DOCSLIB.ORG

The Correspondence of Albert J. Beveridge and Louis A. Coolidge, 1918-1920

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Correspondence of Albert J. Beveridge and Louis A. Coolidge, 1918-1920 American Nationalism vs. The League of Nations: The Correspondence of Albert J. Beveridge and Louis A. Coolidge, 1918-1920 Sheldon M. Stern* During the past two decades historians have added new dimensions to their evaluations of progressivism. No longer viewed simply as the defensive response of middle class re- formers to the increasing power of the business community, progressivism emerges instead as a collection of ambiguous and conflicting reform movements often initiated and con- trolled by the very forces ostensibly targeted for reform, as a reassertion of moral traditions and democratic values which frequently embraced racial prejudice and imperialism, and an effort to protect individual initiative from corporate encroachment which often fostered business consolidation and the expansion of government bureaucracy.l The career of Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana is sympto- matic of the twisting and contradictory currents character- istic of the progressive era. Beginning his national senatorial career in 1899 as a militant expansionist and nationalist, Beveridge rose to prominence between the Spanish-American War and the end of the Philippine insurrection in 1902 as an advocate of America’s budding empire. An orator of extra- ordinary skill, he advocated both moral mission and economic * Sheldon M. Stern is assistant professor of history, University of Massachusetts, Boston. 1 For recent bibliographical surveys on progressivism see Arthur S. Link and William M. Leary, Jr., The Progressive Era and the Great Wav (New York, 1969), 1-67; David M. Kennedy, Progressivism: The Critical Issues (Boston, 1971), 183-91. Nationalism us. League of Nations 139 opportunity as the complementary goals of America’s new international thrust.2 By the early years of Theodore Roosevelt’s administra- tion, however, Beveridge began to augment his expansive nationalism with the politically promising role of Senate in- surgent. His reform activities between 1903 and 1912, aimed at promoting social equilibrium by easing abuses which threatened to incite social unrest, read like a litany of pro- gressive causes. Beveridge actively supported a department of commerce and a bureau of corporations, a lower tariff and a neutral tariff commission, federal railroad regulation, a national meat inspection bill, income and inheritance taxes, a federal child labor bill, and direct primarie~.~ Breaking with President William Howard Taft over the Payne-Aldrich tariff of 1909, Beveridge lost his Senate seat in 1910 and turned with increasing eagerness to support Theodore Roosevelt’s return to presidential politics. Despite his reluctance to leave the Republican party, Beveridge joined Roosevelt in the Progressive party crusade of 1912. The former senator’s keynote address at the party’s national con- vention, in which he attacked covert corporate corruption and outmoded notions of individualism, represented the high point in the moral-religious rhetoric generated by the Pro- gressive party. It is this aspect of Beveridge’s career, from insurgent to Progressive, that has captured most historical attention. Defeated as Progressive candidate for governor of Indiana in 1912, Beveridge largely withdrew from politics to devote himself to the multivolume biography of John Marshall which ultimately earned him the Pulitzer Prize.4 During the years which followed the demise of the Pro- gressive party Beveridge altered his views on domestic poli- tics. Concerned by 1917 over the proliferation of centralized federal authority and bureaucracy which he felt had over- stepped the limited goal of safeguarding basic social justice, Beveridge reversed field on virtually all his reform and Pro- 2 Albert J. Beveridge, Americans of To-Day and To-Momow (Phila- delphia, 1908) ; Claude Bowers, Beveridge and the Progressive Era (Cambridge, 1932), 97-145; John Braeman, Albert J. Beveridge: Amer- ican Nationalist (Chicago, 1971), 42-67. 3 Albert J. Beveridge, The Meaning of the Times and Other Speeches (Indianapolis, 1908) ; Bowers, Beveridge and the Progressive Era, 208- 209; Braeman, Albert J. Beveridge, 98-150. Bowers, Beveridge and the Progressive Era, 333-454; Braeman, Albert J. Beveridge, 151-239. 140 Indiana Magazine of History gressive positions. He moved, as George Mowry put it, “from an ardent Progressive to a militant reactionary.” Beveridge attacked all government controls over corporations, defended the open shop and the suppression of strikers, denounced in- come and inheritance taxes, and even endorsed the high tariff. His popularity as a Chamber of Commerce speaker rose perceptibly.’ Beveridge remained, however, a consistent expansionist and nationalist, emerging early in the First World War as an opponent of the internationalist minded League to Enforce Peace. Bitterly denouncing attempts to involve the United States in any international organization, Beveridge became by 1918 a leading speaker in the organized efforts to revise drastically or defeat totally Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations proposal. Beveridge’s position, the logical extension of his militant interventionism of 1899, demanded that the United States avoid any constriction of its freedom of action in world politics. Always an expansionist, never an isolation- ist, Beveridge feared that the League of Nations would en- tangle the United States in European politics and restrict the pursuit of American political and economic self interest, particularly in Latin America and Asia.fi This least known phase of Beveridge’s career is clearly documented in his correspondence with Louis Arthur Coolidge of Massachusetts. The two men had met during Beveridge’s first years in the Senate and had corresponded as early as 1899; but it was after 1916, following Beveridge’s purchase of a home in Beverly Farms, Massachusetts, and after their views on American national interests dovetailed, that their correspondence increased dramati~ally.~Coolidge, although never comfortable with political insurgency and reform, had come to his post-1916 nationalist and expansionist position by a path similar to that of Beveridge. Private secretary to Congressman Henry Cabot Lodge from 1888 to 1891, and later a prominent Washington and New York political cor- respondent, Coolidge had worked closely with Lodge in 1898 5 Albert J. Beveridge, The State of the Nation (Indianapolis, 1924), 92-199; George E. Mowry, Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Movement (New York, 1960), 379; Braeman, Albert J. Beveridge, 254- 88. 6 Beveridge, State of the Nation, 1-43; Bowers, Beveridge and the Progressive Era, 496-513. 7Albert J. Beveridge to Louis A. Coolidge, January 18, November 20, 1900, Louis A. Coolidge Papers (in the possession of John W. Coolidge, Jr., Marblehead, Massachusetts) . Nationalism ?is. League of Nations 141 to advance the cause of American empire.8 In 1904 Roosevelt named him director of the Republican literary bureau for the presidential campaign. Coolidge’s successful efforts in coor- dinating press and publicity matters and his ability to work with both reform and conservative elements to create party unity eventually earned him an appointment as assistant secretary of the treasury. Coolidge left Washington in 1909, after more than twenty years of intimate contact with the centers of power in the Republican party, to return to his native Massachusetts to become treasurer and director of the United Shoe Machinery Company. In that capacity he de- veloped a far reaching plan for enhancing employee welfare while in turn obviating the need for unionization and correc- tive legislation. In 1914 his reputation in employer-employee relations earned him the chairmanship of the Welfare Work Department of the conservative, business oriented National Civic Federation. As early as 1911, when the United Shoe Machinery Company was prosecuted under the Sherman Antitrust Act, Coolidge began to write with increasing anxiety about the expanding scope of federal power over business. During World War I Coolidge served on the three member Federal Shipbuilding Wage Adjustment Board, only to resign in 1918 after denouncing federal intervention in employer-employee relations.9 By 1917 Beveridge and Coolidge agreed on the question of limiting federal power over business freedom. But it was on the issue of unfettered American initiative in interna- tional affairs, as challenged first by the efforts of the League to Enforce Peace and finally by Woodrow Wilson’s League Covenant, that the two men discovered ideological accord and began practical cooperation. Their correspondence provides new insights into this phase of Beveridge’s career and is particularly significant since it has been largely overlooked 8 Louis A. Coolidge to Henry Cabot Lodge, July 27, July 31, August 6, August 9, September 27, October 14, 1898, Henry Cabot Lodge Papers (Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston). Henry Cabot Lodge to Louis A. Coolidge, August 1, August 4, August 11, August 26, 1898, Coolidge Papers. 9Sherwin L. Cook, Louis A. Coolidge: The Man and the Citizen (Boston, 1924), 10-23; Louis A. Coolidge to William Howard Taft, August 7, 1918, Coolidge Papers. For elaboration on Coolidge’s entire career, see Sheldon M. Stern, “The Evolution of a Reactionary: Louis A. Coolidge, 1900-1925,” Mid-America, LVII (April, 1975), 89-105. 142 Indiana Magazine of History by Beveridge’s two principal biographers.’O In addition, Cool- idge’s papers contain a significant Beveridge letter which further clarifies the former senator’s nascent anti-League position.” It should be stressed that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • September 1, 2015 Dear Colloquium Members: in a 1990 Supreme Court
    September 1, 2015 Dear Colloquium Members: In a 1990 Supreme Court case, Justice Brennan highlighted the global scope of the American regulatory state. “Foreign nationals must now take care not to violate our drug laws, our antitrust laws, our securities laws, and a host of other federal criminal statutes,” he wrote. “The enormous expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction outside our Nation’s boundaries has led one commentator to suggest that our country’s three largest exports are now ‘rock music, blue jeans, and United States law.’” In just a few decades, the relatively weak American state that existed at the dawn of the twentieth century began to regulate conduct around the world. My dissertation, Regulating the World: American Law and International Business, traces this transformation and describes efforts to regulate foreign and multinational businesses using American law. I seek to recover what Sam Moyn has called “the forgotten radicalism” that led U.S. policymakers to extend U.S. law overseas to reform foreign legal systems and to regulate foreign actors. Yet my research has led me to a deeper appreciation of the limits on this radicalism. Like the New Deal within the United States, which required its own compromises with the continued sovereignty of the southern states over race, the spread of American law effected important changes only because it left the basic structure of the international system intact. As I researched the emergence of a global regulatory state during the New Deal, I began to appreciate the deep relationship between U.S. law and U.S. foreign relations. As historian Mary Dudziak has recently pointed out, scholars of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecumenical Movement and the Origins of the League Of
    IN SEARCH OF A GLOBAL, GODLY ORDER: THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT AND THE ORIGINS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, 1908-1918 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by James M. Donahue __________________________ Mark A. Noll, Director Graduate Program in History Notre Dame, Indiana April 2015 © Copyright 2015 James M. Donahue IN SEARCH OF A GLOBAL, GODLY ORDER: THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT AND THE ORIGINS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, 1908-1918 Abstract by James M. Donahue This dissertation traces the origins of the League of Nations movement during the First World War to a coalescent international network of ecumenical figures and Protestant politicians. Its primary focus rests on the World Alliance for International Friendship Through the Churches, an organization that drew Protestant social activists and ecumenical leaders from Europe and North America. The World Alliance officially began on August 1, 1914 in southern Germany to the sounds of the first shots of the war. Within the next three months, World Alliance members began League of Nations societies in Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Great Britain and the United States. The World Alliance then enlisted other Christian institutions in its campaign, such as the International Missionary Council, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., the Blue Cross and the Student Volunteer Movement. Key figures include John Mott, Charles Macfarland, Adolf Deissmann, W. H. Dickinson, James Allen Baker, Nathan Söderblom, Andrew James M. Donahue Carnegie, Wilfred Monod, Prince Max von Baden and Lord Robert Cecil.
    [Show full text]
  • Internationalism As a Current in the Peace Movement
    internationalism as a current in the peace movement: a symposium It is apparent from the literature on the peace movement and diplo­ matic thought throughout this century that an exploration of the some­ times contradictory use of the word internationalism is in order. Not only has it been used for different purposes by competing factions of the anti­ war movement and political leaders, but it has differing connotations for historians. This symposium is a contribution to a discussion of the term. Instead of asking for an abstract formulation, the editors invited several scholars to consider the roles of internationalist ideas in the peace move­ ment in the hope that a functional definition might emerge, one which might stimulate formal analyses and eventuate in a working understand­ ing. By way of opening the discussion, the editors asked Sondra Herman, the author of Eleven Against War: Studies in American Internationalist Thought, 1898-1921 (Stanford: Hoover Institution, 1969) to identify some conceptual problems that arise from her analysis. From the last decade of the nineteenth Sondra Herman century through the first world war of the University of California, twentieth, a small but prominent group of Santa Cruz American intellectuals and peace advocates argued for a distinctive approach to foreign relations which they called international­ ism. They represented a minority of the articulate public, probably a minority of the peace societies. They advanced ideas that were being heard also in Europe, and they debated the forms of international organi­ zation for years before President Woodrow Wilson took up their cause. When Wilson did use international ideals in his explanation of American mediation policy, and later of American war aims, he adjusted them considerably to the national interest.
    [Show full text]
  • OBJ (Application/Pdf)
    WOODROW WILSON; HIS ROLE IN THE AMERICAN REJECTION OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ATLANTA UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS BY ROSA RICE HADLEY DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY ATLANTA, GEORGIA MAY 1966 ia T 51 PREFACE This paper on the role of Thomas Woodrow Wilson in the American rejection of the League of Nations is an out¬ growth of an interest in the Lesgue of Nations. The bulk of this work was compiled from the speeches and utterances of Woodrow Wilson, Supplementary materials came from con¬ temporary writers, cabinet members, congressmen and jour¬ nalists of the Wilson Era. The author is deeply indebted to the staff of the Atlanta University and Atlanta Public Libraries for their aid and many courtesies extended during the research period of this work. Ü TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE ii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction * 1 Wilson, The Man* * • « 7 The European Horizon Darkens U II, PRELUDE TO THE LEAGUE 17 Enumeration of Fourteen Points • • • • Wilson Appeals to the Voters .... 17 Wilson Goes to Europe • •** 22 Versailles Treaty ... 25 III. THE FIGHT OVER TREATY RATIFICATION ... 3k The President Comes Home With . His Covenant 34 "Wilson Goes to the People 43 The Stricken President . 47 The Senate Fight 48 Conclusions 50 BIBLIOGRAPHY 5k lii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Whenever one encounters any mention of the League of Nations, inevitably there is also mention of Woodrow Wilson, twenty-eigth President of the United States. Wilson has been called the parent of this organization although his own country failed to join.
    [Show full text]
  • Honour's Role in the International States' System
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 31 Number 2 Winter Article 2 April 2020 Honour's Role in the International States' System Allen Z. Hertz Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation Allen Z. Hertz, Honour's Role in the International States' System, 31 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 113 (2002). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. HONOUR'S ROLE IN THE INTERNATIONAL STATES' SYSTEM* ALLEN Z. HERTZ* INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Studying the First World War's origins, James Joll (1918-1994), Professor of International History at the University of London, offered this insight: "In the late 20th century we perhaps find it easier to conceive of foreign policy as being motivated by domestic preoccupations and by economic interests than by... considerations of prestige and glory. It does not necessarily follow that the men of 1914 thought in the same way as we do."' To recapture that age which ended during the First World War, this essay analyzes the meaning of "honour" as a staple of European political philosophy. The significance of the "word of honour" is then located in the context of European courtly society, where a king's honour is explored in relation to that of his country and in the "international of kings" that was the European States' system until 1917-18.
    [Show full text]
  • Henry Lane Wilson and Republican Policy Toward Mexico, 1913-1920
    Henry Lane Wilson and Republican Policy toward Mexico, 1913-1920 Raymond L. Shoemaker* Henry Lane Wilson of Crawfordsville, Indiana, is best known to students of American history for his activities as ambassador to Mexico between 1910 and 1913, during the tu- multuous Mexican Revolution, but Wilson also played a signifi- cant role after 1913 in the formulation of Republican party policy toward Mexico. This policy, which was openly hostile to the Mexican Revolution and its leaders, culminated in the party platform on which Warren G. Harding ran in 1920. From 1913 to 1920, Republican leaders repeatedly drew upon Henry Lane Wilson's knowledge and expertise to attack what they considered President Woodrow Wilson's weak and vacillating Mexican policy. Henry Lane Wilson had served for seventeen years in the American diplomatic corps prior to Woodrow Wilson's election to the presidency in 1912.' Included in his services were minis- tries to Chile, Greece, and Belgium, and an ambassadorship to Mexico. Diplomacy was a logical career for Wilson; his father, James Wilson, had also been a politician and diplomat who served as minister to Venezuela in his last years. Henry Lane Wilson first tried his hand at business, only to lose his small fortune in the Panic of 1893.* He then turned to politics, work- ing hard for William McKinley during the 1896 campaign. As a reward for his services, President McKinley appointed Wilson minister to Chile.3 At the time Wilson took up his post, United States-Chile relations were unsettled. Wilson was sympathetic to the Chi- leans and tried with some success to overcome their hostility.
    [Show full text]
  • The League of Nations: a Retreat from International Law?*
    Journal of Global History (2012), 7, pp. 210–232 & London School of Economics and Political Science 2012 doi:10.1017/S1740022812000046 The League of Nations: a retreat from international law?* Stephen Wertheim Department of History, Columbia University, 611 Fayerweather Hall, 1180 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, USA E-mail: [email protected] Abstract During the First World War, civil society groups across the North Atlantic put forward an array of plans for recasting international society. The most prominent ones sought to build on the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 by developing international legal codes and, in a drastic innovation, obligating and militarily enforcing the judicial settlement of disputes. Their ideal was a world governed by law, which they opposed to politics. This idea was championed by the largest groups in the United States and France in favour of international organizations, and they had likeminded counterparts in Britain. The Anglo-American architects of the League of Nations, however, defined their vision against legalism. Their declaratory design sought to ensure that artificial machinery never stifled the growth of common consciousness. Paradoxically, the bold new experiment in international organization was forged from an anti-formalistic ethos – one that slowed the momentum of international law and portended the rise of global governance. Keywords global civil society, international law, international organization, internationalism, League of Nations Alfred Zimmern had reason to be scathing. As one of the chief architects of the League of Nations, he recognized the threat to his vision that lay across the Atlantic during the First World War. The threat arose precisely from the fact that his antagonists, like him, favoured the creation of an international organization to promote peace and cooperation, not least between his Britain and their America.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Congress for a LEAGUE of NATIONS to Be Held Under the Auspices of LEAGUE to ENFORCE PEACE
    CALL for Great Lakes Congress for A LEAGUE OF NATIONS to be held under the auspices of LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE CHICAGO February 10-11, 1919 The declared object of the LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE, formed. in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, on June 17, 1915, was that the United States should join a League of Nations which should use both economic and military force to preserve peace in the world; and In reaching the terms of armistice ter­ minating the war in Europe the represen­ tatives of Great Britain, France and Italy, concurred with the President of the United States in declaring that "a general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and ter­ ritorial integrity to great and small states alike"; and WORLD-WIDE interest has been aroused by Allies will secure, once Prussian mili­ these proposals, upon which the following tarism is destroyed, durable guarantees comments may be considered illustrative: for peace and independence for peoples great and small in a League of Nations such as has already been foreshadowed." Lloyd George, British Premier: "The allied governments declare their American Federation of Labor: whole-hearted agreement with the pro­ posal to create a League of Nations which "The following essentially fundamental shall assure peace and justice through­ principles must underlie any peace accept­ out the world." And also, able to us: (1) A League of the free "In my judgment a League of Nations is peoples of the world in a common covenant absolutely essential to permanent peace." for genuine and practical cooperation to secure justice and therefore peace in re­ lations between nations." Arthur J.
    [Show full text]
  • “The League of Nations and Its Many Fathers,” Gary B. Ostrower1
    “The League of Nations and its Many Fathers,” Gary B. Ostrower1 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1 This paper appears in the Kanakadea Review, April 2015. Copyright with the author, 2014. 1" " I’ll fess up. I’m going to start this paper with a complaint. I like historian Margaret McMillian. At the dawn of this century, she wrote a great book called Paris: 1919. At least in my not-so-humble opinion, it remains the best account of the Paris Peace Conference (the Versailles Conference) that we have. And she starts her chapter about the League of Nations, a subject about which I’ve spent a bit of my life, this way: “Only a handful of eccentric historians still bother to study the League of Nations. Its archives…are largely unvisited. It’s very name evokes images of earnest bureaucrats, fuzzy liberal supporters, futile resolutions…and, above all, failure.” Wow! Eccentric historians indeed. OK, you stand warned. Even my kids think she’s on the money here. As I prepared to write this paper, I asked my students in a Western Civ survey course and also an American history survey if they knew what the League of Nations was. Only one-third answered in the affirmative. Ouch, I thought. So at the risk of oversimplification, I’ll answer my own question: The League was created in 1919 at the Paris conference to prevent another World War. It’s all more complicated than that, but that’s its essence. It became the heart of a system of collective security. Allow me to explain. In a number of ways, the League is best seen as a child of the nineteenth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Woodrow Wilson and “Peace Without Victory”: Interpreting the Reversal of 1917
    Woodrow Wilson and “Peace without Victory”: Interpreting the Reversal of 1917 John A. Thompson In a speech to the Senate on January 22, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson called for the European war to be brought to an end through “a peace without victory.” This, he argued, was the only sort of peace that could produce a lasting settlement: Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor’s terms imposed upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory President Woodrow Wilson upon which the terms of peace would rest, not permanently, but only as upon quicksand. 1 Wilson went on to outline what he saw as the other “essential” elements of a lasting peace. Such a settlement would need to be based on such principles “as that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and that no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property,” recognition of the rights of small nations, freedom of the seas, and limitation of armaments on both land and sea. Above all, it required that the settlement be underwritten “by the guarantees of a universal covenant,” that it be “a peace made secure by the organized major force of mankind.” 2 John A. Thompson is emeritus reader in American History and an emeritus fellow of St Catharine’s College, University of Cambridge. He thanks Ross A. Kennedy for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • The League That Wasn't
    stephen wertheim The League That Wasn’t: American Designs for a Legalist-Sanctionist League of Nations and the Intellectual Origins of International Organization, 1914–1920* In 1919 “isolationism” was a word not yet in circulation, much less a disposition seen as the principal antagonist of a new Wilsonian “internationalism.” One could be forgiven for assuming otherwise. So many narratives of the political fight over the League of Nations portray President Woodrow Wilson as the embodiment of a monolithic U.S. internationalism that represented the only meaningful alternative to traditional isolationism. Such books, produced even today but first written surrounding World War II—when “isolationism” entered common usage and “internationalism” came to connote nonisolationism—tell the defeat of the Versailles Treaty as a two-sided morality tale. Wilson’s retro- spective sympathizers tar League opponents for hewing to naïve nonentangle- ment, hidebound nationalism, or greedy partisanship. Realist critics, meanwhile, offer no less simple a schematization, seeing their naysaying selves in Wilson’s contemporaneous foes.1 The twilight of the Cold War illuminated some creative intellectual positions among League opponents. Ralph Stone showed that senators irreconcilable to Wilson’s Treaty of Versailles championed international engagement nonethe- *My thanks to Benjamin Coates, Matthew Connelly, John Milton Cooper, Robert David Johnson, Ernest May, Mark Mazower, Adam McKeown, Thomas Meaney, Stefano Recchia, Simon Stevens, and the anonymous reviewers
    [Show full text]
  • Senate November 3 3381
    9038 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE NOVEMBER 3 3381. By Mr. COCHRAN: Petition of George resolution with· reference to l'epeal of the which was referred to. the Committee on Kiburz and 22 other St. Louis citizens, pro· Chinese Exclusion Act and. support of House Military .Affairs. testing against·the passage of House bill 2082, bill 2011, making citizenship possible for which seeks t o enact prohibition for the pe· persons of Oriental nationality; to the Com­ RESOLUTION BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS riod of the war; to the Committee on the mittee on Immigration and Naturalization. OF KANSAS ENGINEERING SOCIETY­ Judiciary. PROPOSAL TO MOBILIZE SCIENTIFIC 3382. Also, petition of Joseph Ringenbach AND TECHNICAL RESOURCES and 24 other St. Louis citizens, protesting Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I ask against the passage of House bill 2082, which seeks to enact prohibition for the period of SENATE unanimous consent to present for ap­ the war; to· the Committee on the Judiciary. propriate reference a resolution adopted 3383. Also, petition of Fred Mogab and 20 '\yEDNESDAY, NovEMBER 3, 1943 by·. the board of directors of the Kansas other St. Louis citizens, protesting against Engineering Society expressing its op­ the passage of House bill 2082, which seeks to <Legislative day of Monday, October 25, position to the bill <S. 702) to mobilize enact prohibition for the period of the war; I 1943 the scientific and technical resources of to t h e Committee on the Judiciary. the Nation, to establish an office of 3384. Also, ·petition of John B. Ross and The Senate met at 12 o'clock noon, on scientific and technical mobilization, 23 ot her St.
    [Show full text]