“SHALL ILL -- GOTTEN GAINS BE SOUGHT FOR CHRISTIAN PURPOSES 1'.“ WASHINGTON GLADDEN’S “TAINTED MONEY" ADDRESS. SEATTLE, SEPTEMBER 15. 1905 Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JAMES HARVEY CONLEY 1969 This is to certify that the thesis entitled "SHALL ILL-GOTTBN GAINS BE SOUGHT FOR CHRISTIAN PURPOSES?," WASHINGTON GLADDENIS "TAINTED MONEY" ADDRESS, SEATTLE, SEPTEMBER 15, 1905 presented by James Harvey Conley has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhoDo degree in Speech 6 Theatre 8&ch Ct/QL WL Major professor Date flwvfl/z /767 6; / 0-169 LIBRA 1e .' Michigan Stare University u I ....IIITI.I.|.I|. llllllc I. I .77 ABSTRACT ”SHALL ILL—GOTTEN GAINS BE SOUGHT FOR CHRISTIAN PURPOSES?” WASHINGTON GLADDEN'S ”TAINTED MONEY” ADDRESS, SEATTLE, SEPTEMBER 15, 1905 By JAMES HARVEY CONLEY On September 15, 1905, Washington Gladden, "father of the social gospel,” placed a motion before the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions meeting in Seattle opposing that group's solicitation and acceptance of money gifts from morally—questionable sources. The occasion captured national attention, being interpreted as a confrontation between Gladden, a lone voice for righteous— ness, and the day's Spirit of rampant materialism, personified in the popular mind by men like John D. Rockefeller whose gift to the Board had precipitated the incident upon which the study concentrates. The purpose of this study was to make a critical analysis of the speech Gladden offered in support of his motion, in terms of current public speaking theory, and in C ,n“ .' o ‘n‘l 'I.‘. “I" J- I” .1123 ‘ I ‘I- can... * \\['I— ‘~- eat/Ab TAPCW" by "‘ '4' K.“ \ H" ‘ ." Cm . "on. .H J - “ru‘. "-... .. J T7 View of the historical circumstances surrounding the event. The approach was that of the case study. An analysis of Gladden's immediate audience was made with emphasis on factors which shaped his listeners' opinions on the issue at hand. The study included a running commentary on the speech, tracing the course of Gladden's speaking and writing on points at issue, and citing pertinent historical data. Critical judgment was made of the appropriateness of the arguments presented. And an examination was made of the debate which followed Gladden's speech. Sections of the study dealt with Gladden's use of persuasive materials, the structure of the speech, its style, and aspects of his delivery. Summary criticism was made of the entire speech; and a concluding section suggests contributions of the study to rhetorical scholarship, and makes recommendations for further study. Materials utilized included many of Gladden's original handwritten sermon manuscripts, and numerous magazine and newspaper articles, as they were determined to relate to the central incident. Also, historians and other comentators upon both the times and the event were consulted. A finding of the study was that Gladden's audience members, though churchmen, were, in the main, .u-pga!‘ tau Ur: .. ."1'. a- thin. v I , fi fr .. . . .313; “'n uhuyl 7—7 ” hostile to his Views on the issue at hand. It was also discovered that most of the arguments which Gladden used, as well as his supporting materials, he had employed earlier, either in sermons, or in his writings, or in both. In fact, another finding of the study was that Gladden's A ‘ Seattle speech actually climaxed nearly 30 years of speaking i and writing on the same general theme. It was not a six— month's phenomenon. It was judged that the speech was a success, for, in spite of their prior commitment to a position contrary to his own, and their presumed familiarity with his arguments, Gladden succeeded in neutralizing the hostility of his audience. A counter—motion of the Board was not passed. Neither was Gladden's motion defeated. Both motions were tabled, and, in the ensuing months, some Board members stated that the substance of his advocacy would become the Board’s guiding principle. A secondary result of Gladden's agitation on this theme, and other incidents like it, was industry's establishment of what evolved into modern—day departments of public relations. In his address, he skillfully employed a variety of persuasive materials, especially relying on emotive language and figures of speech, and liberally citing his own experiences and opinions. A conclusion of the study is that Gladden's ethos, built up through his speaking, his "7—7 mdtflg, and his long and appreciated service to the dmrdws, was a key element in the success of his Seattle speech. An extensive collection of relevant documents is appended. H 3 mm mm Lip; 7—__ "SHALL ILL—GOTTEN GAINS BE SOUGHT FOR QHRISTIAN PURPOSES?: WASHINGTON GLADDEN'S "TAINTED MONEY" ADDRESS. SEATTLE, SEPTEMBER 15, 1905 BY JAMES HARVEY CONLEY A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech and Theatre College of Communication Arts 1969 two 6-25-67 @Copyright by JAMES HARVEY CONLEY 1969 It'll: CO ""‘=‘sity ;., :h [x Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Speedh College of Communication Arts, Michigan State muversity. in partial fulfillment of the requirements fix the Doctor of Philosophy degree. GWa/w Director of Thesis Guidance Committee: @éereg w , fl' I Chairman To Marjory . TI 1- n I n «D H. e e ‘1‘ Ant. PM IV. - m n IIIM .I AFV r . N I “N O a, I“ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge his undebtedness to the many Gladden scholars who have preceded him. Also. great appreciation is herewith expressed for the encouragement and patient guidance given the writer by Professor David C. Ralph. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS A. The Occasion In Which This Study Centers ...... l B. The Purpose of This Study ..................... A C. Definition of Terms ........................... 6 D. Limitations Imposed ........................... 6 E. Justification of the Project .................. 7 F. Materials and Sources ......................... 9 G. Organization and Methodology ................. 10 II. TEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................... 20 III. THE SETTING OF THE SPEECH A. The Plymouth Congregational Church, Seattle, Washington ........................ 32 B. The Annual Meeting of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions ...... 3A C. The Events Peculiar to the Controversy Over the Acceptance of Rockefeller's Gift, With Emphasis Upon the Conflict Between Gladden and the Board .............. 35 D. The Expressions of Feeling on the Issue by Board Members Immediately Prior to the Meeting; the Immediate Stress Given the Issue by the Public Media .................. A7 E. Factors Surrounding Gladden's Arrival in Seattle; Attempts to Deter Him; His Determination To Go On In Spite of the Opposition's Apparent Strong Commitment....56 F. The Emphases of the Addresses Preceding Gladden‘s in the Meeting ................... 6A iv '1' {HT .. at mrl ... .. . 3 1r .. .E; t I . _ '11 I un/V—J‘ . 3: «-I .Lv 2 ~~ .. J; v my. ... .4 .. L I -. i I .,I Page IV. AN ANALYSIS OF GLADDEN'S IMMEDIATE AUDIENCE A. A Note on the Subject of Audience Analysis..7A B. An Analysis of Gladden's Audience ........... 80 V. PROCEDURES IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING GLADDEN’S ADDRESS A. Resolutions, Committee Assignments, Reports .................................. 102 B. Gladden's Entrance, Recognition and Introduction ............................. 112 VI. A COMMENTARY ON THE SPEECH A. Gladden's Established Ethos; His Speaking; His Writing; the Testimony of Contempo— raries and Modern Historians ............. 118 B. Opposition to Gladden Based upon His Being Denominational Moderator; the Develop— ment of the Office of Moderator in the Congregational Denomination .............. 125 C. The Identification of Gladden's Sup— porters; His Acknowledgment of Opposition ............................... 131 D. The Position of the Prudential Com— mittee; Their Statement of Principles and Its Support; Gladden's Criticism of the Statement ......................... 137 E. Gladden‘s Contention Against the Board's Position that It was only a Holding and Dispersing Body; Gladden's Contention that the Board's Actions Ultimately Reflected upon the Churches...1AA F. Gladden's Rationale for the Coinage and Use of the Phrase, ”Tainted Money," the Record of His Discussion of the Subject .................................. 152 G. Gladden‘s Personal Attitude toward Wealth ................................... 162 H. Gladden's Attitude toward Those Who Had Gained Great Wealth by Dubious Means; His Attitude toward John D. Rockefeller; the Contemporary Popular Interest in Men of Wealth ................................ 166 Page I. The Danger to the Churches in Dependence upon the Rich; the Public's Opinion of the Rich; the Contributions of Religious Teachers to this Attitude ................ l A J. Gladden's Attempt to Establish Precedent for Refusing the Gift .................... 18A K. The Establishment of the Fact of Solicitation ............................. 188 L. Contemporary Reports of the Activity of Big Business; the Position of the Trust; Opposition to the Trust Offered by Indi— viduals and by government ................ 190 M. Gladden's Personal Attitude toward the Trusts; His Contemporaries' Attempt to Alert Popular Opinion to the Trusts; Specific Charges Against the Trusts and Their Practices ...................... 200 N. The Popular Attitude toward John D. Rockefeller; the Record of his Personal Character; Gladden's Personal Attitude toward Rockefeller ....................... 221 O. The Dangers which Lay in Accepting Gifts from Unethical Businessmen; Their Threat to Accademic Freedom at Institu— tions of Higher Learning; Their Threat to Freedom of Speech in Churches; the Record of Such Incidents ................. 228 P. Gladden's Philosophy of Religious Giving; the Popular Rationale for Missionary Support; an Expression Admired by Gladden .................................. 239 Q. Gladden Returns to the Theme of the Board's Representative Character; the Board's Record of Altruistic Work; Their Commitment to Acceptance of the Gift; Gladden's Popular Support .......... 2A8 R. Gladden's Concern for the Reaction of the Workingman to Acceptance; the Working- man‘s Relationship to the Churches at the Turn of the Century .................. 255 S. The Potential Effect of Acceptance upon Young People ............................. 261 T. The Financial Plight of the Board; Its Lack of Support from the Churches; Gladden‘s Insistence upon the Churches' Support .................................. 26A U. Gladden‘s Declaration of Confidence in the Churches' Support ........ . ........... 268 Page V. Arguments Offered for and against Acceptance; Gladden's Peroration and Conclusion ............................... 270 WI. THE "DEBATE" FOLLOWING THE SPEECH .............. 278 WEI. GLADDEN’S USE OF PERSUASIVE MATERIALS A. Definition of Terms ........................ 292 B Gladden's Use of Materials of Development .............................. 29A 1. Materials found and used by the speaker .............................. 295 a. Examples ........................... 295 b. Narratives and stories ............. 297 0. Statistics ......................... 298 d. Quotations ......................... 299 2. Materials created by the speaker ....... 301 a. Restatement ........................ 301 b. Contrast ........................... 302 c. The Rhetorical Question ............ 303 Evidence and reasoning ................. 307 C. Gladden' s Use of Materials of Experience. .311 1. Definition of terms .................... 311 . General considerations.......... ....... 311 3. Specific analysis ...................... 315 a. Appeals based on religious com— mitment and Christian character ........................ 315 b. Appeals based on responsible agency ........................... 316 0. Appeals based on patriotism ........ 317 A. Gladden's emotive language ............. 317 D. Gladden's Use of Personal Proof (source credibility) ..................... 321 1. General terms and definitions .......... 321 2. Sources from outside the composition...322 a. Previous reputation ................ 322 b. Advance notices .................... 323 0. Introduction ....................... 323 d Delivery ........................... 32 (also see pp. 343, 354) Page 3. Sources from within the composition....32A a. Direct statements .................. 32A (1) Direct statements about himself ....................... 32A (2) Direct statements about his supporters .................... 326 (3) Statements about his opponents.326 b. Implications and inferences ........ 327 (1) Choice of topic ................ 328 (2) Choice of lines of thought ..... 328 (3) Choice of evidence ............. 32 28 (A) The reasoning process .......... 329 (5) Arrangement of materials ....... 329 (6) Style .......................... 33o IX. STRUCTURE, STYLE, AND DELIVERY IN GLADDEN'S SEATTLE SPEAKING A. The Structure of Gladden's Speech .......... 333 B. Gladden' 3 Style in His Seattle Address ..... 3A0 C. Gladden' 5 Delivery ......................... 3A3 (also see pp. 32A, 35A) X. GLADDEN‘S SEATTLE SPEECH: A CRITICAL EVALUATION A. The Speech ................................. 3A7 1. Gladden' s ideas ........................ 3A7 2. Gladden' s forms of support ............. 351 3. Gladden's personality as a persuasive factor ............................... 351 A. Language ............................... 353 5. Speech structure ....................... 353 6. Delivery ..................... ' .......... 35 (also see pp. 32A, 3A3) B. The Effects of the Speech (and of the controversy) ............................. 355 1. Immediate response ..................... 355 2 Gladden‘s judgment concerning the effects of the controversy ........... 357 3. Response of Gladden's listeners in terms of belief and attitude change..360 A The long-range effects of the controversy .......................... 363 ix Page XI. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS STUDY AND PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER STUDY A. Contributions of Gladden's ”Ill—Gotten ’ Gains" Speaking to the Field of Speech Communication ............................ 373 B. Contributions of This Study to the Field of Speech Communication .................. 380 C. Recommendations for Further Study .......... 382 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................... 3 8 A LISPOF APPENDICES LIST OF APPENDICES Photo of Washington Gladden ................... Photo of exterior Plymouth Church, Seattle, Washington ........................... Photo of the "auditorium" of Plymouth Church. . . Statement of Principles of the ABCFM .......... Text of Gladden's "Ill-Gotten Gains" Speech; (left-hand page photo—copied from pamphlet; right—hand page typed transcript of same) ..... Typescript of the "debate" following the "Ill—Gotten Gains " speech ..................... Typescript of Gladden's ”Tainted Money” article ....................................... Photo-copy of Gladden's original manuscript for "The Religion of a Gentleman” sermon ...... Typescript of sermon, ”The Religion of a Gentleman . ” ................................... Typescript of Gladden's address at Young's Hotel, "Dr. Gladden Makes Reply.” ............. Typescript of Gladden's sermon—report, "A Long Journey and a Lively Debate." ............ Letter to Gladden from Messrs. Samuel B. Capen, et. a1., April 7, 1906 ................. Outline of the life of Washington Gladden ..... .AOS Page A03 AOA A06 A07 A22 A31 A36 A83 A91 505 512 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY MATTERS A. The Occasion In Which This Study Centers: The most notable single action in the sequence of events leading up to the incident upon which this study focuses was taken by the millionaire, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. Head of a corporation whose net assets totaled $n5,613,261.55 in the year 1905,1 the year in which the incident took place, he had, as a faithful Baptist, donated regularly to his denomination and to various philanthropic causes through many years. All Rockefeller's giving for religious purposes was confined to his own denomination until the Spring of 1905, when it was announced that he had crossed denominational lines and given a gift of $100,000.00 to the Congregationalist American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.2 In response to this action a genuine tempest of discussion arose. Within the ranks of the Congregational—- ists voices of protest were raised against accepting the lAllen Nevins, John D. Rockefeller: The Heroic Age of American Enterprise (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 19A0), II, p. 5A1. _ 2"Good News for the American Board," Congrega— EETELEE, XC (March 18, 1905), p. 349. l 55:, md 01 .72. z: “W 0 . Luv go. gift, and one voice was stronger than all the rest. It was that of the Rev. Dr. Washington Gladden, a long—time leader in the so—called Social Gospel movement} a compara— tively new strain in American religion. At the heart of the Social Gospel movement was the teaching that the Christian's obligation was to call into question all forms of injustice wherever they occured, and not to associate himself with persons or organizations which were judged to 2 Rockefeller ' s business be threats to society‘s welfare. methods were, so Gladden thought, of a highly questionable nature. Rockefeller had organized a giant combination of firms related to the oil industry, and, so the popular report went, he had used the power this gave him to squeeze out smaller competitors, fix prices to his own advantage, and influence government agencies unfairly. At least that in. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1937), p. 151 ff. For a biographical outline of Gladden's life see the Appendix attached to this study. For a definitive biography Of Gladden see Jacob Henry Dorn, III, "Washington Gladden: Prophet of the Social Gospel, 1886—1918," (Un— published Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Oregon, 1965) (later published: Dorn, Jacob Henry, Washington Gladden: Prophet of the Social Gospel, Columbus: The Ohio StaTF“ University Press, 1968). (All references to the dissertation form.) For an autobiographical statement see Washington Gladden, Recollections (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1909). For an extended interpretation of the significance of the Social Gospel movement and Gladden's part in it see Charles Howard Hopkins, The Rise of the Social Gospel in American Protestantism, 1865—1915 (New Haven: Yale Univer— Slty Press, 1940). 2Niebuhr, op. cit., p. 181. was the popular claim of the day.1 Thus, when the gift was announced Gladden told the congregation of the First Congregational Church of Columbus, Ohio, where he was pastor that he believed the agents of the American Board should not accept it. He said to them on March 26: We do not want this man's money. To accept it will be to invite the contempt of millions of honest men; to reject it will strengthen our churches in the affection and respect of millions who are inclined to doubt whether the churches love God more than Mammon. Gladden's protest was widely reported. The correspondence he received immediately following that sermon revealed that newspapers in various far—flung sections of the country reported it. From such cities as Easton, Pennsylvania, Buffalo, New York, and New Orleans, Louisiana came letters dated March 27, hearing the news of how pleased their send— ers were to have noted Gladden's remarks in their local papers.3 Thus the battle was mounted with Gladden on one side together with a few fellow Congregationalists, and on the other side the powerful American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions who not only wished to accept the lMatthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861—19017New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 193A, 1962), see his chapter on "Concen— tration: The Great Trusts," pp. 375—AO3. 2Washington Gladden, "The Religion of a Gentle— man," Sermon, March 26, 1905, Gladden Papers. [See the Appendix for the complete text of this sermon, plus a photo-copy of Gladden's original manuscript.] 3E. O. Correll, R. M. Fotheringham and E. J. Upton to Gladden, March 27, 1905. gift (and did), but soon let it be known that their own agent had earnestly sought the gift from the oil magnate over a period of at least two years.1 Gladden, a corporate member of the American Board for years, and, at the time, elected Moderator of the National Council of Congregational Churches, was deeply disturbed and announced his intention to carry the fight to the floor of the annual meeting of the Board scheduled for September 1A—l8, 1905, in Seattle, Washington.2 This study centers in Gladden's remarks of protest, and especially in those remarks he delivered in Seattle where he did indeed address the Board on the theme, "Shall Ill—Gotten Gains Be Sought for Christian Purposes?"3 B. The Purpose of this Study: The purpose of this study is to discover how Gladden employed public speaking at the Seattle meeting of the American Board in his attempt to win its members to his point of View. In more precise terms, it is the purpose of this study to discover how Gladden attempted to solve a specific 1James T. Barton, ”The Correspondence on the Rockefeller Gift," Independent, LVIII (April 20, 1905), Pp. 87l-87A. 2Gladden, ”Dr. Gladden Again Protests," Congre— gationalist, XC (Aug. 26, 1905), p. 281- 3Gladden, The New Idolatry and Other Discussions (New York: McClure, Phillips and Co., 1905), pp. 53—88*. [As we shall see there are other sources for this text.] is ten, C 9'7: . 11.x!) SI . one“. waist. V__.7 ' .a? "rhetorical problem," to use a term of Cathcart's.l By this term, Cathcart implies that every speech is central to a problem—solving situation. The audience, if analyzed thoroughly, will be seen to bear certain characteristics which it is the speaker's task to discover and take into consideration as he plans and presents his speech. To the extent that he does this properly, to that extent he will be able to solve the rhetorical problem he faces; that problem being how to accomplish his goal for his listeners. It follows that the critic's task is to discover the char— acteristics of the audience faced by the speaker in the situation under study in order that he (the critic) might have an awareness of what should have been done in order to solve that particular rhetorical problem. As a part of his criticism, the critic must determine the extent to which the speaker reflects an awareness of the characteristics of his audience, and then determine whether the speaker em— ploys appropriate materials and techniques in his attempted "solution." The ultimate goal for this study in the context Of public speaking scholarship is to discover the way or ways in which the speaking of Gladden in this situation confirms OI’ adds to our understanding of the elements of effective oral communication . lRobert Cathcart, Post Communication: Criticism and Evaluation (Indianapolis: Bobbs—Merrill Company, 1966), PA 3 -39. m, C. Definition of Terms: It is the intention of the writer to define terms as they arise in the study. D. Limitations Imposed: This is not to be an analysis conducted under strictly Aristotelian lines. Bailey has already done this with Gladden's sermons.l Neither is this to be a review of Gladden's speaking theory, or of his speaking practice in his Columbus pulpit. These things have already been done by Fry,2 and much similar work has been done by Dorn.3 Biographical materials will be kept to a minimum as Dorn has reviewed these in a way which will probably stand for many years."1 Numerous other theses dealing with Gladden's thoughts as well as his social activities preclude lRichard Eugene Bailey, ”A Rhetorical Study of Selected Sermons of Washington Gladden," (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The Ohio State University, 196A.) 2Charles George Fry, ”Washington Gladden as Preacher," (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The Ohio State Univer— sity, 1961.) 3Dorn, op. cit. ”Ibid. , C‘I" Cf I—l 2'5”" mu. 6 . « .-.- I: n05: -- nudo'v 9' . "v 555-011 “— ch'd o . . . ‘ A I a \II tow "s“ .' = c” L s u‘ s I., I I o.‘ I: | ._.' it“. \I \ u elaborate treatment of those themes.1 Rather, this study will concentrate upon Gladden's Seattle speaking, it being understood that the term "speak— ing" is to include the speech, speaker, audience, and occa— sion factors found to be pertinent. E. Justification of the Project: Intrinsically, the project is justified in terms of its being a speech—centered event of significance in American history.2 In fact, in this event one might say that the speech was the key element in the entire incident. This particular event has never been studied by a speech scholar. Dorn comes nearest, devoting a chapter to Gladden's thought on the subject of contemporary business practices,3 30 pages to the give—and—take which surrounded lAlma Jagsch, "Washington Gladden, A PrOphet of Social Justice,” (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The Ohio State University, 1935); Edward 1. Cohen, ”The Economic and Social Philosophy of Washington Gladden," (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Michigan State College, 1951); James Devec Hillman, "The Contribution of Washington Gladden to the Social Movement in American Protestantism," (Unpublished Th.D. Thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1951);Norman T. Goover, "The Church and Social Action: The Idea of the Church and Its Relation to Christian Social Strategy in Charles G. Finney, Horace Bushnell, and Washington Gladden," (Unpublished Ph.D. TheSis, Yale University Divinity School, 1956); Donald G. Baughman, "Washington Gladden's Attitude on War," (Unpub— lished M.A. Thesis, The Ohio State University, 1960); David A. Jones, "Time for Adjustment: An Examination of the Social Thought of Washington Gladden as it Came to Bear on the Labor Problem,” (Unpublished B.D. Thesis, Union Theological Seminary, New York City, 1962); Kenneth Lee Brown, "Wash— ington Gladden: Exponent of Social Christianity," (Unpub- lished Ph.D. Thesis, Duke University, 196A). 2Nevins, op. cit., II, p. 534. 3Dorn, op. cit., pp. 30A—3AA. -"= Hem ir TIL? III .I‘ 8 the event in question,1 and three sentences to the speech itself.2 No speech scholar has conducted a search for an authentic text of Gladden's speech. None has shown evi- dence of perusing the Seattle newspapers which contain a wealth of material contributing to meaningful audience analysis. These same papers also offer important informa— tion regarding Gladden's personal conduct during the Ameri— can Board meeting, and the public's sense of the signifi— cance of the occasion. No scholar has noted that a record of the debate which followed the speech was recorded and is available for study. And, most significantly, no scholar has ever attempted to analyze the total situation in terms Of what is known about public speaking theory and practice, attempting to derive either precept or example for the pro— fession. Extrinsically, the project may be of interest to preachers who have been made aware that, according to a recent Gallup poll, an increasing number of church members do not believe that ministers Should deal with ”social issues."3 Discovering how a clergyman confronted the largest industrial empire of his day on the basis of its alledged unethical business practices may offer some counsel for approaching some of the more controversial issues of lIbid., pp. 330—339. 2Ibid., p. 337. 3New York Times, April 11, 1968. IuIflu «I, I ‘— ...‘: IECI L A - H .I. ..,.. u. _ our day. There may also be those who would be interested hlthe fact that a recently-reported incident in which a wehfihy prospective donor to Boston University was verbally mmacked on the basis of his questionable business ethics wasrmt without precedent.1 Also, there may be those who would find in a re— vimvof this event why the professor—founder of a "Hall of Fameibr Businessmen" at a large mid—Western university fmnm it expedient to say that in the selection of candidates frmna list which included Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, L P.Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and John D. Rocke— ffiler,Jr.,'fit is probable that businessmen's ethics and mmalsIfill be judged in the context of their times, rather thalby today's standards."2 Finally, present and future Gladden scholars may mprJfrom a study of what Dorn terms "the best-known qfisode in his [Gladden's] career."3 F. Materials and Sources: 1. Gladden's sermon manuscripts now in the GRMdmiPapers at the Ohio Historical Society Library in Cohmmus are basic. 1"The Power of Protest," Time, 91 (March 22, 1968): p. ”'00 2Detroit News, January 13, September 20, 1967. 3Dorn, o . cit., p. 309. III pa n l' ..I.I... ‘L "III Pam «to. . I. v l.‘ 'I 1 ‘."‘1' 1n “,4ch . -., ‘35 I. _ s I. "'-.A\,. y "‘anL. “L. . f| . "i‘ J H lO 2. His published writings are also of importance. 3. Thousands of letters received by Gladden are also now part of the Gladden Papers. A. The archives of the First Congregational Church of Columbus, Ohio contain some correspondence, church records, and mementos of Gladden's career. This is a small but significant collection. 5. Contemporary periodicals are also important. Periodicals most used in this study are the Seattle Post— In’te‘l‘ligencer, T_im‘_e_s, and _S_t_a_r_; the Ohio State Journal; BE Congregationalist and Christian World; and The Outlook. (The latter two publications are available in the libraries at the University of Michigan, and at Oberlin College.) 6. The records and minutes of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, which are now located in the Houghton Library at Harvard University are useful. 7. The interpretations of the times, the event, Gladden, and their interrelationships by contemporary and modern historians are also significant. 8. Also helpful were the recollections of several persons with long memories who shared their memories of Gladden freely. G. Organization and Methodology: The germinal ideas for the organization and meth— odOlOSy employed in this study were derived from the thesis :f'I'allace "mi-L" Q L.“ In L its styl 55$ .5 z . ml. . .I “H . 'Mf‘l . '--It..- .. ~11. III 5-..32, I "‘TfiyI ' I. . I :l' o I .. of Wallace which was a unique study of the speech of Alfred E. Smith given at Oklahoma City, September 20, 1928.1 In its style, format, and scholarly approach it has also served as an inspiration as well as a model. Certainly Wallace's work offers a meaningful approach to the study of significant, speech-centered incidents. As with Wallace's, this study's basic plan is that of following the actual text of the speech itself, studying it section-by— section, dividing it into segments according to where Gladden appears to introduce new lines of thought. There are places where the organization and pro— cedures of‘the present study differ from that of Wallace's. If there is a criticism to offer of Wallace's study, it is the slight but significant one that its evidences, termin— ology, and conclusions are not readily accessible to the speech scholar. Records of scholarship, it seems to the writer, must be written in order that "he who runs might read." That is, they must use terminology that is reason— ably familiar within the special major discipline under whose classification they appear. There should be no need to interpret "other words." Also, the scholar who follows after the researcher should be able to find the information he is seeking in a minimal number of places. Finally, the emphasis upon elements pertinent to the discipline (in this 1Elton Harvey Wallace, "Alfred E. Smith, The Religion Issue: Oklahoma City, September 20, 1928," (Un— published Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1965). I .2 case speech communication) should be at least as great as the emphasis upon the peculiar milieu through which it must pass (in this case, again, history). These are not offered as debilitating criticisms of Wallace's work; they are, rather, strong suggestions for future scholars to follow, suggestions this study intends to take seriously. Therefore, this study uses more of the terms and language peculiar to the speech field, attempting to inter— pret events and pronouncements in those terms wherever possible. Also, the attempt is made to organize the mate— rial, especially in summaries, around themes and categories derived from the field of speech, rather than around seg— ments of history. This is especially pertinent for some of the investigation into the make—up of the audience, and for all of the conclusions offered. And, finally, there is a definite attempt in this study to analyze at length and in depth the speech factors related to the occasion, rather than to expend prolonged effort on interpreting history. ll‘he end goal is that of advancing the field of speech com- munication, not that of history. Organizationally, this means that some of the types of material which Wallace retains within the body of his discussion of the speech Proper this study draws together in sections apart. Thus, for example, criticism is contained in separate sections rather than in the "body" of the speech analysis. This should provide more convenient access for later scholars. IS; ..III ... I, 13 The method followed in this investigation is that of the case study. The case study, as defined and described by Murray in Dow's An Introduction "to” Graduate Study in Speech and Theatre,1 is the method most appro— priate for investigating the incident at hand. To use Murray's words, the attempt is "to unearth information to permit diagnosis and evaluation."2 That is what is in— tended here—-to diagnose the problem Gladden faced, and then evaluate the way in which he attempted to solve it. The case study method offers a means for assembling the appropriate information. The purpose of this study is to discuss what Gladden actually said and did at Seattle, and then make critical judgments regarding those elements. It should also be noted that the case study method does not lend itself to the categorical precision some others do, nor can it always be completely "objective." Again, Murray says, "When objective data may be obtained they are used; when they are not to be obtained, the case history uses simple description. The case history is generally a combination of the objective and the subjective without discrimination."3 This is not offered as an excuse lElwood Murray, "Case Study and Case History," in Clyolew. Dow, ed., An Introduction to Graduate Study in Speech and Theatre (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1961), pp. 257-275~ 2Ibid., p. 259. 3Ibid., p. 258. ml. 1A fM?any blatant subjectivity the reader may detect. It is We simple fact of the matter. The real test the reader mayvfish to apply in order to determine whether or not this wnflmr has used the method judiciously is, again to use Mnray's words: Does the study "arrive at defensible con— clusions?" In general, organization of and procedures uti— hzedvfithin the study itself may be discussed along the faflcwing lines (excluding Chapter I): 1. (Chapter II) There is an attempt to pre— Gmely identify an authentic text for Gladden's Seattle mmech. In an age when "ghost writers" are becoming more cmmwn, and "sermon helps" more the rule than the exception, itis important to have the best assurance possible that the gemfine work of Gladden is at hand. 2. (Chapter III) There is an attempt to describe hidetail the setting of the speech: a. The Plymouth Church, Seattle, Washington. b. The annual meeting of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. c. A recapitulation of the events peculiar to the controversy over the acceptance of Rocke— feller's gift, with emphasis on the conflict between Gladden and the Board. d. The expressions of feeling on the issue by Board members upon their arrival in Seattle, lIbid., p. 262. “cf-I “a.“ :I‘\ A: 15 and the immediate stress given the conflict as— pects of the meeting by the public media. e. Factors relating to Gladden's arrival: his failure to arrive with the other delegates; the attempt of his colleagues to have him with- draw; his own judgment upon the situation; and his determination to proceed. f. The emphases of the addresses preceding Gladden's in the meeting. 3. (Chapter IV) An attempt is made to isolate theiactors at work within Gladden's audience creating his pemfliar rhetorical problem. A. (Chapter V) A discussion of the procedures Ofthenmeting through which Gladden and his resolution war hmroduced comes next; and with it are offered obser— vMflons on how he began to communicate even before he began Um speech itself. 5. (Chapter VI) In this section a detailed mmlysis of Gladden's speech "Ill—Gotten Gains" is under— tmwn. Some special aspects of this should be noted: a. Beyond comments in passing, no extended attempt is made to pass judgment upon the appro— priateness of the line (or lines) of thought advanced at that particular point in the discus- sion. It is the writer's intention to serve as critic, but in the interest of narrative flow on the one hand, and convenient organization on the 16 other, extended critical remarks are made in appropriately labeled sections at the close of the study. b. Main stress is placed upon the following: 1.) Verification, where possible or per— tinent, of the source of the material pre— sented; 2.) Commentary upon the validity of the material in terms of historical report; 3.) Comparison of the line of thought advanced with its expression in other places at other times by Gladden (if indeed there be . such).r Did Gladden ever say it before? Did ’ his audience ever hear (or read) it before? This is a significant point, for, as Ellings— worth and Clevenger say: If the speech situation is a real one, .., the process of information— gathering will not be bounded...definitely in time and space. The speaker's atti— tudes, cognitive structure, group member— ships, and commitments as a change agent will all have been operating. He will not choose or be asked to speak about matters foreign to his concern. Thus preparation for a particular speech has been going on during the whole period of the speaker's awareness of a matter. For the speaker in a real situation, information—gathering is not merely a chronological step that falls between the choice of subject and the speech delivery. It is an integral part of him. He may make his knowledge more specific or up— date it through research. But prepara— tion will be a continuous, ongoing pro- cess both before and after the speech is 17 delivered. Why after the speech? Be— cause in an ongoing program of communi— cation for change, each speech becomes a part of the background of subsequent speeches. (It is a hypothesis of the writer's that lit— tle in Gladden's Seattle speech was new with him on that occasion.) Also, and of more importance, this procedure allows for a fuller representation of what Gladden's thought was on all the aspects of the issue under discus— sion. Comparisons will be made with other speech "texts" selected from the Gladden Papers, and other sources, where there is evidence that the material may have been used in the pulpit. These ”texts” were selected because, in the judgment of the writer, they appeared in whole or in part to be related to the theme at hand. Another significant point to be made is again put by Ellingsworth and Clevenger: ...any particular speech is virtually always one of a number of messages on a subject coming to a respondent and... social action——adoption——succeeds or fails because of (or perhaps in spite of) this flood of messages. 1 Huber W. Ellingsworth and Theodore Clevenger, Jr., §E§fi® and SoGial Action: 'A Strategy 0 'Oral'CommuniCa— §;T;(Engiewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 3 p! O. 2 Ibid, p. 183. " 2“] \J, I f .8 (It will be seen in the analysis of Gladden's audience that this relates to the "inocula— tion” thesis advance.) On this point it was essential to select only those messages with which it is presumed Gladden's audience members would have had some contact before the Seattle meeting. There were at least three of these sources possible, and they are compared with Gladden's Seattle speech. The stress in all of this will be to reveal what it seems to the writer too many studies obscure, that is, what the speaker actually said on the topic at hand. 6. (Chapter VII) In this section there will be adimnmsion of the recorded "debate" which followed .1 Gladden's speech. 7. (Chapter VIII) In this section there will be adimnmsion of Gladden's use of persuasive materials in thisspeeCh- (Again, terms will be defined as they arise.) a. Gladden's use of materials of development. b. Gladden's use of materials of experience. 0. Gladden's use of personal proof. 8- (Chapter IX) In this section there will be a (fismmsion of the structure and style Gladden employed in hiSSpeeCh- (There is not enough evidence to warrant a Dmflpnged discussion of delivery.) 9. (Chapter X) In this section critical remarks i". be mm 35; hi I] 19 will be drawn together around a systematic frame— work; and the effects of Gladden's speech will be discussed. 10. (Chapter XI) In this section comments will be made regarding the contributions Gladden's performance at Seattle as well as this study make to the field of 1 speech; and suggestions for further research will be made. 1A study employing a methodology similar to that of this one, and the Wallace study cited, is Deane A. Kemper, "John F. Kennedy Before the Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960: The Religious Issue," (Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1968). (..,, #7 CHAPTER II TEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS In order to properly study a speech, it is nec— essary to have an authentic text, one that has been certified as to its authorship, date and place of origi— nation and delivery, and its accuracy. However, as Thonssen and Baird suggest, establishing the authenticity of a speech text may be as challenging an aspect of the critic's work as the making of the final estimate of the speech's merit.2 Nevertheless, it is the critic's obli— gation to establish such a text,3 and the writer has attempted to do so for Gladden's Seattle speech. First a search was made through the Gladden Papers, now part of the manuscript collection in the Ohio Historical Society on the campus of The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. This search for a text in Gladden's own hand- writing was fruitless. (One would not, of course, assume that a handwritten text would necessarily settle the case 1J. Jeffery Auer, An Introduction to Research in Speech (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), p. 123. _ 2Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism: The Development of Standards for Rhetorical W (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 19148), p' 297. 3Ibid., p. 311. 20 3': II will I: Ind m mat II {-1 "I" u uI-II 21 for an authentic text. A written text from the author's own hand may indicate intention, but it does not guaran— tee that that is indeed the way in which the speech was delivered.) The next step taken in the search for a text was that of researching books, magazines, and newspapers for a text of the speech. In Gladden's book, The New Idolatry, there is a section headed, "Shall Ill—Gotten Gains be Sought for Christian Purposes?," and sub—headed, ”Address before the American Board of Commissioners for ‘ Foreign Missions, at Seattle, Washington, September 15, 1905."1 A collection of paragraphs was discovered in the Congregationalist, for September 23, 1905, headed, "Shall Ill—Gotten Gains be Sought for Christian Purposes: Portions of Dr. Gladden's Paper Read at the Seattle Meeting , of the American Board.”2 The question here is, What does I the word="portions" mean? Does it mean portions selected from a fuller text by a writer for the periodical? Or does it mean portions from a fuller text selected and read at the moment of delivery by the speaker himself? The second alternative would make considerable difference, and it is introduced because A. E. Dunning of the lGladden, The New Idolatry, pp. 53—87. 2"Shall Ill—Gotten Gains be Sought for Christian Purposes: Portions of Dr. Gladden's Paper Read at the Seattle Meeting of the American Board,” Congregation— SAAEE, XC (September 23, 1905), p- All. Twin ...4. VC (3‘ 22 Congregationalist also attended the Seattle meeting and reported, "Dr. Gladden was the first speaker, presenting p_a_r£ of a printed paper he had prepared in advance."1 (Italics the writer's.) There is no particular reason to doubt Dunning's report that only part of a prepared text was read by Gladden. But there is no way that the writer is aware of to ascertain what was selected from the text to be read and what omitted. It might be assumed that the portions reported in the Congregationalist2 did not constitute all of the speech used on the occasion. For one thing, this condenses a speech of some 8A88 words in The New Idolatry_'_s3 version, for example, to 1505 words. To reduce one's speech at the time of delivery by one—third oreven by one—half might be acceptable, even desirable, but to reduce it by more than three—fourths J seems improbable, especially when the occasion is as grave as this one was. More importantly, it should also 1 be pointed out that in the report on the "portions," ‘ several conneCting sentences and paragraphs, which put Gladden's ideas into other words are interlaced with 1A. E. Dunning, "The American Board at Seattle," XC (September 23, 1905), p. A10. None of the standard guides to manuscript collections lists either Dunning's or the Congregationalist's papers. 2"Shall Ill—Gotten Gains be Sought for Christian Purposes: Portions of Dr. Gladden's Paper Read at the feattle Meeting of the American Board," We 3Gladden, The New Idolatry, loc. cit. 1 mended I doll :Iez mm 23 extended quotations. For example: Dr. Gladden proceeded to argue that one man's dollar is not as good as another man's; that if there can be consecrated money there can be "tainted money;" and that money in a very real and vital sense is a symbol, and has always been held so by the Church. The problem created by solicited gifts was next discussed:....l Thhspattern suggests that there was much more text used thalwas actually reported in the Congregationalist, but ere is no way by which we may confirm which portions of Hm full speech were given. During the investigation on this point, it was noted that the Seattle Times (designated asthe "official" meeting newspaper) for September 16, 1905, 2 carried a summary report of the speech. A comparison of Hm sentences and paragraphs reported was made to see if Hwy coincided with those of the Congregationalist. But thisrevealed that the report condensed the speech even fluther (to fewer than 700 words), and only a scant 100 mnds match sequences in the magazine's report. Further book and periodical search revealed flat the Seattle Post—Intelligencer for September 16, 1905,3 carried a report of the speech; and, except for l"Shall Ill—Gotten Gains be Sought...: Rumions...," Congregationalist, loc. cit. 2 Seattle Times, September 16, 1905. 3Seattle PosteIntelligencer, September 16, 1905. meme I 2. one extended portion which is omitted, the text it presents cohmides exactly with that carried in Gladden's The New Imflatry. The omitted portion is several paragraphs long, asis indicated in the Appendix. There are 2A paragraphs omitted in one continuous sedfion from the‘PosteIntelligencer's report; The Seattle E§E§_for the same date quotes eleven of those omitted pmegraphs in their entirety in its report of the speech. And the Congreg‘ation’alist summarizes the substance of the thted paragraphs in other words. Again there is evi— dmme that there was some portion, or portionS, Of the tad not presented, but no two reports agree on the sub— /, stmme of what was omitted. It was also discovered that mlextended text had been accepted as authentic by Pro— fhsmn’Handy of New York's Union Theological Seminary,1 . andius book, The Social Gospel in America: Gladden, Ely, amiRauschenbusch, 1870—1920, has now appeared carrying thetext from The New Idolatry in toto.2 In no instance dfliany book or periodical carry any attestation whatsoever tothe effect that the text reported was indeed the text asdElivered. The New York Times has, of course, become armtable source of such texts for speech scholars, but ln-uns instance that publication did not choose to 1Robert T. Handy to the writer, November 2A, 1965- 2Robert T. Handy, ed. The Social Gospel in Imfificat Gladden Ely, and Rauschenbusch, 1870—1920 (New OPk 119—13A. : Oxford University Press, 1966), pp- II. II .x v 4 25 rqndnt the text of Gladden's Seattle speech.1 The next step was that of searching through the remnds of the American Board in Boston. There it was dhmovered that all that remains as official records of thenmeting is a rather substantial volume containing all theieports and speeches of the officers of the Board and Hmir scheduled guest speakers (Gladden excepted——he was notscheduled),2 and a single file—folder containing smmral papers of varying degrees of relevance. Among the pnmrs in the file was found a 16—page, 5" x 8" pamphlet bearing the imprint: Shall Ill—Gotten Gains be Sought for Christian Purposes? Prepared for Presentation to the American Board of Foreign Missions, at its Meeting in Seattle, Wash., Sept. 1A — 18, 1905. by WASHINGTON GLADDEN Itnmy be contended that this is a copy of what Gladden hadih hand when he addressed the American Board. Several ad 1All New York, Boston, Detroit, Columbus, Chicago n Seattle newspapers known to be publishing during the gmflod covered by the American Board meeting were searChed y “Us writer for reports of the speech. Mms- 2American Board of Commissioners for Foreign 5f7i§2§i—SEEESA_E§E2£EL_lQQ§ (Boston: Published by Order fmnme-Natlonal Council, 1905). [This volume was also Arbo ln th? library at the University of Michigan, Ann Cmflégeand 1n the library on the Campus of Oberlin ] t E ...L d n a. I...» ...i... has. .1\ Ln: 1 L ’ S t E n {l l l nun \ x A was p01] a w he ve 1e 5 Export l .‘nen , 3, A . ‘) h ‘i i». . l M s 4 a , . . A G \t 4. . . v . w an 25W i. A. d J ‘ 26 signs point in that direction. One sign is that the pamphlet cited is in fact filed with the official minutes of the American Board for the year 1905. Another is that correspondence received by Gladden in September, 1905, just prior to the Seattle meeting, indicates that a document prepared by Gladden had been circulated by him among several of his supporters in order to receive the benefit of their criti— cism.1 It is evident that whatever the substance of this document, it was prepared by Gladden and proposed as the remarks he intended to deliver at the meeting. Again, it could be assumed that the paper was circulated in printed form, and that a quantity was taken to Seattle in that same form. Another, more substantial sign, is that Dunning, in a detailed report of the meeting, says that, at the moment of delivery, "Dr. Gladden.. .produced his printed address, and after announcing that copies for free distribution were ready at the doors for those who wished, he read "2 extended selections from it. (Italics, the writer's.) One might assume that the copies distributed lThis correspondence is cited by Dorn, op. cit., pp- 335—336. 2A. E. Dunning, "The American Board at Seattle: The Spirit and Striking Features of the First Meeting Ever Held on the Pacific Coast," Congregationalist, XC (September 30, 1905), p. 446. Years later, in an obituary notice on Gladden, the Seattle Post—Intelligencer says, ”Dr. Gladden came to fine Seattle meeting prepared to fight. He brought with im copies of the speech he intended to make and did make... SeaTtFPost—Intelligencer, July 3, 1918. (Emphasis supplied.) ..,. L’ I:;: me 1:25" cop L. 27 were the same as the one used by Gladden, and that one of Hmse copies was taken by a clerk of the meeting for hmlusion in the official file. Another sign is that the speech seems to have been in some form in quantity for mmw time after the meeting, as letters of appreciation forlwving received a copy of it are to be found in the (Madden Papers.l Another sign is that portions of the textreported in the newspapers differed little in qmlling, punctuation, capitalization, or paragraph mnengement. It is as if each printer had a copy of the tam before him as he set his type, as indeed he probably did. Again, one could easily assume that a busy reporter IMght take one of the pamphlets and simply hand it over to hisgudnter for reproduction. There is further evidence, perhaps circumstantial, ofthe authenticity of this text. In a letter to Gladden dimnmsing the preparation of his (Gladden's) The New Immatry, Ida M. Tarbell of McClure, Phillips and Co., wrote: You sent me under separate cover a copy of your Seattle speech and asked what I thought of putting it in the volume. I should do so by all means. You did not indicate the order in which you would like to have it go. Would it not be well to put it after Chapter 3rd, Standard Oil lIda M. Tarbell to Gladden, October 10, 1905; Gauge A. Gordon to Gladden, October 12, 1905; F. A. quds to Gladden, November 27, 1907. and F docul Ziously 28 and Foreign Missions? It thus completes the documents of this particular discussion. Obviously, Gladden had sent Miss Tarbell what he identi— fied for her as his Seattle speech. It may again be assumed that what he sent her did in fact appear as the section following "Chapter 3rd" in Gladden's The New Idolatry where it was, as has been indicated, identified as the "address before the American Board."2 Thus, in sum, there is a pamphlet identified as Gladden's speech before the American Board in Seattle and contained in the official files of the Board's successor organization.3 Also, there is a news report printed the day after the speech was given conforming exactly to the aforementioned pamphlet (except for the omission cited). And there is a volume authored by the speaker which contains a section noted as his Seattle speech. This section conforms exactly to both the text of the aforementioned pamphlet and the text of the news report. Related to the book's publication there is correspondence indicating that that which was printed appeared as it came from Gladden himself lIda M. Tarbell to Gladden, October 10, 1905. [Miss Dorothy J. Smith, Manuscripts Librarian for Reis Library at Allegheny College where the Tarbell Papers are now deposited, reports that no correspondence from Gladden is in the collection. Interview, May 20, 1968.] 2The New Idolatry, loc. cit. 3A search of the American Board's official papers, recently transferred to the Houghton Library on Harvard University's campus, reveals no other document bearing uDon Gladden's Seattle speech among the papers of those Wlilo were officers of the Board at the time the speech was g Ven. . salable . n I' {46 p ~ «4-... ..,-"'fi ’ 29 who implied that it was the text he delivered at Seattle before the Board.:L It is also known that some item was available in quantity before, during, and after the speech —-quite probably the speech text in pamphlet form. There is still no version of the text attested to as containing the exact words Gladden delivered at Seattle. Nor can the report of Dunning that only "extended selections" from the text were read be explained away. As Thonssen and Baird state, "In practically all cases, critics are obliged to work with speech texts of n2 questionable accuracy. They continue, stating that the sdnflar's task is "to establish the best possible text thnmmm.such processes of investigation and collation as nnylxaopen to him.“3 The writer has pursued the matter ofeztext for Gladden's speech at Seattle as best he knows how,and has chosen to accept as authentic the text from thefdles of the American Board. There being no apparent waylpr determining which portions may have been left 0ut,cn‘converse1y, which portions actually were .____ lln an effort to discover what Gladden had actu— afly manzto‘McClure, Phillips and Co., a contact was made wiulDoubleday 00., who many years ago took over the McChue, Phillips interests. Mrs. M. Morse, Assistant to thelhesident at Doubleday, claims that no author's manu~ scnums are extant from the old McClure, Phillips organi— zMflon. Interview, February 8, 1968. 2Spee0h'Criticism: The DevelOpment of Standards, P.3ll. 3lbid. iezemlnw m be fl'lti 1" N. ,;,;. ...I Wu F a v. ... L. fit. 30 used (if indeed such was actually the case), it has been determined that the whole text as contained in the pamphlet should be used as the basis for this investigation.1 Other speech texts referred to in this study (see bibliography and Appendix) were photo—copied from handwritten manuscripts contained in the Gladden Papers. All the copies of these manuscripts are now in the writer's possession, and, in his judgment, they were all written by the same hand that wrote the other fifteen hundred or so manuscripts in that collection. Either they are all from Gladden's hand, or none of them is. How Gladden used his text will be one of the points covered in that which follows. 1Of course, it is possible that Gladden did indeed read only portions, perhaps assuming that those who had received copies of the address ahead of time would have read it, while those who received it at the door could read it later. Although the writer fails to see the merit of having the text read after the address was made and a note taken. CHAPTER III THE SETTING OF THE SPEECH "Eloquence must have its theatre," say Thonssen and Baird, and by "theatre" they mean all the circumstances, present, past, and pending, which might possibly shape the apprehension, and advance or retard the acceptance, of a speaker's presentation, and shape any decision he may request of his hearers. All of the circumstances provide a setting for a particular speech, the physical, intellec— tual and emotional impingments involved at the time the speech is given.1 Among those circumstances which may have an effect upon the speaker—audience communication situationlis that of the immediate physical surroundings in which a speech is given. The physical setting, accord— ing to Eisenson, Auer and Irwin, may have a significant effect upon audience behavior.2 lThonssen and Baird, op. cit., p. 31A. 2Jon Eisenson, J. Jeffery Auer, and John W. Irwin, The Psychology of Communication (New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1963), p. 276, pp. 276—279. See also Hance, Ralph and Wiksell, op. cit., pp. 93—100. 31 A. The Plymouth Congregational Church Seattle, Washington: In the particular situation under study we have Hm speaker and his audience about to come together in a chuwh "auditorium,"l to use a term that Gladden himself Lmed when he spoke of the church rooms commonly called samtuaries today.2 The auditorium was that of the lemnwh Congregational Church, Seattle, Washington, the oldest and largest church of that denomination in the aty.3 Outside, the building appeared as "a stately red bridcedifice with a lofty spire and two smaller towers, \mry anuwhly in appearance."L'l Inside, "the local cmmnttee had given considerable attention to decoration."5 WiUlits central pulpit backed by a huge choir loft over whidnsoared ranks of organ pipes, and with its pews set hla semi—circular arrangement until the end seats in the fmnw pews were almost off to either side of any speaker Handing behind the sacred desk, and with all the woodwork 1A. E. Dunning, "The American Board at Seattle, " Congregationalist, XC (September 30,1905), p. HAS. 2Gladden, The Christian Pastor and the Workin erdm (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911 , p. 24. 3Alice D. Rayner, The Path We Came By: Aifliaigry fPlymouth Congregational Church, Seattle, Washington, -l937, no. pub., no date, p. 35. uIbid. See Appendix for both exterior and hflerior photos of the Plymouth Church. 5Seattle Times, September 15, 1905. we in wt «- BET 0} 22m, the 2W7 ...J 33 dam in what appears in photographs to be a dark varnish— stahn the auditorium had its counterpart in one size or anoUmr on practically any main corner in the land. How- mmr, it did not look at all like the typical Congrega— tionalist white "Lord's barns"l that dotted the New England cmnwryside a continent away. It must have presented no small challenge to the demnations committee which had done their work in a style Hmt was described as "Western in the profusion and brilliance of the lilies, hydrangeas, palms and other 2 .flcwers and plants," which they had set about. While one n3 breathed in the "welcome fragrance which came from the flowers, he could let his eyes travel above the "rostrum"Ll mmr which the American flag was "draped effectively"5 6 along with the "emblems" of China and Japan. On the walls armnm.the auditorium were placed maps of the World with flmcial points of interest marked on them, and on the 7 'fiflatform" stood a "big globe." "Auditorium," "rostrum," 1 Marion T. Starkey, The Congregational Way: The Role of the Pilgrims and Their Heirs in Shaping America UMw York: Doubleday and Company, 1966), p. 172. Dunning, loc. cit. 3 Seattle Times, September 15, 1905. A Ibid.; Dunning, loc. cit. 5 . Seattle Times, loc. Cit. Dunning, loc. cit. 7Ibid. Ltfom, h .‘ n A ailing l .¢ i a‘ 3 .l, u Gift 31! "platform," these terms denoted a room in which public speaking was to be the order of the day. And the speaking could at this particular time be expected to have an unusual breadth of focus as there had been prepared "a fit platform for world work."l B. The Annual Meeting of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions: World work was indeed the concern of the meeting which was at hand, September 14—18, 1905, in Seattle's historic Plymouth Church, for the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions was holding its 96th annual meeting there. The American Board, with its history of world missionary work dating from 1811, and with its assemblage of official delegates which could number some— thing a "little short of 500,"2 was coming together to review its work for the year just past and to set a course for the year ahead.3 The agenda for those events was a matter of public knowledge as it was printed daily on the front lIbid. 2Ibid. 3The two works on the American Board consulted for this study were: Fred Field Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses (Boston: American Board of Com for Foreign Missions, 1959); and William E. Strong, The Story of the American Board: An Account of the First§ Hundred Years of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1910). ‘30 ...v; .I «an AC Cu d1. W1 n1 0 1“ W .. l l 7}. . A x t 7 .54“ m.” .5 y... .. m w s .w n... .Mw a ..h» 3 .. ..er w . ..F. n m .. ..L . . . u. \ ...i ...ux. ..mv.\m.... 35 'Imges of the local newspapers.1 There were scheduled reports of Board officials and returned missionaries, and mmeches no doubt designed to rekindle the "missionary sphfit" in the hearts of the delegates. But for the mumal meeting of the American Board in the year 1905 'Hmre was a significant "hidden" agenda, one that was not Mlany official document, but one which everyone concerned (fiTicially with the meeting was acutely aware of; one much the nation at large attended to with intense interest. C. The Events Peculiar to the Controversy Over The Acceptance of Rockefeller's Gift, With Emphasis Upon the Conflict Between Gladden and the Board: The cause and course of what held the public's hmerest centered in a series of incidents, claims and cmnmer claims, which had followed an action the Board's hmdential Committee (the largest and most powerful of the Rmrd's Committees) had taken six months before in March. Wm events which followed the Prudential Committee's adficn are admirably reported by Dorn in his masterful thesis on the life of Gladden.2 1Seattle Times and Post—Intelligencer both camfied on their front pages daily agendas for the meeting; amithe American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mimfions Annual Report, 1905, carries a full recounting of allofficial reports and speeches presented. 2 Dorn, op. cit., pp. 3OA—3AA. is": we: CET 1 .011! I-gm h . 1 36 In the March 18, 1905, issue of the Congregation- §£§§_there appeared on the first inside page the following mumuncement under the heading, "Good News for the American Board”: A gift of $100,000 has been made to the American Board by John D. Rockefeller. The whole amount is designated by him for five educational institutions carefully selected in Japan, Turkey, Bulgaria, India and Ceylon. A liberal sum is also to be applied to the publication work of the Board in Turkey. It is earnestly hoped that this magnificent gift will encourage the supporters of the Board to increase their contributions in view of greater opportunities which will thus be opened. Mr. Rockefeller has made large donations annually to the Baptist Board of Missions but he desires to distribute his gifts in fields not reached by that society. This money is to go to institutions in parts of the world in which Baptists have no missions. This is the largest gift ever received by the Board from a living donor belong— ing to another denomination. It is a gratifying tribute to the excellent financial administration of our foreign missionary society as well as to the n thoroughness and catholicity of its work. This announcement was not received with rejoicing byall. washington Gladden was deeply disturbed by it, andlfis first publicized response to the announcement came hithe form of a sermon preached before his own congrega— tiMlin Columbus. On March 26 he took as his topic 'The Religion of a Gentleman," and proceded to denounce Hm gift, its donor, and its acceptance. He said that the gifi;came from "a colossal estate whose foundations were lahiin the most relentless rapacity known to modern lCongregationalist, xc (March 18, 1905), p. 319, anemia in per which. 1 :5 had "i 37 cmmwrcial history." The donor, said Gladden, represented ere perfectly than anyone else, the system of brigandage by which our commerce has been ravaged for many years", hefmd ”taught the other plunderers most of what they knowJ' that the man deserved most of all was strong demumiation from the forces at work for righteousness in the world, and it would be wrong for those very forces totake his money and at the same time censure him.l Gladden then turned to the press, issuing a matement which was widely broadcast over the country. He duected a formal protest to the Prudential Committee, then hmwdiately wrote an article on the subject to be printed hithe Congregationalist.2 In his article, Gladden objected to the acceptance ofthe gift "because the money thus bestowed does not fl, riynfiully belong to the man who gives it; it has been flagitiously acquired, and all the world knows it." The fmms could be found, he asserted adamently, in the reports Oflegislative commissions, judicial records, and in the mfitings of the better—known social commentators of the day. At this point, the course of events took an mmxpected turn. Up through the time his initial article Mmeared, Gladden had assumed that Rockefeller had sought M lGladden, "The Religion of a Gentleman." 2Gladden, "A Dissenting View," Congregationalist, X0 (April 1, 1905), p. 1424. 38 mm the American Board and asked it to accept his mun- ificence. But in the very same issue of the Congregation— §£E§_in which Gladden's article appeared there appeared mmther beside it which revealed that the situation actually was that of a noble enterprise in its extreme need making its appeal to him [Rockefeller]. To that appeal he yielded, not in any way making the Board his partnfr, and not asking it to give him any approval. Blother words, as the article explained, the gift had mmually been sought through an agent of Rockefeller's who hammned to be a member of a Congregational Church! In his commentary on this turn of events, Dorn ponds out that in his biography of Rockefeller, Allan Nmfins states that the controversy over "tainted money" (a tennwith which the debate came to be associated), "a three mmmhs' wonder," died away when the most excited partici— pmms found, to their chagrin, that the Board had actually sdficited the money.2 Dorn gOes on to show that just the reverse occurred. The Prudential Committee's involvement gawethe protestants (as Gladden and those associated with hhnin his opposition to the gift came to be called) an evalstronger case than they had originally surmised. Even Hmugh they had to deemphasize their contention against Hm passive acceptance of gifts from morally questionable . lAmory H. Bradford, "An Approving View," COngre— W. KO (April 1, 1905), p. 424. 2 Dorn quoting Nevins, op. cit., p. 319. terest Elms 39 smuees, their campaign took on an even greater intensity.l Says Dorn, "The controversy captured public hmerest and imagination to an amazing extent."2 In Cohmmus, many of the clergy took up Gladden's cause. Therness clearly supported him in the capital city, ahflmugh the Congregationalist opposed the protestants rationally. Chicago's Congregationalist paper, the Advance, supported the protestants' position. Secular and religious journals and newspapers printed polls of opinion mlthe subject. Leading clergymen from around the nation toddoubt, have agreed that his anticipated listarns were ixmtile, and that it was because, in the words of Hance, Kahunand Wiksell, he was "on the hostile end of a con— ‘iupversial issue."1 It is known that in a later report to hhscongregation he stated that he knew, "there was a premnrstrong sentiment in favor of suppressing this sub— Ject."2 One headline which appeared the day before Gladden MXME read, "Dr. Gladden Has No Chance of Winning: Canvass oflmmmership of the American Board of Commissioners for meflgn Missions Shows Coming Defeat: Ninety Per Cent of ‘— lHance, Ralph and Wiksell, op. cit., p. 119. 2Gladden, "A Long Journey and a Lively Debate." . ' the Delegate: on ‘Tainted i noted Chair; of the board a. ....-.r .. _ the members short, it we no being opp In zone a strov to one esp lifted in t illvinted v; ateitance it that or iv Stateo v 1tional we ‘ its off tittegt 3g and 40h Cas‘ laThis tilt-1n b \ 81 the Delegates Do Not Sympathize With Moderator's Position mi'Tainted Money' Issue."1 The report which followed mkmed Chairman Whitcomb, "A canvass of the 300 members cu‘the board showed a short time ago that 90 per cent of tie members were Opposed to Dr. Gladden's position."2 In short, it was an audience which had already gone on record am being opposed to the speaker's position. In essence, the Board's Prudential Committee had made a strong public commitment to a position contrary to tum one espoused so tenaciously by Gladden. It was re— puted in the Outlook in April that a special subcommittee eumointed by the Prudential Committee had recommended anmeptance of the Rockefeller gift without reservations, mkithat that recommendation had been adOpted. The report eflso stated that the gift had been made for special edu— catnxml work, and was, in fact, accepted before "the fact ofits offer was made public, and therefore before any protest against its acceptance was or could have been made."3 8 In these words there are at least two points whhflicast a pall on the whole beginning of the affair, and, hia.measure, possibly indicate that those who accepted the giflzin behalf of the Board and the denomination did so h 1Seattle Times, September 14, 1905. 2Ibid. 3"The Prudential Committee's Report," OUthOK: Lxxnr(April 22, 1905), p. 967. an an over the directio term "offer" "hat term as technetium tion that R alien. in sch to who ilihough it touch 18 ii Tron then 1 tithitted Sit on tha "'9 bond iii in f&( ttl'llttee tilted) "Ti it" that n. odes L No "t and to tide) n- 82 with an awareness of the opposition the act might arouse and the direction from which that opposition might come. The term "offer" provides the first problem point. The use of that term as late as April 22 may have indicated some de— termination to maintain for as long as possible the impres— sion that Rockefeller had made the first approach on the matter. Indeed he had not, and that fact had come to light, much to what might have been the Board‘s embarrassment. Although it was announced in the Congregationalist of March 18 that the Board had been the recipient of the gift, from then until April 15 the public (Gladden included) was permitted to believe that the gift had been volunteered. But on that date a news release from the headquarters of the board confirmed what had been rumored, that the gift was in fact solicited by representatives of the Prudential Committee over a span of two years. One press report noted, "This is entirely a different version of the matter than that given in an initial interview with Secretary James L. Barton on March 27, and made public through the local office of the board." Secretary Barton replied that he had been misquoted. However, a newspaper editorialist wrote, "In View of the fact that both statements emanated from the office of the board, any inconsistency was due evidently to preparation rather than transmission."1 The very next day the same editorial writer picked up the thio State Journal, April 15, 1905. theme even at hh haerica for for frankne that th selves conduct sneahih Th not an‘ of it Dr. G1 alist hoard‘ reques h hissic fellez ments and gt solic. huhli all a “lent and w \ it to h: "a ahtich 83 theme even more acidly: Whatever one may think about the propriety of the American board‘s acceptance of Mr. Rockefeller's_gift for foreign missions, all men who value sincerity and frankness as among the cardinal virtues will agree that the representatives of the board have placed them— selves and.their organization in a bad light. Their conduct with respect to the donation might be termed sneaking, if the word were not so harsh. The fact that the money had been received was not announced for some weeks, during which nearly half of it was spent. Such secrecy is most unusual. Dr. Gladden's letter of protest to The Congregation— alist was suppressed for one week, supposedly at the board‘s instigation, and was returned to him with the request that he make it a little milder. Now comes Secretary Barton with the belated ad— mission that he solicited the money from Mr. Rocke— feller. Previously, according to the written state— ments emanating directly from the board's officers and generally accepted as his own, he had denied such solicitation. Now, two or three weeks after the publication of the denial, he explains that that was all a mistake on the part of the Associated Press. The whole proceedings have had an air of conceal— ment and half—deception which is sadly out of place and which cannot fail to injure the board. thio State Journal, April 16, 1905. (The refer— ame to Gladden's "letter" of protest actually refers to Miarticle he submitted for publication to the Congregation— On March 20 item by the editor who responded, "under ordinary conditions any- thing from your pen would go to the printing room without delay if our make—up could accommodate it. But on this matter it did not seem to me quite fair for you to address the officers of the Board first through the press." A request was made to soften the article at two points, to which Gladden agreed. §Q§§_upon hearing of the gift. But the article, instead of being pruned immediately, was passed on to the Prudential Com— Imttee, who then proceeded to draft a statement of their own which was released to the press before Gladden was even wade aware by the Clerk of the Prudential Committee that hhsstatement of protest had been sidetracked to them. Gladden had tried to take advantage of an early and direct appeal to popular opinion, but he naively made the mistake oftrying to do so through an organ controlled by one whose lbyalties may from this distance be judged to lay with the Prudential Committee. A. E. Dunning to Gladden, March 20, ¥§5,$hrch 25, 1905; E. E. Strong to Gladden, March 29, 05. has it was been of two git“. Hence stick by it SI ntten beco: that he ide he heckefe tanton what itahnief iistonted z S.teeulatim then more ate Gladd fetter age slanted as gifthas 1 Femthe : Wetter] “t hnti Lee“ the they 1011 \ e \- 12‘1“ka ’ D it t I 1 84 Thus it was clearly in evidence that the Board had indeed been of two minds about announcing the facts about the gift. Hence they had been forced to make a decision and stick by it under extremely strained conditions. So intense did this particular aspect of the matter become that Secretary Barton was moved to publish what he identified as all the important "correspondence on the Rockefeller gift." Whether this did or did not do for Barton what he hoped it would——"correct impressions made by a brief interview with myself which has been widely distorted and misunderstood"l—-—is a matter for continued speculation. But it surely raised a point that must have added more heat to the controversy; at least it must have made Gladden wonder. Barton quoted a letter from a Rocke— feller agent confirming that the gift had been formally granted as of February ll. Then Barton declared that the _ gift was formally accepted by the Prudential Committee on February lit.2 However, the gift was not announced until March 18, a month and four days later. Why had the an- nouncement been delayed for so long? It was delayed in fact until after some of the money (approximately half) had been received and dispersed. Perhaps the most important question for this study is, Why had Gladden, denominational James L. Barton, D. D., "The Correspondence on the Rockefeller Gift," Independent, LVIII (April 20, 1905), pp. 871—87h. 21bid., p. 873. ! hotenatot chained t . hand in i hhich we 85 hbderator, not been informed of the gift, although he (flaimed to have conferred with officials of the American Boamiin.Boston only ten days before the announcement (which would have been at least 20 days after the Board fwd officially received the gift)? He stated with some feeling that for him personally, "this is the most painful feature of the affair."1 It is not yet known why Gladden vms kept in the dark about the gift. However, it may be speculated that it was because his position on gifts from such a source was altogether too well known, and that tupuble from him, and from those who felt as he did, was almost a foregone conclusion” It is certainly known that the Board through its Itudential Committee made clear their intention to keep tflm gift. Among the reasons they offered for their action wastflm fact that "the decisions of the highest court are m>the effect that the trustees who have once accepted a gut now have no power to return the gift."2 The Board almanmde it clear that, with the issuance of a "statement Ofgufinciples" (see Appendix), they had reached a position fmmlwhich they would not likely move. As the Congrega— timmflist put it, "The committee believes that the recent cfiscussions of the subject have led the corporate members Maconclusions not likely to be changed by further 1Ohio State Journal, April 2, 1905.- 2Reported in’OhiO'State Journal, April 2, 1905. I consideratfl gotten, a: corporate no hens to th should be r hey had is as far as t tango sue? folly made istically research t 5“ Commit Tithlt to Etertain it corms Mill t Evin I habit hat —7— 86 consideration."l They had cited wide support for their pmsition, as early as April 22, claiming that "out of 189 (xuporate members of the Board who have communicated their \flews to the Board, 164 expressed the wish that the gift flwmld be retained, 25 that it should be returned."2 They had issued their statement; they were a unit; and, msfar as they were concerned, the case was closed. What could be hoped for by anyone seeking to (flange such an attitude? In view of a commitment so force— flflly made it is not likely that any change could be real— istically anticipated. Hovland, Janis,and Kelley say that research tends to support the claim that once an individual has— 93 heathen. In 1810 they appealed to the Congregational churches of Massachusetts to support them; their plea was heard, steps were taken to organize a supporting associa— tion, and those young men, and hundreds more after them, were sent to the far corners of the world.1 The American Ikerd was "the most notable pioneer undertaking" in the enea of foreign missionary effort in America, declares one rwmed church historian.2 Certainly it was one of the oldest and best-knownJ Another thing that could be known of Gladden's Ekattle listeners is that all were Congregationalists. Although the Board at its inception had openly declared itself to be independent of any denomination, and had Embed cooperated fully with Presbyterian and Dutch Re— flnmed groups, by the turn of the century, this cooperative mflrit had faded from among denominations, and the Board hmibecome "basically a Congregationalist society."3 One commentator has stated that the Board "has newn°been denominational,“I indicating that it has never baninarrowly sectarian. What this meant specifically, in F——— w—fi lWilliam Warren Sweet,'The'Story'Of'Religion'in emerica (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), pp. 247—248. _1 2Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History Of Chris— EEEE£1,(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), p. 10A7. 3Wi11iston Walker,'AjHistory‘orthe Christian anueh (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1959, revised edition), p. 509 . A Atkins and Fagley, op. cit., p. 162. terns of to say. the den D :‘or its F——' 94 terms of a systematic statement of faith, it is difficult to say. Though theologically Calvinist in its origins, tle denomination had been more noted for its polity than fbr its theology. Congregational historians,Atkins and Eagley,do list several statements of faith in their work, the last one before 1905 being titled, "The Creed of 1883."1 Butru>statement had any more authority than a local church ndght wish to accede to it. As a matter of record, the 1800‘s had been for the Congregationalists a time of heated theological debate.2 The result of all this discus— sion had not been agreement upon one statement. Neither hmiit been an agreement to disagree. If anything, the tonnaseemed to simply evaporate. Atkins and Fagley put it this way: What one may call the period of theological transition ended with the century. Theology, pre— cisely defined, had ceased to be the primary concern of the churches and their leaders. The United States was fabulously prosperous, "at peace with the world," as a presidential message once said, "and in amity with the rest of mankind." The period was kind to generous idealisms; a bright, happy, fraternal world seemed so easily possible, if only the Sermon on the Mount could and would be put into general prac- tice. Astx>exactly what one was required to believe upon uniting wflflia church of the denomination, the substance of that semmsto be nothing. Dr. William E. Barton, "long the Ikeding authority on Congregational polity," put it: ——_ lAtkins and Fagley, op. cit., pp. 393—non. 2Ibid., pp. 164—180. 3Ibid., p. 180 95 You are not required to become a Congregation— alist in order to unite with a Congregational church. A Congregational church is not a church of Congrega— tionalists, but a church of Christians in which the congregation governs. It has absolutely no sectarian tests. To belong to a Baptistchurch one must be a Baptist, submitting to a particular rite administered in a particular form. To belong to an Episcopal church one must be an Episcopalian. Congregationalism has no such divisive tests. hk>author consulted on the topic even remotely suggests that beliefs do not matter in Congregationalism. The only points made are that no tests should be required by the dmwmflnation for membership in it, and that a wide range cfi‘tolerance for personal beliefs should be permitted members. However, even though Congregationalists can claim that a closely-ordered theological system is not important, tie same cannot be said for church polity, at least inso— far as one particular point is concerned: the absolute :hmependence of each congregation of Christians. The first sudnciple of church government for the denomination is, in tie words of one writer on the subject, ”the entire com— lfleteness of each local church for its own government."2 (Hus statement bespeaks a certain rugged spirit of indepen— mnme which might be expected, for Walker states that the landing of the Mayflower was the event which established (kmgregationalism in America.3 And, although the Pilgrims 1Quoted in Atkins and Fagley, op. cit., p. 299. 28 2Alanzo H. Quint, quoted in Atkins and Fagley,op,cit,, p. 7. _.____._ 3Walker, op. cit., p. 409. i did not the solo to tors? 96 did not come to these shores for the purpose of advancing tie spirit of tolerance, they certainly came with freedom to worShip as they pleased in mind. Without trying to line out cause and effect, it can be attested that by thetime of the Revolutionary War, the Congregationalists had more local churches than did any other denomination.l Perhaps it was merely a function of size, but Sweet claims that no church in the American Colonies had as great an influence in the War for Indepen— — 98 took for the expenses of the trip? At any rate, it seems clear that the:majority of those who attended the meeting were men of the market place and countinghouse. For such men it was a great time to be alive. Businessmen, espe— cially successful businessmen, were admired by almost everyone. A measure of the interest of the people of that day in the glamour and excitement of high finance and the intrigue and promise of big business could be taken in light of the fact that two fiction works on that general theme appeared on the best—seller lists of 1903. One of these was The Pit, a novel by Frank Norris with its setting hithe Chicago commodities market, and the other was letters of‘a Selerade'Merchant to His Son, by George Enece Lorimer, editor of the Saturday Evening'Post.l And 311905 one of the Broadway hits of the year was a play dmfling with a big—business theme authored by Charles lflein under the title "The Lion and the Mouse," taking its setting in a department store. 2 It was a time when the population was growing at miunprecedented rate, the frontiers of the nation were bahm;pushed to their last territorial extremes, no large tune had drained either the nation's manpower or money in reuum years, and "Spencerian laissez faire was accepted lAlice Payne Hackett,'70'YearS'Of'Best‘Sellers: 189¥J965 (New York: R. R. Bowker Company, 1967), p. 99. 2Ibid., p. 101. ‘cp respe ensued c teehth ( fi’lfir" -/ :3: 99 by respectable folk everywhere."l Theodore Roosevelt summed up the feeling about the last quarter of the nine— teenth century in his AutObiography as follows: ...a riot of individualistic materialism, under which complete freedom for the individual...turned out in practice to mean perfect freedom for the strong to wrong the weak... The power of the mighty indus— trial overlords...had increased with giant strides, while the methods of controlling them,...through the Government, remained archaic and therefore practically impotent.2 Whether their methods were largely just or unjust, it was certainly a time when the roles businessmen played were leading ones in society. A contemporary newspaper com— nented, "After all business is the biggest thing in this cmnmry. Politicians may talk, but businessmen will act, control, and dominate the destinies of this common—sense cmnmry."3 And members of the American Board were every— where "recognized as men of the highest integrity in the business world."u (Italics, the writer's.) To be a successful businessman at the turn of the century was to be admired, perhaps even envied. It was also to be criticized, not always flatteringly so. But it was 1Henry Steele Commager, The American Mind: An hmerpretation of American Thought and‘Character Since the lgRNs (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), p. 172. . 2Quoted in Samuel Eliot Morison’s The Oxford History of the American People (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965). p. 7611. _ 3Quoted in Rhea Foster Dulles' The United States Sums 1865 (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1959 , p. 53. . u"Mr. Rockefeller‘s Gift to the Board," Congrega— ‘mnaliit, xc (April 1, 1905), p. A21~ certain teners declare ,. ..__..,s with they 5 issued lOO certainly to be aware of one's self— and_group—identity. In summary, we see that Gladden's Seattle lis— teners could easily be termed hostile. They had openly declared that they were, in the vast majority, against his position. They had even gone so far as to say that, as they saw it, the case was closed. Furthermore, they had issued their own position statement and pledged themselves to stand by it. To a certain extent——insofar as individual Board members chose to identify themselves with such “public" pronouncements-—the members of the audience had all made public statements of their position, a step which wmfld.make them difficult to move. Also, it may be assumed that they had become somewhat familiar with Gladden's views through their wide dissemination in the public press. They had had opportunity to be "inoculated" against his position. Also, and perhaps most importantly, all the Board nembers had several significant roles to keep in mind. All were aware of their membership on the Board, a tradition— laden, time—honored missionary enterprise. Its record was me of both innovation and success. They were also all members of the Congregationalist denomination, a Christian body which in turn had been strong in its national leader- sup, although more recently it had perhaps become most Significantly a denomination of the well—to—do. However, it was also an organization fraught with a heavy tradition of accomplishment in the name of the Christian faith. fourths of he made hi it the tin i have been predicted he most is actually teiporary tn occupe in deters it the g: 101 Also to be considered was the fact that for three- fourths of the Board members there was an identification to be made with a role as a member of the business community. At the time, the role expectations of the businessman might have been more than a little confused. It could not be predicted with certainty what a businessman might hold to be most important, or whether this particular group of men actually felt any strong sense of identity with the con— temporary businessman's role. Yet it must be recognized that c mloccupational commitment could have been a strong factor in determining the role expectancies of the business people t in the group. DIV-SSS CHAPTER V PROCEDURES IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING GLADDEN'S ADDRESS A."ReSOIutions,“committee'ASSignments,'Reports: Friday, September 15, 1905, was, according to guess reports, a typical Seattle day, cloudy, with a "trace ofyuecipitation" in the air, the temperature to reach a mxfl.52°, and a mild breeze from the North.1 That was there would be some mfleide. Inside Plymouth Church, ifigmt, more than a mere trace of something in the air, and ifle temperature would be heated. On that day Gladden was to complete what he later termed the "particular errand"2 that brought him to the <flty. Although "the number of corporate members in atten— mnme was not large"3 that day, the "commodious auditorium" (beating 750) with its ”somber tones” relieved by "an emfietiCJarransement.of.fless.and.buntins".was.“filled"5 —__ lseattle Times, September 15, 1905. 2Gladden, "A Long Journey and a Lively Debate." 3Rfld. useattle'POSteIntelligeHCer, September 15, 1905. 5See Seattle Times, September 15, 1905. The Hfinutes of the day’s meeting are reported in'AmeriCan Board VobemmiSSIOners for Foreign'MiSSionS'Annual Report 1905, WL'Cit., pp. viii—x. 102 then the In neeting' s nenspapers absence oi iii are cc ness com: agenda hat nderlyin prelimina tdid, for lldd, so the static dieting reading Sinister llldentf lien f0] 103 when the meeting began on schedule at 9:00 A.M. The neeting's agenda for that day was printed in the local newspapers,1 and, it is interesting to note that the absence of both Gladden's name and the issue which brought lflm.are commented upon by reporters. Reportedly, the busi— ress committee appointed by President Capen to arrange an agenda had assigned a place for a "discussion of principles underlying reception of gifts,"2 but this was only on a rueliminary form of the agenda. This assignment did not tmld, for "on second thought the committee changed its nund, so that the responsibility for further agitation of tie matter must rest with the protestants."3 It was Gladden who took the initiative. The neeting.had proceeded through the devotional service, reading of the minutes, report of the ”home” department, and &anetary C. H. Patton was well into an Paddress from the Lumdential committee," which was, in essence, "an eloquent lflea for money."u He had, so a report went, taken time by the forelock and was launching well into a discourse exposing the depleted condition of the treasury and calling attention to the fact that the missionaries are now in the throes of a rapidly accumulating debt.5 {Men the Tnoted divine,9 Gladden, entered from the back of lSeattle'POSteIntelligencer, September 15, 1905, Elisa- 3Ibid. ”Seattle'rimes, September 15, 1905. 5Ibid. the and the ire i Patton‘ : ately ‘ rear 0 tladde ”Apple 104 the auditorium. As he entered, President Capen stepped to the front of the platform, placed his hand upon Secretary letton's shoulder and whispered something to him. Immedi— ately the Secretary broke off his speech and stepped to the rear of the platform while President Capen acknowledged Gladden's presence and introduced him to the gathering. "Applause" and "cheering" "ran through the audience," so cme report has it. It was indeed a "most dramatic" situation.1 The Timeg was to contend that Gladden "inter— rupted" the meeting with "apparent disregard" for the fact that he had broken in upon Secretary Patton's Speech.2 tbwever, Gladden explained afterwards that he had been emked to come in when he did by President Capen himself.3 LR:seems doubtful that Gladden had expected Capen to stop &Mnetary Patton in mid—speech, but what was done was done, mnithere was nothing more to do but go ahead with things astmey were. This he did. Rising from where he had seated .EMwelf during the introductory remarks by President Capen, (Madden waited for another burst of cheers and applause to mmeide, and then proceakxito speak while "standing in the body, of. the assembly.- ".”. . At this. time it was .0an his 2min. BSeattle'POSteIntelligencer’ September 16, 1905. Z’S'aa't't'1e Times, September 15, 1905. intentic that at 105 intention to present his short resolution and he prefaced that with these words: I will introduce for the deliberations of this meeting my resolution which has been heralded before the people by the press of the country for the last few weeks and which you all know. And then he read: Resolved, That the officers of the Board not invite nor solicit donations to its funds from persons whose gains are generally believed to have been made by methods morally indefensible or socially injurious. This resolution was immediately referred to "the Business Committee"3 together with an alternate motion made right enter Gladden's by "Mr. David Fales, of Illinois."u lmu Fales rose from a seat near Gladden's and read a motion which began as follows: Whereas, The Prudential Committee in its circular letter of August 8, 1905, submitted for the consider— ation of the Corporate Members a series of principles which, in its judgment, should govern the action of the officers of the Board in the matter of gifts, to which answer was made by a large majority of such Corporate Members approving such statement, and which statement of principles as follows:—— [Inserted here was the Prudential Committee's Statement of Principles. (See Appendix.)] Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the aforesaid statement of principles be, and the same is, hereby approved. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, lieu. 2Amerioan'Board'of'commissionerS'ror‘roreign EhruonS'Annual'Repor§,'1905,'opg'oit., p. x. 3ipig., p. viii. #IEEQ: Sumo. After the been sent to the BU continued his speec discourse on the B should be done abot not been able to 1 ill that could be tron one newspaper oated verbatim rep report states that Secretary Patton t einess. In view Stitch goes, he d telcone was being one smart Pepor wile. Pattc called attec fields. the feared the 2 lies. M WOI‘k, must I And th PI“ Patton L0 saddle a pointed dil‘ must in his has extendi money he he generous 01 his 311nm: Mummy 2Ibis \ 106 After the resolutions of Gladden and Fales had been sent to the Business Committee, Secretary Patton continued his speechu In substance, it was an impassioned discourse on the Board's debts and what he (Patton) thought should be done about them. Unfortunately, the writer has rwt been able to locate a complete text for that speech. All that could be located on it are a rather florid summary from one newspaper report, and what appears to be a trun— ceted verbatim report from another newspaper.1 The summary report states that at the instant he was interrupted, Emcretary Patton had come to the point of the Board's indebt- edness. In view of the debt, so the summary report of his smeech goes, he declared that "from every source a royal twflcome was being extended to the dollar.” According to the summary report, ...Dr. Patton resumed after the interruption. He called attention to the extent of the work in foreign fields. He dilated on the financial distress. He feared the abandonment of the work in certain locali- ties. Money, the one crowning need to prosecute the work, must be obtained. And then, speaking with all the vigor he had, Dr. Patton would have it understood he was not asking to saddle any further burdens on the churches. He pointed directly to personal contributions, and upper— most in his mind was the offering of Rockefeller. He was extending to the oil king a hearty thanks for the money he had given, and bidding him to continue his generous offers. b . 1Summary in ruef verbatim in'Seattle'POSteIntelligenCer, September 16, 1905. '2'I'b'id . u the report is a smefiwtumnt yhattley anticipat hwmd,Janis, an nbdwrthe materi studion will be suwd,1 still one hweuight be, at their attitudes a‘ tdhnso closely idnothave any nudbethat the bbdulf of a po loted Patton to g iuwh. If so, a iasiHfact able twwldcertainl .uebuluential c uuulus. As E1, evidence SEems t‘ o ousto a more Wehmol‘e shal After 1H0Vla 2EiSer 107 If the report is accurate, Patton's speech must have had some effect upon the audience members' attitude toward whatuey anticipated hearing from Gladden. Although, as Hovland, Janis, and Kelley point out, it is not yet clear whether the material presented first in a communication situation will be more effective than that presented second,l still one wonders if Patton did not think that there might be, and if his listeners were not bolstered in their attitudes at least somewhat by hearing this presen— tation so closely before Gladden's. Even if the material did not have any particular effect, in and of itself, it could be that the imminent possibility of someone's speaking in.beha1f of a position contrary to his own may have stimu— lated Patton to give more thought to the delivery of his spemflh If so, and if by giving such thought to it, he wasirofact able to improve his delivery in some way, then it would certainly be likely that the speech would have a nmrezhfiduential effect than it might have had without that sthmflns. As Eisenson, Auer, and Irwin state, research evhkxme seems to support the claim that improved delivery leads to a more influential speech.2 But of this particular mmech more shall be heard later. After Patton's speech was concluded, the order of lHovland, Janis and Kelley, op. cit., p. 129. 2Eisenson, Auer and Irwin, op;'Cit., p. 309. the day continued . “allege in India on the motions tha cohort was W on rather it was a re outcast)echal CC netted, and ”9516 “ten. Washington ( den. John R. Thurf Dudley,"1 The 001 lust-named actinc they forthwith re‘ to then while the The bus the the special as by no means e taunts from miss itoners passed to ot‘ Concern which hm chad of the < to these resolut' Attestation of ‘ hterests 0f hum: ”We“ Theodo‘ .. successful e \ A u m —’— 108 the day continued with an address by a representative of a college in India. Then the Business Committee reported on the motions that had been referred to them, but the report was not on a recommendation for one or the other, rather it was a recommendation that the motions be passed on to a special committee. This recommendation was ac— cepted, and President Capen nominated the following: "Rev. Washington Gladden, David Fales, Rev. George C. Adams, Rev. John R. Thurston, Mr. W. W. Mills, Mr. Guilford Dudley,"1 The committee was elected as nominated, the first-named acting as chairman, and it may be assumed that they forthwith retired to deliberate what had been referred to them while the order of the day was resumed on the floor. The business of the Board between then and the time the Special committee was to report that afternoon was by no means ephemeral in nature. In addition to hearing reports from missionaries and Board executives, the commis— sioners passed two resolutions which expressed the breadth of concern which they felt, and also something of the sense they had of the significance of their organization. One of these resolutions was to express the Board's "grateful appreciation of the distinguished service rendered in the interests of humanity and of a Christian civilization by President Theodore Roosevelt." The service rendered was his successful effort to bring the war. between Russia and lAmerioan Boardgg Annual Report, 1905, op. cit., Japan to a close. because peaceful C viable.l Incident of the Board was t thief Executive. express appreciat: late Secretary of for the developme fineness of that thetnowledge of such resolutions Early j Gladden, "chairmz lion 0f gifts mac liesent that Conn torch and Offer. the essentially :nrning session) r‘ so Morons and 109 Japan to a close. ,This was significant for the Board, because peaceful conditions made missionary work more viable.1 Incidentally, it was directed that the President of the Board was to bear the resolution "in person" to the Chief Executive, The second resolution passed was to express appreciation for the public service rendered by the late Secretary of State, John Hay, who "contributed much for the development of Christian civilization and the progress of that kingdom which is to fill the earth with the knowledge of the Lord."2 An organization passing such resolutions takes neither itself nor its work lightly. Early in the afternoon (about 2:45 P.M.3)’ (Madden, "chairman of the special committee upon the recep— tion of gifts made to the Board," was called upon to rnesent that committee's report.Ll Gladden took ”the plat— flan5 and offered two reports, one for the majority which wasewsentially the resolution presented by Fales at the nmrning session, and one for the minority signed by It S. Moxom and himself.6 The minority report was a short lIbid. 2Ibid., pp. ix—x. 3seattle Star, September 16, 1905. ‘uIbid., p. x. SSeattle'Posternteliigencer, September 16, 1905. 6American'Board;;gannual'Report, 1905, op. cit., p.33 §§attle'PosteIntelligencer, September 15; 1905; AoEL Dunning, "The American Board at Seattle," congrega— EEEEQEEE: XC (September 30, 1905), p. ““6. resolution which G is of interest to inthe afternoon he have noted he reac‘ here in parallel ( A.M. Version That the off Board not invite r donations tc tram person: a“ general: have been In; herahly ind Socially in What 8 -p3Pding? The in softens the Gems D .0: l ‘ JG S Offlcer: 110 resolution which Gladden immediately moved be adopted. It is of interest to note that the resolution read by Gladden in the afternoon was not exactly the same as the one we have noted he read in the morning. The two are presented here in parallel columns for comparison: Gladden's Resolution A.M. Version: ReSOIVed, That the officers of the Board not invite nor solicit donations to its funds from persons whose gains are generally believed to have been made by methods morally indefensible or P.M. Version: "ReSOIVed, That the officers of the Board should not invite nor solicit donations to its funds from persons whose gains have been made by methods morally indefensible or socially injurious. socially injurious.l What significance can be attached to the changed hwufiing? The insertion of the word "should" obviously mfitens the demand element in the resolution. Thus the Emard's officers would, if the resolution were adopted, retahuthe integrity of their own moral judgment. The dehfifion of the phrase, "generally believed" removes an elwmmm found especially distasteful by commentators upon 11E resolution. Dunning had made the most of it. Even 'lamerican'Board;.;Annual‘Report, 1905,'loc.'cit. 3 hefore the resolut generally 2 to turn down giver is 11991 thought my; to add to the an almost imp personal mot: supplied.) later, in his rep humping states th meeting it "appea unwilling to cons here at least peI . tothe popular be uethods of donor: humbly meant te in interpreting aFuhusiness pra meted literally this miEht indee iffieers. Howev hill did not re mint some disc listing, it shoe in pretence is to ’V . ”33“!er accep 1pm ~ I “with 3 9n. u 111 before the resolution was published, he had commented ‘generally: to turn down an unconditioned gift simply because the giver iS"oiularly'diSliked, because his money is thought‘pyjmahy’to haVe been unrighteously earned is to add to the functions already discharged by boards an almost impossible task of acting as jud e of personal motives and professional methods. (Emphasis supplied.) later, in his report to the actual meeting in Seattle, Dnufing states that although in the special committee's meeting it "appeared...that Drs. Gladden and Moxom were annulling to consider any suggestion of compromise," they were at least persuaded to strike out the phrase "referring 'mithe popular belief of the judgment on the business methods of donors."2 The removal of the noxious phrase Lupbably meant to some that they were no longer responsible for interpreting the opinion of the masses on the character mmibusiness practices of a prospective donor. If inter— ;Heted literally, and undertaken in any scientific way, “Hus might indeed have placed an impossible burden on the cfificers. However, it is clear that the change in wording mull did not remove the necessity for the officers' exer— cflsing some discretion in the solicitation of gifts. In passing, it should also be noted that in any case the reference is to actively "inviting and soliciting," not to wasively accepting gifts. This point was an important “— 1"Mr. Rockefellerfs Gift to the Board,""Congre_ EEEBEEQEEEJ XC (April 1, 1905), p. #22. '—*—-- 2A. E. Dunning,'0p;'0it. p. 446. one in the discuss Gladden lajority as well ‘ reviewed his oppo hother words, h tentation. As we speech, this char feature which res as a good one unc‘ Gladder the minority rep< inhehalf of his his address, he ‘ Speech scholarsh success of his c One of need his chanc “Silly a prepar hi “P9 are advent 112 one in the discussion which followed. "B;"Gladden”s'EntranCeé'ReoognitiOn, “And‘"IntrOductiOn": Gladden read both reports in full, that of the majority as well as that of the minority,1 and in so doing reviewed his Opposition's position before stating his own. Ihlother words, he had, in effect, begun a two—sided pre— sentation. As we shall see in the direct study of his speech, this characterized all of his presentation, a feature which research evidence today would tend to endorse as a good one under these circumstances.2 Gladden then proceeded to move the adoption of the minority report, and it was time now for him to speak hibehalf of his cause. However, before he even began Ins address, he had already done three things which modern sumech scholarship would say enhanced the chances for the mumess of his communication attempts. One of the things he did which, no doubt, en— fenced his chances for effective communication was to (Esplay a prepared manuscript in full View of his audience.3 there. are. advantages, and. disadvantages. to the use. of a lseattle Times, September 16, 1905. 2See, for example, Hovland, Janis and Kelley, Opocfit., pp. 105~lll. 3Dunning,'locg‘Cit. manuscript in spez out.1 But, as Eli situations in whit who comes to the ‘ not having done h turn may be taken audience.2 Argui lit be contended that he had prep; evidencing a high hhuscpipt was a] 1'th would, in . CPSdihility" of , (interchangeably advance the argu rising from the hh) Which Effec Mge' The Datte termed the speal as a particular vantage of thes. lHanc. 2the 3% 11Ibid \ 113 manuscript in speaking, as Hance, Ralph,and Wiksell point out.1 But, as Ellingsworth and Clevenger state, there are situations in which a manuscript is "expected"——the speaker who comes to the platform without one may be suspected of not having done his homework thoroughly enough, and this in turn may be taken as evidence of an improper regard for the audience.2 Arguing from the obverse of this statement, it may be contended that Gladden's audience immediately saw that he had prepared carefully for the occasion, thus evidencing a high regard for them. The exhibition of the manuscript was an act related to the delivery of the speech punch would, in turn, have related to the "ethos" or "source credibility" of the speaker, as these two terms are used (interchangeably) by Hance, Ralph,and Wiksell.3 They advance the argument that there is a combination of factors arising from the speaker's person, as his audience perceives lfimu which effect the acceptance or rejection of his mes— sage. The pattern which this perception takes may be termed the speaker’s ethos or source credibility, insofar 4 aseaparticular audience is concerned. As one takes ad- lantage of these factors, either consciously or _—_‘ lHance, Ralph and Wiksell, op. cit., pp. 212—213. 2Ellingsworth and Clevenger, op. Cit., p. 121. 3Hance, Ralph and Wiksell, op. cit., pp. 38—u7. ”Ibid., p. 38. unconsciously, 1t "personal proof" elements in the t personal proof po vb character and goo each of these as Compete combination understandir edge. Liste when they cg Good Ci Sincereity, the standarc exhibits th: "He is home gaps." Good w l‘apport,\wa The listene this qualit and he real Clearly, the act Effect of at lea ill hep ‘ ms of Com with, here was t Prepare Careful; 114 unconsciously, it may be said that he is making use of "personal proof" in his presentation.1 There are three main elements in the totality which constitutes a speaker's personal proof potential. These are competence, good character and good will.2 Hance, Ralph_and Wiksell define each of these as follows: Competence is the quality that grows out of a combination of mental ability, know—how, intelligence, understanding, experience with the subject,and knowl— edge. Listeners believe that a speaker is competent when they can say, "He knows what he's talking about." sincereity, fairness, and similar qualities that meet the standards of the listeners. Of a speaker who exhibits this quality listeners are likely to say, "He is honest, fair, and really believes what he says." Good will consists of friendliness, likableness, rapport, warmth, and being "in" with the audience. The listener may say of the speaker who exhibits this quality, "I like him; he is warm and friendly, and he really gets across." (Nearly, the act of introducing a manuscript would have the effect of at least lifting Gladden's personal proof level haterms of competence, for if advance preparation is any Sign, here was a speaker who showed enough competence to inapare carefully in advance of the occasion. 4 1Ibid. '2Ibid. 3ibid., pp. 38—39. ”The writer is aware of theory and research related t