The Michigan Book. Ann Arbor: Inland Press, 1898. The University of Michigan: An Enoyclopedic Survey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1943. Parts III and IV. Thomas, Charles M. Thomas RileyTMarshall: Hoosier Statesman. Oxford, Ohio: The Mississippi Valley Press, 1939. Warfel, Harry R., Mathews, Ernest G., and Bushman, John C. American College English: A Handbook of Usuage and Composi- tion. New York: American Book Company, 1949. Werner, M.R. Brya . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1929. Articles and Periodicals Adams, Charles Francis. "Pensions--Worse and More of Them," World's Work, XXIII (December, 1911), p. 190. Bowers, Claude G. "John Worth hern: An Appreciation," Fort _Wayne Journal-Gazette, August 27, 1917. Chicago D6114! Tribune. June 3, 5-6, and 8-9, 1912. Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. November 1, 1910; March 17, 1912; July 14, 1912; June 16, 1913; August 27, 1917. Fort Wayne News. April 28, 1913. Ihale, sVilliam Bayard. "Friends and Fellow Citizens," The World's Wordc, XXIII (April, 1912), pp. 679-681. ~311- Hohman, Elmo Paul. "Maritime Labour in the United States: I, The Seamen's Act and its Historical Background," Interna- tional Labour Review, XXXVIII (August, 1938), pp. 200-211. Indiangpolis News. March 16, 1912; June 4-5, 1912. Indianppolis Star. March 17, 1912; June 5-8, 1912. Indianapolis Sun. June 4, 1912. Kokomo Dispatch. August 18-19, and 21, 1917. New York Times. April 6-8, 12, and 28, 1911; March 1-2, and 27, 1912; July 9, and 13-14, 1912; November 27, 1913. "Reviews and Notes," Indiana Magazine of Histopy, XV (March, 1919), p. 78. South Bend Tribune. March 16, 1912. "Survey of the World: The Pension Bill," The Independent, LXXI (December 21, 1911), pp. 1353-1354. Collections Albert J. Beveridge MSS Collection. Indiana State Historical Library; Indianapolis, Indiana. Cottman, George S. (ed.). Indiana Scrapbook Collection: Biography: Indiana State Historical Library; Indianapolis, Indiana. Governor Samuel M. Ralston Collection. Indiana State Historical Library; Indianapolis, Indiana. John W. Kern MSS Collection (Private). Hon. John W. Kern 11. Washington, D.C. Moses Coit Tyler Collection. Cornell University Library; Ithaca, New York. . Rogers, Henry Wade (ed.). Law School Pamphlets. Michigan Historical Collections. University of Michigan; Ann Arbor, Michigan. Sallee, Alva Charles.' Thomas Taggert Collection. Indiana State Historical Library; Indianapolis, Indiana. -312- "They Achieve" Scrapbook Collection. Indiana State Historical Library; Indianapolis, Indiana. Thomas R. Marshall Collection. Indiana State Historical Library; Indianapolis, Indiana. W.D. Foulke Collection. Indiana State Historical Library; Indianapolis, Indiana. Woodrow Wilson Collection. Series I, II, VI, and VII. United States Library of Congress; Washington, D. C. Other Sources Ashurst, Henry Fountain. Letter to writer: July 11, 1958. Bowers, Claude G. Letter to writer; August 15, 1957. Journal of the Forty-sixth National Encampment of the Grand Army of the Republic at Los Angeles, California. September 12-13, 1912. Kokomo, Indiana. Interview with C. V. Haworth, Kokomo historian. August 26, 1957. Miller, Edna. "The Editorial Opinion of John B. Stoll." Un- published Master's thesis, Department of History and Political Science, Butler University, 1946. University of Michigan Law School. Record of the Department of Law in the University of Michigan. Vol. I. Washington, D. C. Interviews with Hon. John W. Kern II, Judge, Tax Court of the United States. October, 1957 through January, 1958. VITA Joseph C. Rhea. was born in Danville, Indiana, December 27, 1932. He completed his high school education in Lansing, Lichigan, in June, 1951. In 1951 he enlisted in the United States Army and served until 195:}, as private, corporal, and sergeant. He attended Michigan State University for three years, completing the Bachelor of Arts Degree in 1957. From 1957 until the conclusion of his grad- uate study toward the 1.2aster of Arts Degree he taught at Flint Junior Community College, Flint, Lichigan, as Instructor in Speech. . 7 C? ff" 6 Jun 59 JUN 20 1362 15:) mag I'r’ “"1 1’5 Jul 5-37 361' W) Q W i: ‘3 ‘ .;~ :- ‘L- 'J", ' ‘kei W“ 192‘.” APR M i "31': ' ' L ‘ J. I .v "t 1' I . - r r‘ ‘E' .| V "- a uh: i ‘1 *"““““" ”i "7'" U v ‘7" ————