The use of this text or audio material is subject to the TR American Patriot user agreement located at: TR American Patriot.com 

THE   LOGIC   OF   HIS CAREER

CHAPTER 4

THE AFRICAN AND  EUROPEAN TRIPS

   AFTER a few days spent at Oyster Bay, Roosevelt, on March 23, 1909, sailed from New York for Africa in charge of a scientific expedition sent out by the Smithsonian Institution to collect birds, mammals, reptiles, and plants, but especially specimens of big game, for the National Museum at Washington. Speaking of this approaching trip, he said that "nothing will be shot unless for food or for preservation as a specimen, or unless the animal is of a noxious kind. There will be no wanton destruction whatever." And writing at a later time while on the expedition, he wrote: —

As a matter of fact, every animal I have shot, with the exception of six or eight for food, has been carefully preserved for the National Museum. I can be condemned only if the existence of the National Museum, the American Museum of Natural History, and all similar zoological collections are to be condemned.

It is not my purpose to speak in detail of this expedition. I may, perhaps, take the space to say that the achievements are recorded in a most interesting book called "African Game Trails." The foreword is dated Khartoum, March 15, 1910, and every sentence suggests Roosevelt's love for nature and the open. These are the closing lines: —

There are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness, that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy, and its charm. There is delight in the hardy life of the open, in long rides, rifle in hand, in the thrill of the fight with dangerous game. Apart from this, yet mingled with it, is the strong attraction of the silent places, of the large tropic moons, and the splendor of the new stars; where the wanderer sees the awful glory of sunrise and sunset in the wide waste spaces of the earth, unworn of man, and changed only by the slow change of the ages through time everlasting.

In these lines both the hunter and the poet speak. This book is not only full of interest to the sportsman, but to the naturalist as well. At the end is a list of game shot with the rifle by Roosevelt and his son Kermit, with the following note: —

Kermit and I kept about a dozen trophies for ourselves, otherwise we shot nothing that was not used either as a museum specimen or for meat — usually for both purposes. We were in hunting grounds practically as good as any that have ever existed; but we did not kill a tenth, not a hundredth part of what we might have killed had we been willing. The mere size of the bag indicates little as to a man's prowess as a hunter, and almost nothing as to the interest or value of his achievement.
One of the appendices contains a list of animals killed and of the species to which they belong, of great interest and value to the scientist. Another contains an elaborate argument by Roosevelt upon "protective coloration" in which he takes issue with some of the extreme members of the protective coloration school. Another contains the original list of the "Pigskin Library."

Speaking of his books, Roosevelt says: —
Where possible, I had them bound in pigskin. They were for use, not ornament. I almost always had some volume with me, either in my saddle-pocket or in the cartridge-bag which one of my gun-bearers carried to hold odds and ends. Often my reading would be done while resting under a tree at noon, perhaps beside the carcass of a beast I had killed, or else while waiting for camp to be pitched; and in either case it might be impossible to get water for washing. In consequence the books were stained with blood, sweat, gun-oil, dust, and ashes; ordinary bindings either vanished or became loathsome; whereas pigskin merely grew to look as a well-used saddle looks.
His discussion of these books and of others, his reasons for selecting them, and his comments upon President Eliot's "five-foot library" are full of interest and suggest the fact that Roosevelt had always been a most omnivorous reader. The word is apt, because he was literally a devourer of books. This book of travel alone, with its notes and appendices, might well embody the full measure of accomplishment of a hunter and naturalist, but is merely one among the many of his prodigious activities.

It was just the sort of trip which would attract him, and was full of thrilling incidents, all of which appealed to some craving of his. He ran the whole gamut of experiences common to the hunter and explorer who never spared himself. Some idea of the variety of his activities may be gained from the following programme for a single day: —

Colonel Roosevelt, after an antelope hunt this morning, called upon Mother Paul, the American superior of the convent here, visited the Catholic mission, helped to dedicate a wing recently added to the Church Mission Society's hospital, and took luncheon with Bishop Hanlon. This afternoon he received the King of Uganda, and with him attended a dinner.
The expedition ended on March 14, 1910, when it reached Khartoum, and then began that extraordinary journey through Europe during which Roosevelt delivered a series of addresses which attracted world-wide attention. In some quarters he was criticized for his blunt comments upon political conditions in Egypt which were called "hasty," "impulsive," and "unwise." One thing is certain, they were characteristic, a frank expression of his views. They were, however, neither "hasty" nor "impulsive," because they had been considered with the greatest care, and Roosevelt once told me that he said nothing of political conditions which had not been submitted in advance to those men of the country whose judgment he considered the best.

I cannot better describe the conditions under which these addresses came to be delivered than to quote the foreword in the book containing them:—

My original intention had been to return to the United States direct from Africa, by the same route I took when going out. I altered this intention because of receiving from the Chancellor of Oxford University, Lord Curzon, an invitation to deliver the Romanes Lecture at Oxford. The Romanes Foundation' had always greatly interested me, and I had been much struck by the general character of the annual addresses, so that I was glad to accept. Immediately afterwards, I received and accepted invitations to speak at the Sorbonne in Paris, and at the University of Berlin. In Berlin and at Oxford, my addresses were of a scholastic character, designed especially for the learned bodies which I was addressing, and for men who shared their interests in scientific and historical matters. In Paris, after consulting with the French Ambassador, M. Jusserand, through whom the invitation was tendered, I decided to speak more generally, as the citizen of one republic addressing the citizens of another republic.

When, for these reasons, I had decided to stop in Europe on my way home, it, of course, became necessary that I should speak to the Nobel Prize Committee in Christiania, in, acknowledgment of the Committee's award of the 'peace prize, after the Peace of Portsmouth had closed the war between Japan and Russia.

While in Africa, I became greatly interested in the work of the government officials and soldiers who were there upholding the cause of civilization. These men appealed to me; in the first place, because they reminded me so much of our own officials and soldiers who have reflected such credit on the American name in the Philippines, in Panama, in Cuba, in Porto Rico; and in the next place, because I was really touched by the way in which they turned to me, with the certainty that I understood and believed in their work, and with the eagerly expressed hope that when I got the chance I would tell the people at home what they were doing and would urge that they be supported in doing it.

In my Egyptian address, my endeavor was to hold up the hands of these men, and at the same time to champion the cause of the missionaries, of the native Christians, and of the advanced and enlightened Mohammedans in Egypt. To do this it was necessary emphatically to discourage the anti-foreign movement, led, as it is, by a band of reckless, foolish, and sometimes murderous agitators. In other words, I spoke with the purpose of doing good to Egypt, and with the hope of deserving well of the Egyptian people of the future, unwilling to pursue the easy line of moral culpability which is implied in saying pleasant things of that noisy portion of the Egyptian people of to-day, who, if they could have their way, would irretrievably and utterly ruin Egypt's future. In the Guildhall Address, I carried out the same idea.

I made a number of other addresses, some of which •— those, for instance, at Budapest, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Stockholm, and the University of Christiania — I would like to present here; but unfortunately they were made without preparation, and were not taken down in shorthand, so that, with the exception of the address made at the dinner in Christiania and the address at the Cambridge Union, these cannot be included.

theodore roosevelt.
sagamore hill, July 15, 1910.
This leads me to say a few words about Roosevelt as a speaker and a writer.
As I have said he was not in his youth a ready speaker. He was halting and hesitating in his delivery. In the early days no one would have predicted a great future for him as an "orator." In the later years, while he has had none of the arts of the orator, the subject-matter of his addresses has been so interesting and his personality so compelling that he has become a most impressive speaker. He has, as every one knows, been a most voluminous writer, and I was surprised when he said to me about three years ago, in substance: "Do you know I am not a very ready writer. No one knows how much time I put into my articles for the 'Outlook.'" He then pulled a typewritten manuscript from his pocket and said, "Here is an article that I am going over, as I have opportunity, correcting and recasting it," and then he added, "but my work is done three months ahead." Here is one great secret of his ability to accomplish so much: he is always doing to-day the work of to-morrow, of next week, or of next year. During the winter of 1909, Roosevelt was at work on the addresses he was to deliver after his African trip and while in Europe.
I have no space for extended comment on these addresses. They are easily accessible and should be read in their entirety. The first was delivered at the American Mission at Khartoum on March 16, 1910; the second, on "Law and Order in Egypt," before the National University in Cairo, March 28, 1910. This was delivered under rather disturbed conditions because of the recent assassination of Boutros Pasha and in spite of threats against Roosevelt's life. Sir Eldon Gorst advised him not to deliver it, as he could not guarantee his safety. Roosevelt replied that he was not nervous about that, that he would guarantee his own safety. Later there was a mob demonstration in front of Shepheard's Hotel. The third, on "Citizenship in a Republic," was delivered at the Sor-bonne in Paris, April 23, 1910. I have always wondered how the following anecdote, told by Roosevelt in this address, affected a Parisian audience: —

A number of years ago I was engaged in cattle-ranching on the great plains of the western United States. There were no fences. The cattle wandered free, the ownership of each being determined by the brand; the calves were branded with the brand of the cows they followed. If on the round-up an animal was passed by, the following year it would appear as an unbranded yearling, and was then called a "maverick." By the custom of the country these mavericks were branded with the brand of the man on whose range they were found. One day I was riding the range with a newly hired cowboy, and we came upon a maverick. He roped and threw it; then we built a little fire, took out a cinch-ring, heated it at the fire; and the cowboy started to put on the brand. I said to him, "It is So-and-So's brand," naming the man on whose range we happened to be. He answered: "That's all right, boss; I know my business." In another moment I said to him, "Hold on, you are putting on my brand!" To which he answered, "That's all right; I always put on the boss's brand.'' I answered, "Oh, very well. Now, you go straight back to the ranch and get what is owing you; I don't need you any longer." He jumped up and said: "Why, what's the matter? I was putting on your brand." And I answered: "Yes, my friend, and if you will steal for me you will steal from me."

Now, the same principle which applies in private life applies also in public life. If a public man tries to get your vote by saying that he will do something wrong in your interest, you can be absolutely certain that if ever it becomes worth while he will do something wrong against your interest.
Fifty-nine thousand copies of this address were printed and a copy given to each schoolmaster in France. The speech had a real effect in diminishing the bitterness of the clerical controversy.

The fourth was an address delivered before the Nobel Prize Committee at Christiania, Norway, May 5, 1910, in which he said in opening: —

It is with peculiar pleasure that I stand here to-day to express the deep appreciation I feel of the high honor conferred upon me by the presentation of the Nobel Peace Prize. The gold medal which formed part of the prize I shall always keep, and I shall hand it on to my children as a precious heirloom. The sum. of money provided as part of the prize by the wise generosity of the illustrious founder of this world-famous prize system, I did not, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, feel at liberty to keep. I think it eminently just and proper that in most cases the recipient of the prize should keep for his own use the prize in its entirety. But in this case, while I did not act officially as President of the United States, it was nevertheless only because I was President that I was enabled to act at all; and I felt that the money must be considered as having been given me in trust for the United States. I therefore used it as a nucleus for a foundation to forward the cause of industrial peace, as being well within the general purpose of your Committee; for in our complex industrial civilization of to-day the peace of righteousness and justice, the only kind of peace worth having, is at least as necessary in the industrial world as it is among nations. There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check the cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships.

The fifth, "The Colonial Policy of the United States," was given at Christiania, Norway, on the evening of May 5, 1910.

The sixth, "The World Movement," was delivered at the University of Berlin, May 12, 1910.

On the day preceding the lecture in Berlin, Roosevelt was present, by the Emperor's invitation, to review twelve thousand picked German troops. The Emperor said: "My friend Roosevelt, I am glad to welcome you, the most distinguished American citizen. You are the first civilian who has ever reviewed German troops."

The seventh, "The Condition of Success," was delivered at the Cambridge Union, May 26, 1910, from which I make one quotation to support what I say elsewhere: —

... I never was an athlete, although I have always led an outdoor life, and have accomplished something in it, simply because my theory is that almost any man can do a great deal, if he will, by getting the utmost possible service out of the qualities that he actually possesses.
. . . The average man who is successful — the average statesman, the average public servant, the average soldier, who wins what we call great success 1— is not a genius. He is a man who has merely the ordinary qualities that he shares with his fellows, but who has developed those ordinary qualities to a more than ordinary degree.
The eighth, "British Rule in Africa," was given at the Guildhall in London, May 31,1910. Sir Edward Grey stated in Parliament that this address was shown to him before it was delivered, was approved by him, and was made by his desire. It has been said that as a result of this speech, Kitchener was sent to Egypt.

The ninth, "Biological Analogies in History," at Oxford, June 7, 1910, was perhaps the most scholarly of all the addresses. It was the Romanes Lecture, and before it was delivered Roosevelt had conferred upon him the highest honorary degree Oxford could give. In this address he states some interesting conclusions he had reached as a student of biology and history, and draws, as he says, —
certain analogies between what has occurred to forms of animal life through the procession of the ages on this planet, and what has occurred and is occurring to the great artificial civilizations which have gradually spread over the world's surface, during the thousands of years that have elapsed since cities of temples and palaces first rose beside the Nile and the Euphrates, and the harbors of Minoan Crete bristled with the masts of the Egean craft.
The formal proceedings were in Latin, of which the following is a translation, as it is given in the appendix to "African and European Addresses" by Theodore Roosevelt: —
CONVOCATION June 7, 1910
Followed by the Delivery of
THE ROMANES LECTURE
by
THE HONBLE THEODORE ROOSEVELT Hon. D.C.L
The Right Honorable
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Chancellor
PRESIDING
Convocation and the Romanes Lecture

(Translation of the Latin) The Chancellor:

The object of this Convocation is, that if it be your pleasure, Gentlemen of the University, the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Civil Law may be conferred on the Honorable Theodore Roosevelt, ex-President of the United States of America, that the long-expected Romanes Lecture may be delivered by him, when he has been made the youngest Doctor in the University, and that any other business should be transacted which may belong to this Venerable House.

Is it the pleasure, then, of this Venerable House that the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Civil Law should be conferred upon the Honorable Theodore Roosevelt? Is it yoXir pleasure, Reverend Doctors? Is it your pleasure, Masters of the University?

Go, Bedels, and bring in the Honorable gentleman!

The Chancellor to the Vice-Chancellor:
Behold, Vice-Chancellor, the promised wight, Before whose coming comets turned to flight, And all the startled mouths of sevenfold Nile took fright!

Presentation Speech by Dr. Henry Goudy

It has been my privilege to present in former years many distinguished citizens of the great American Republic for our honorary degree of Doctor of Laws, but none of them have surpassed in merit or obtained such world-wide celebrity as he whom I now present to you. Of "ancient Dutch lineage, as his name indicates, but still a genuine American, he has long been an outstanding figure among his fellow citizens. He first became known to us in England during the Spanish-American War, when he commanded a regiment of cavalry and proved himself a most capable military leader. Omnivorous in his quest of knowledge, nothing in human affairs seemed to him superfluous or negligible. In the language of the poet, one might say of him — "Non sibi sed toti genitum se tredere mundo." Twice has he been elevated to the position of President of the Republic, and in performing the duties of that high office has acquired a title to be ranked with his great predecessor Abraham Lincoln — " Quorum alter servitudinem, alter corrup-tionem vicit." May we not presage that still a third time — most auspicious of numbers — he may be called upon to take the reins of government?

With unrivaled energy and tenacity of purpose he has combined lofty ideals with a sincere devotion to the practical needs not only of his fellow countrymen, but of humanity at large. A sincere friend of peace among nations — who does not know of his successful efforts to terminate the devastating war between Russia and Japan? — he has also firmly held that peace is only a good thing when combined with justice and right. He has ever asserted that a nation can only hope to survive if it be self-respecting and makes itself respected by others.

A noted sportsman and lover of natural history, he has recently, after his arduous labors as Head of the State, been seeking relaxation in distant Africa, where his onslaughts on the wild beasts of the desert have been not less fierce nor less successful than over the many-headed hydra of corruption in his own land.

Now, like another Ulysses, on his homeward way he has come to us for a brief interval, after visiting many cities and discoursing on many themes.

Nor must I omit to remind you that our guest, amid his engrossing duties of State, has not neglected the Muses. Not less facile with the pen than the tongue, he has written on many topics, and this afternoon it will be our privilege to listen to him discoursing on a lofty theme.
By the Chancellor:

Most strenuous of men, most distinguished of citizens to-day playing a part on the stage of the world, you who have twice administered with purity the first Magistracy of the Great Republic (and may perhaps administer it a third time), peer of the most august Kings, queller of men, destroyer of monsters wherever found, yet the most human of mankind, deeming nothing indifferent to you, not even the blackest of the black; I, by my authority and that of the whole University, admit you to the Degree of Doctor of Civil Law, honoris causa.
Go, Bedels, conduct the Honorable Doctor to the Lectern!
[Here follows the Chancellor's welcome, and the Romanes Lecture.

After the Lecture, the Chancellor to the Vice-Chancellor.]

And now, my dear Vice-Chancellor — for it is time — be good enough to dissolve the Convocation!
The Vice-Chancellor:
Exalted Lord Chancellor, at your bidding we dissolve the Convocation.
In reply to the criticisms sometimes made that these addresses contain many commonplace observations, it may be said that this is true of nine tenths of what is spoken and written. The timeliness and fitness of an observation most often determine its value, and the application of old and homely truths to new situations is often as striking and frequently as effective as if they had never been heard before.

Certainly few will dissent from the precepts contained in these addresses or, if familiar with the local conditions, question their timeliness. The doctrine of charity preached at Khartoum; the danger of exalting literature and a literary education unduly and at the expense of the applied sciences so necessary to the advancement of mankind, pointed out at Cairo, and the unsparing condemnation of lawlessness exemplified in the assassination of Boutros Pasha; condemnation of the cynic and the critic who seek to tear down the well-intended work of others while contributing nothing themselves; giving the preeminent place to honesty in the administration of affairs of business or of politics: surely these are all sentiments that cannot be too often repeated.

The opinion expressed by Roosevelt at Paris that some other agency than force should be found in the settlement of international disputes must command approval. Nor can one dissent from his proposition that where the claims of peace and justice conflict, there must be resort to arms. In the address before the Nobel Prize Committee at Christiania he took advantage of an opportunity to advocate that the growth of armaments be checked by international agreement. In speaking at Berlin, he seized an excellent opportunity to emphasize the community of interest of all the peoples of the world, the wisdom of utilizing the experience of all countries in the settlement of any great social or economic problem, and the value of everyday virtues as essential to the permanence of the State.

At Cambridge, the proper place that sport should have in our lives is considered, and attention is directed to that fact, which cannot be too often stated, that the best accomplishment is not by the man of genius, but by the man in whom the ordinary gifts are developed to their full capacity. No more important lesson can be taught the young, for it places success within the reach of all who are willing to practice the virtues of industry, patience, and honesty.
Roosevelt had a very modest opinion of some of his speeches. Secretary Hay in his Diary mentions the following conversation with the President on June 5, 1904: —
[The President] spoke of his own speeches, saying he knew there was not much in them except a certain sincerity and kind of commonplace morality which put him en rapport with the people he talked with.
This remark to John Hay no doubt referred to the speeches in which Roosevelt was seeking to get the people to take what he considered the right view of some matters of policy and morality which were vital but commonplace.

It is not true that what Roosevelt said and wrote was at all lacking in originality both of thought and of expression, as much that I have quoted will demonstrate. Other examples may be found in all the books and state papers he has written. A striking one is the ninth chapter of his autobiography which he regards as the best chapter he ever wrote.
The Vatican Incident
One matter to which I wish to refer occurred during Roosevelt's stay in Europe and was the so-called Vatican incident. When in Africa, in reply to an inquiry from our Ambassador at Rome, he stated that of course he would be glad to be received by the King of Italy and to be presented to the Pope. Our Ambassador, in response to this suggestion, received the following message from the Rector of the American Catholic College: "The Holy Father will be delighted to grant audience to Mr. Roosevelt on April 5th, and hopes nothing will arise to prevent it, such as the much-regretted incident which made the reception of Mr. Fairbanks impossible." Roosevelt replied to our Ambassador as follows: "On the other hand, I in my turn must decline to have any stipulations made or submit to any conditions which in any way limit my freedom of conduct." To this the Vatican replied through our Ambassador: "On the other hand, in view of the circumstances for which neither His Holiness nor Mr. Roosevelt is responsible, an audience could not occur except on the understanding expressed in the former message."

In response to this, Roosevelt sent the following message to our Ambassador: "Proposed presentation is, of course, now impossible." Cardinal Merry del Val said_to Mr. O'Loughlin,
"Can you guarantee that Mr. Roosevelt will not visit the Methodists here ?" Mr. O'Loughlin said in reply, "I cannot. Indeed, I believe that Mr. Roosevelt is just the man to go there. He will do as he pleases."

Roosevelt subsequently issued the following statement: —

I had made no arrangements to speak at any church or clerical organization in Rome. I have received a number of gentlemen of all religious faiths who have called at my rooms or at the American Embassy. Under the circumstances, I have requested the American Ambassador not to hold the reception which he had intended to hold.
Roosevelt met the issue squarely, and in doing so ran great risk of offending both the Catholics and Methodists in this country instead of winning the approval of either, a risk no "politician" would have run, particularly one looking for political preferment.

Roosevelt had been advised and urged not to go to Rome and thus to avoid trouble. He said that he would not invite trouble, but would not go a hand's breadth out of his way to avoid trouble when he knew that he was in the right.

His journey through Europe had been a royal progress and he had been received on every hand with great acclaim as the champion of the doctrine of equality of opportunity for all men, irrespective of race, creed, or color. He reached New York on Saturday, June 18, 1910, and received a wonderful welcome. Measuring by human standards, I suppose that he reached on that day the zenith of his fame. At the dinner given for him at that time, he said to a friend: " I am like Peary at the North Pole; there is no way for me to travel except South."

A member of his family has told me that on the afternoon of the dinner some one saw Roosevelt coming out of Scribner's bookstore. Instantly a great, cheering crowd gathered, all struggling to get at him and shake his hand. Speaking of this incident he said, "It is a kind of hysteria. They will soon be throwing rotten eggs at me."
Roosevelt and His Candidacy for the Republican Nomination in 1912
Properly to understand the situation from my point of view, we must go back to the election of 1904, of which Roosevelt said in his address before the Cambridge (England) Union, in 1910:—
During my first term of office as President of the United States, I said: "Now, I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding. I like my job, and I want to keep it for four years longer." [Loud laughter and applause.] I don't think any President ever enjoyed himself more than I did. Moreover, I don't think any ex-President ever enjoyed himself more. I have enjoyed my life and my work because I thoroughly believe that success — the real success — does not depend upon the position you hold, but upon how you carry yourself in that position.

There is no doubt in the mind of any one, I think, that the President did like his job and wanted to be elected in 1904, as he was by a majority staggering in its size. There is no doubt whatever that he liked the job equally well when he finished his term in 1909, and I have never heard any doubt expressed that he could have received the nomination in 1908, for a second "elective term," as some liked to express it, had he desired it or even said that he would accept it. He was not weary of the office in 1908, nor was he unduly oppressed and weighed down, as many men have been, by its responsibilities. If he ever had an overpowering ambition to continue to be President, he must have had it then; and had he possessed the lust for power that has been credited to him by some of his critics, it would have led him then to accept a nomination which his party was ready to thrust upon him. What a personal triumph it would have been from the point of view of the ambitious man to hold the office for practically three consecutive terms, something that no President had ever done, and yet Roosevelt turned away from it. On the night of the election in 1904, when his election was assured, he said: —
The wise custom which limits the President to two terms regards the substance and not the form, and under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another nomination.
And he repeated the statement in December, 1907, and devoted himself, with all his energy, to aiding in the nomination of Mr. Taft. Not only that, but every precaution was taken to prevent the stampeding to Roosevelt of the 1908 Convention, of which there was always danger. His trusted personal and political friend, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, was chairman of the convention, occupying that position for two purposes—to make impossible the nomination of Roosevelt, to make certain the nomination of Taft. In his speech Senator Lodge said:—
That man is no friend of Theodore Roosevelt and does not cherish his name and fame who, now, from any motive, seeks to urge him as a candidate for the great office which he has finally declined. The President has refused what his countrymen would have gladly given him. He says what he means and means what he says, and his party and his country will respect his wishes, as they honor his high character and his great public services.
There is no evidence of which I ever heard that Roosevelt on his European trip gave a thought to the nomination in 1912. Upon his return in June, 1910, at a public dinner given for him in New York, he said: —
I am ready and eager to do my part, so far as I am able, in helping solve problems which must be solved if we, in this the greatest democratic republic upon which the sun has ever shone, are to see its destinies rise to the high level of our hopes and its opportunities.
I think the suggestion here that he was "ready and eager to do his part" gave some anxiety to his friends, who were more jealous than he of his great fame. This anxiety was increased two months later when at Harvard Commencement, as President of the Alumni Association, Roosevelt, at the request of Governor Hughes, of New York, sent the following telegram to Mr.  Griscom,  Chairman  of the Republican State Committee: —
During the last week, great numbers of Republicans and independent voters from all over the State [New York] having written me urging the passage of Direct Primary legislation. I have seen Governor Hughes and have learned your views from your representative. It seems to me that the Cobb Bill, with the amendments proposed by you, meets the needs of the situation. I believe that the people demand it. I most earnestly hope that it will be enacted into law.
Roosevelt was again in politics, to the regret, I think, of many of his friends, and to his own surprise, I firmly believe. This was his explanation of it at the time. In introducing Governor Hughes at the Alumni luncheon, Roosevelt said: —
Our Governor has a very persuasive way with him. I had intended to keep absolutely clear from any kind of public or political question after coming home, and I could carry out my resolution all right until I met the Governor this morning, and he then explained to me that I had come back to live in New York now; that I had to help him out, and after a very brief conversation, I put up my hands and agreed to help him.

In October of that year, Roosevelt was Chairman of the New York Republican State Convention, defeating James S. Sherman, then Vice-President of the United States. Mr. Stimson was nominated for governor as a Roosevelt candidate and was defeated by 100,000 votes. In commenting on the election, Roosevelt said at a later period, when he had become a candidate for the Republican nomination for President: —

In that contest, as in this, I was exceedingly reluctant to be drawn into the contest. In that contest, as in this, I acted only from a sense of duty to the people as a whole, and in that contest I was assailed with precisely the same arguments by the great majority of those who are now assailing me. If I had considered only my own personal interests and personal preferences, I would, of course, have kept out of the 1910 campaign, have let the machine remain in control at Saratoga, and have seen the State go Democratic by 300,000 majority, as under those circumstances it certainly would have gone. I went in because I conscientiously felt that it was my duty to take my part in the fight for honest government, for genuine self-government by the people, without regard to the consequences to myself, and I am in this fight on precisely the same basis and for precisely the same reasons.
As the Convention of 1912 drew near, there was much speculation as to whether Roosevelt would be a candidate' or not. Many people regarded his statement which I have quoted as a bar to his doing so. It was obviously open to the construction that he would never under any circumstances at any time be a candidate. As to what it was intended to express, Mr. Loeb, who was Roosevelt's secretary at the time, has told me that when the statement was drafted, it was suggested that it be limited in express terms to the election of 1908, but that that was disapproved for the reason that a declaration that Roosevelt would not run in 1908 would be accepted as tantamount to a statement that he would run in 1912, which Roosevelt then had no intention of doing, nor had he any intention of saying anything that would not leave him free after 1908. A reporter present asked Roosevelt if this applied to 1912. He replied: —

Now, gentlemen, that is something I don't intend to speak about. You accept my statement just as I have made it.

A prominent newspaper man recently said to me: —

At that time none of the correspondents dreamed of interpreting his refusal to be a candidate as applying to any other year than 1908. It was made to set at rest the rumors that he would try to succeed himself at the end of the term to which he had just been elected, and none of us interpreted it in any other way. Not until he began to be talked of as a candidate in 1912 did anybody try to make it appear that his 1904 statement was intended to cover all the rest of his life so as to bar him from running forever.
I regard the episode as unfortunate, but as in no way reflecting upon Roosevelt's good faith.

I had a long talk with Roosevelt in November, 1911. I spoke to him of the convention and of his possible candidacy. He said, in substance, that he did not want to be a candidate •— that he did not want the office again, and that he believed that it would be a great risk for him to take it, and that he had no idea that conditions would arise that would make it necessary. If, however, such conditions should arise and it should become in his opinion a duty, he would not decline to be drafted. As late as December, 1911, he wrote to influential men of the party in Washington urging them to do everything they could to stop any mention of his name in connection with the office. I talked with him again in January, 1912, and again he said he did not want the nomination, he doubted if any Republican could be elected, and that he personally had everything to lose and nothing to gain if he should enter the contest, but again he said that if there should be an uprising of the people, which he did not anticipate, he might consider it. When I asked him why he did not say that under no circumstances would he accept the office if it were tendered him, — and be it remembered that I was in favor of Mr. Taft's nomination, — he said, in substance, "I had to eat my words once in connection with the Vice-Presidency, and I don't want to run any chance of having to do it again."

During all this time the supporters of all the candidates had been hard at work to secure delegates, but nothing was done by Roosevelt, nor did he want anything done. He stated over and over again that he did not want anything done and wanted nothing left undone that would prevent anything being done.

Meantime, as he has told me, Republican governors of several States were writing him and seeing him, urging that he be a candidate. He told them that he was not convinced that there was any popular demand for his candidacy. Gradually, however, through all kinds of interviews, through all kinds of articles in the papers, through all kinds of letters and other communications, he became convinced, by a sort of cumulative process, that two thirds of the rank and file of the Republican party wished him to run; and further, that unless he made the fight for the principles in which he believed with all his heart and soul, there would be no fight at all made for them. He was in this state of mind when, on February 10, 1912, at a meeting in Chicago, the Republican governors of seven States, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Michigan, Kansas, and Missouri, asked Roosevelt in the following letter to become a candidate for the Presidency: —

We, the undersigned Republican governors, assembled for the purpose of considering what will best insure the continuation of the Republican party as a useful agency of good government, declare it our belief, after a careful investigation of the facts, that a large majority of the Republican voters of the country favor your nomination, and a large majority of the people favor your election, as the next President of the United States.

We believe that your candidacy will insure success in the next campaign. We believe that you represent, as no other man represents, those principles and policies upon which we must appeal for a majority of the votes of the American people, and which, in our opinion, are necessary for the happiness and prosperity of the country.
We believe that, in view of this public demand, you should soon declare whether, if the nomination for the Presidency come to you unsolicited and unsought, you will accept it.

In submitting this request we are not considering your personal interests. We do not regard it as proper to consider either the interests or the preference of any man as regards the nomination for the Presidency. We are expressing our sincere belief and best judgment as to what is demanded of you in the interests of the people as a whole. And we feel that you would be unresponsive to a plain public duty if you should decline to accept the nomination, coming as the voluntary expression of the wishes of a majority of the Republican voters of the United States, through the action of their delegates in the next National Convention.
With the knowledge that he would be a candidate, Roosevelt made, on February 21, 1912, his Columbus speech on "A Charter of Democracy," in which, among other things, he advocated the recall of judicial decisions. This speech alienated hundreds of thousands of Republican votes. He did not need to make it to secure the votes of radicals — those were his already. He must have known, as well as any one, what the result would be. And then, when he had left nothing undone and had done everything to make his nomination in a Republican Convention impossible, he replied, under date of February 24, 1912, to the letter of the seven governors, as follows: —
I deeply appreciate your letter, and I realize to the full the heavy responsibility it puts upon me, expressing as it does the carefully considered convictions of the men elected by popular vote to stand as the heads of government in their several States.

I absolutely agree with you that this matter is not one to be decided with any reference to the personal preferences or interests of any man, but purely from the standpoint of the interests of the people as a whole. I will accept the nomination for President if it is tendered to me, and I will adhere to this decision until the convention has expressed its preference. One of the chief principles for which I have stood and for which I now stand, and which I have always endeavored and always shall endeavor to reduce to action, is the genuine rule of the people; and therefore I hope that so far as possible the people may be given the chance, through direct primaries, to express their preference as to who shall be the nominee of the Republican Presidential Convention.
It is my conviction that Roosevelt entered this campaign without any desire to gratify a personal ambition, but as the leader of a cause in which he believed and without any thought as to how his personal fortunes would be affected. Recently he wrote me: —
You know that 1912 really represented merely the goal of thought for which I had always been heading. From my standpoint it was merely the effort to apply the principles of Abraham Lincoln to the conditions of the twentieth century.
His political creed is contained in the Carnegie Hall Address of March 20, 1912, printed in the Appendix, in which he said toward the close:—

In order to succeed we need leaders of inspired idealism, leaders to whom are granted great visions, who dream greatly and strive to make their dreams come true; who can kindle the people with the fire from their own burning souls. The leader for the time being, whoever he may be, is but an instrument, to be used until broken and then to be cast aside; and if he is worth his salt he will care no more when he is broken than a soldier cares when he is sent where his life is forfeit in order that the victory may be won. In the long fight for righteousness the watchword for all of us is, spend and be spent. It is of little matter whether any one man fails or succeeds; but the cause shall not fail, for it is the cause of mankind.

This expressed his state of mind. Many of his friends would have preferred to have him preserve the great fame that was his, undimmed by any conflict in the political arena that might well lead to reverses. He chose for himself the other course. "In the long fight for righteousness, the watchword for all of us is, spend and be spent. It is of little matter whether any one man fails or succeeds, but the cause shall not fail, for it is the cause of mankind."
Roosevelt and the Recall of Judicial Decisions 1 There is probably no one doctrine urged by Roosevelt that has aroused so much criticism or alienated so many of his conservative supporters as that of the recall of judicial decisions advocated in his Columbus speech. Whether one agrees with him or not (and I am one of those who do not), his position should be fairly understood and he should not be charged with having advanced this doctrine in any demagogic spirit. That he was absolutely sincere in his opinion, and that it was the result of many years of thought, is not only, I believe, true, but can easily be demonstrated to be so.

I have referred earlier in this narrative to the decision, in 1885, of the Court of Appeals of New York in finding unconstitutional the act of the Legislature declaring unlawful the manufacture in tenement houses of cigars or of tobacco into other forms, and stated that then, nearly thirty years before the Columbus speech, Roosevelt's wrath was roused against that kind of judicial mind, which, as he said, was blind to changed social conditions and which was disposed so to limit the area of the "police power" as to make it impossible to legislate for the correction of such abuses as the one I have mentioned, namely, the limiting of the number of hours of work in unhealthy occupations, and others of a kindred nature. He gave expression to his views from time to time in his messages to Congress and elsewhere, and was for many years seeking a remedy which finally he thought he had found in the recall of judicial decisions. Before considering in detail what Roosevelt's views are upon this subject, let us understand just what the police power is, how it has been invoked by legislatures, and how construed by the courts. As an original proposition, one can engage in any lawful undertaking and make any kind of a contract, lawful in its purpose, without interference by either the legislatures or the courts; but as time has gone on and social conditions have changed, certain restrictions have been imposed upon the way in which a man may carry on his business and the kind of contracts he can make, involving the welfare of others. For example, the slaughter of cattle is a necessary and useful business, but attended necessarily by disagreeable incidents, so that it has been found necessary in thickly settled communities to impose certain conditions under which the business must be carried on. This is an exercise of the police power. Similarly, the right to contract with a woman for her labor is restricted in order that her strength may not be unduly wasted and deterioration of the race follow. This is another exercise of the police power. As the Supreme Court once said: —
Of course, it is impossible to forecast the character and extent of these changes, but in view of the fact that, from the day Magna Charta was signed to the present moment, amendments to the structure of the law have been made with increasing frequency, it is impossible to suppose that they will not continue, and the law be forced to adapt itself to the new condition of society, and, particularly to new relations between employers and employees, as they arise.
And, on another occasion: —

It is the thoroughly established doctrine of the court that liberty of contract may be circumscribed in the interest of the State and welfare of the people, and whether a given exercise of such authority transcends the limits of legislative authority must be determined in each case as it arises.
In the tenement-house decision to which I have referred, the court held that a man should be permitted to manufacture cigars in a tenement and that it was not harmful to proper conditions of living or to society. This was a naked question of fact, and Roosevelt's recall of judicial decisions amounts simply to this: that the people who made the Constitution shall in this and kindred cases have an opportunity to say what is and what is not an exercise of the police power necessary to meet existing conditions, and that the final settlement of the question shall not rest with perhaps a bare majority of seven or nine judges.

For example, in his message of December, 1908, he said, speaking of judicial decisions which nullify legislative attempts to protect wage-workers: —

The talk about preserving, to the misery-hunted beings who make contracts for such service, their " liberty " to make them, is either to speak in a spirit of heartless irony or else to show an utter lack of knowledge of the conditions of life among the great mass of fellow countrymen, a lack which unfits a judge to do good service just as it would unfit any executive or legislative officer.
Speaking of the decision of the New York Court of Appeals declaring unconstitutional the New York law to provide for Workmen's Compensation on the ground that the proposed law is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, he said (May, 1911): —

It is not merely the right but the duty of every friend of genuine justice and progress to protest against the decision in question. When the Supreme Court of Connecticut rendered a decision akin to that rendered by the Court of Appeals on the same subject, this decision was circulated by the great railway corporations very widely before the legislatures and courts in other States in order to prevent or nullify legislation designed to secure compensation to workingmen. Exactly similar action is now being taken in connection with this decision of the New York Court of Appeals. . . . The Court of Appeals in this decision fully admits the iniquity and injustice wrought by the principles which it proceeds to uphold. Its contention is that the hands of the legislatures, the hands of the people, are tied by the Constitution of the United States, and that we cannot get justice for workingmen or secure them against the most cruel wrong because the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution of New York, in the narrowest and most technical spirit, guarantee all persons against deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law. . . . The people must have the right ultimately to determine for themselves what great lines of government policy are to be followed by the State; they have never surrendered this ultimate right to the judges or any one else, and it is our duty to see that it is not kept merely as a nominal and unreal right, a sham right, but that machinery shall be devised to make it a real, working right, which can be invoked and put into effect, but without too much difficulty.
And in his Osawatomie speech of September,
1910,	he includes the following among the aims
of the New Nationalism: —
It demands of the judiciary that it shall be interested primarily in human welfare rather than in property, just as it demands that the representative body shall represent all the people rather than one class or section of the people.
In his speech before the Colorado Legislature, in August, 1910, he justified his criticisms of the courts by referring to Lincoln's comment on the Dred Scott case, and to Judge Harlan's comments on the majority opinion in the Knight case. Had his speech been made a year later, he might well have referred to Judge Harlan's criticism of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the Standard Oil Company and American Tobacco Company cases. In the case of the Standard Oil Company, decided May 15,
1911,	the learned justice said, speaking of the
majority opinion: 
After many years of public service at the National Capital and after a somewhat close observation of the conduct of public affairs, I am impelled to say that there is abroad in our land a most harmful tendency to bring about the amending of constitutions and legislative enactments by means alone of judicial construction. . . . To overreach the action of Congress merely by judicial construction — that is, by indirection — is a blow at the integrity of our governmental system, and in the end will prove most dangerous to all.
And again, in the case of the American Tobacco Company, decided two weeks later: —
' In short, the court now, by judicial legislation, in effect amends an act of Congress relating to a subject over which that department of the Government has exclusive cognizance.
An early example of the criticism of the courts is found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Mr. Jarvis, dated Monticello, September 28, 1820, from which the following is an extract: —
You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and no more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem" and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. ... I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.
A case illustrating how judges may differ is that of Coppage vs. Kansas, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, January 25, 1915. It was this: There was a statute of the State of Kansas forbidding employers to exact from employees, as a condition of securing or retaining employment, a promise not to join or retain membership in a labor organization. The local court found a defendant guilty of this offense and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Kansas. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground that the statute as construed was in conflict with that provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which declares that no State shall deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law. The majority of the court held that if freedom to contract is to be preserved, the employer must be left at liberty to decide for himself whether such membership by his employee is consistent with the satisfactory performance of the duties of the employment. The minority of the court agreed with the Kansas court, which took the view that employees are not financially able to be as independent in making contracts for selling their labor as employers in buying it, and that the statute did not go beyond the legitimate exercise of the police power. Here are opposing views of the same statute, the majority view being held by six members of the court and the minority view by three. Who shall say which is right? Upon this question of fact, the minority view certainly shows the trend of thought at the present time when we recognize that associations of employees are necessary to place them on an equality with their employers in bargaining for the sale of service. It is on this class of cases in the lower courts that the recall of judicial decisions would operate.

Evidence of a recent change of attitude toward laws involving an exercise of the police power is found in the subject-matter of three cases much criticized by Roosevelt. In Sarah Knisley vs. Pratt, 148 N.Y. 372, decided in February, 1896, the court held that a woman employee who had assumed the risk of operating a dangerous machine, not safeguarded as the law required, could not recover for the loss of an arm. This case was overruled in Fitzwater vs. Warren, 206 N.Y. 355, decided in October, 1912. The court held in this case that a servant does not assume the risk caused by a master's violation of the law.

In People vs. Williams, 189 N.Y. 131, decided in June, 1907, the court held unconstitutional a provision in the Labor Law of New York which prohibited the employment of an adult female in a factory before six o'clock in the morning or after nine o'clock in the evening. The reason given was that it violates the constitutional provisions guaranteeing to every citizen the right to pursue any lawful employment in a lawful manner, and is discriminative against female citizens in denying to them equal rights with men with respect to liberty of person, or of contract. It cannot be upheld as a proper exercise of the police power, having for its purpose the preservation of the health of female citizens, since it arbitrarily takes away the right of a woman to labor in a factory during the prohibited hours without any reference to the number of hours of such labor or the healthfulness of the employment.
On March 26, 1915, the Court of Appeals, in People vs. Schweinler Press, 214 N.Y. 395, sustained a similar statute providing "that no woman shall work in any factory in the State before six o'clock in the morning or after ten o'clock in the evening," and held that the law entitled "Period of rest at night for women" violated no provision of the Federal or State Constitution.

In Ives vs. South Buffalo R.R. Co., 201 N.Y. 271, decided March, 1911, the court held unconstitutional, under both Federal and State Constitutions, a provision relating to "workmen's compensation in certain dangerous employments." Among other things, the court held that the right given to the employee by this statute does not preserve to the employer the "due process" of law guaranteed by the Constitution, for it authorizes the taking of the employer's property without his consent and without his fault.
The State Constitution was subsequently amended to obviate the difficulty found by the court. The Federal Constitution remained un-unchanged.

In Jenson vs. Southern Pacific, 215 N.Y. 514, decided in July, 1915, the court held that the Workmen's Compensation Law
is not violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution for taking property without due process of law . . . and is a valid enactment within the police power of the State for the promotion of the general welfare.
I think that the real difference, on this subject, between the position of the conservative of open mind and Roosevelt is not so much the end to be sought as the method to pursue. The conservative, and I am one, thinks it wiser to wait for public opinion, changing as it does with changing conditions, to have its effect upon the judicial mind; or, if necessary, to resort to an amendment of the Constitution, State or National. Roosevelt, impatient to reach the goal, desired some more immediate influence of public opinion upon this class of judicial decisions. That he is lacking in respect for or confidence in our judicial system is not true.
In his special message of January, 1908, he said: 

Most certainly it behooves us all to treat with the utmost respect the high office of judge; and our judges, as a whole, are brave and upright men . . . the judges stand in character and service above all other men among their fellow servants of the public. There is all the greater need that the few who fail in this great office, who fall below this high standard of integrity, of wisdom, of sympathetic understanding and of courage should have their eyes opened to the needs of their countrymen.
Two books had great influence upon Roosevelt in his consideration of this subject which led to the remedy he proposed known as the "Recall of Judicial Decisions." One, called "Moral Overstrain," was written in 1906 by George W. Alger. The chapter which particularly attracted Roosevelt's attention was that on "Some Equivocal Rights of Labor." This states the wrongs to be remedied. The case there related of the Knisley girl who lost her arm in a machine she was operating was the basis of Roosevelt's story, "Sarah Knisley's Arm," printed originally in "Collier's Weekly," in March, 1913.

The other book, which recognized the danger of the misuse of power by the courts, was "Legal Essays," by James Bradley Thayer, LL.D., late Weld Professor of Law in Harvard University, published in 1908. In the first chapter on "The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law," prepared in 1893, Professor Thayer proposes this question: —
How did our American doctrine, which allows to the judiciary the power to declare legislative acts unconstitutional, and to treat them as null, come about, and what is the true scope of it?
Later, Professor Thayer says: —
When at last this power of the judiciary was everywhere established, and added to the other bulwarks of our written constitutions, how was the power to be conceived of?
And he answers the question, "Strictly as a judicial one," and then goes on to say: —
Again, where the power of the judiciary did have place, its whole scope was this; namely, to determine for the mere purpose of deciding a litigated question properly submitted to the court, whether a particular disputed exercise of power was forbidden by the Constitution. In doing this the court was so to discharge its office as not to deprive another department of any of its proper power, or to limit it in the proper range of its discretion. Not merely, then, do these questions, when presenting themselves in the courts for judicial action, call for a peculiarly large method in the treatment of them, but especially they require an allowance to be made by the judges for the vast and not definable range of legislative power and choice, for that wide margin of considerations which address themselves only to the practical judgment of a legislative body. Within that margin, as among all these legislative considerations, the constitutional lawmakers must be allowed a free foot. In so far as legislative choice, ranging here unfettered, may select one form of action or another, the judges must not interfere, since their question is a naked judicial one. Moreover, such is the nature of this particular judicial question that the preliminary determination by the legislature is a fact of very great importance, since the constitutions expressly entrust to the legislature this determination; they cannot act without making it.
And he makes the following quotation from 5 Mass. 524, 533:-
It is true that the legislature, in consequence of their construction of the constitution, cannot make laws repugnant to it. But every department of government, invested with certain constitutional powers, must, in the first instance, but not exclusively, be the judge of its powers, or it could not act. And certainly the construction of the constitution by the legislature ought to have great weight, and not be overruled, unless manifestly erroneous.
Roosevelt was particularly impressed by the following quotation from an opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Tilghman, of Pennsylvania, in 1811: 
For weighty reasons, it has been assumed as a principle in constitutional construction by the Supreme Court of the United States, by this court, and every other court of reputation in the United States, that an act of the legislature is not to be declared void unless the violation of the constitution is so manifest as to leave no room for reasonable doubt.
And also by the following quotation from an opinion by Mr. Justice Charlton, in Georgia, in 1808, upon the manner in which this power should be exercised by the court: —
No nice doubts, no critical exposition of words, no abstract rules of interpretation, suitable in a contest between individuals, ought to be resorted to in deciding on the constitutional operation of a statute. This violation of a constitutional right ought to be as obvious to the comprehension of every one as an axiomatic truth, as that the parts are equal to the whole. I shall endeavor to illustrate this: the first section of the second article of the constitution declares that the executive function shall be vested in the governor. Now, if the legislature were to vest the executive power in a standing committee of the House of Representatives, every mind would at once perceive the unconstitutionality of the statute. The judiciary would be authorized without hesitation to declare the act unconstitutional. But when it remains doubtful whether the legislature have or have not trespassed on the constitution, a conflict ought to be avoided, because there is a possibility in such a case of the constitution being with the legislature.

And again by the following quotation from an opinion by Chancellor Waties, of South Carolina, in 1812, who said upon this subject: —

. . . The interference of the judiciary with legislative acts, if frequent or on dubious grounds, might occasion so great a jealousy of this power and so general a prejudice against it as to lead to measures ending in the total overthrow of the independence of the judges, and so of the best preservative of their constitution. The validity of the law ought not, then, to be questioned unless it is so obviously repugnant to the constitution that, when pointed out by the judges, all men of sense and reflection in the community may perceive the repugnancy. By such a cautious exercise of this judicial check, no jealousy of it will be excited, the public confidence in it will be promoted, and its salutary effects be justly and fully appreciated.
I am not contending that Roosevelt was right in his conclusions, with which I did not agree, but am merely reciting the processes through which his mind passed in reaching them, and attempting to make clear the fact that they were the result of long reflection and careful investigation.