Jackson had precisely the qualities fitted to render him a man of mark in this turbulent backwoods community [Tennessee]. The Indian fighters, game-hunters, and frontier farmers who made up the population had many faults and short- comings; but they were, after all, essentially a manly race, and they respected the young lawyer both for his indomitable courage and physical prowess, and for the resolute determination with which he stood by his friends and upheld the cause of order—as order was understood in that place and at that time. (Chautauquan, January 1891.) Mem. Ed. XII, 438; Nat. Ed. XI, 197.
____________. The two great reasons for Jackson's success throughout his political career were to be found in the strength of the feeling in his favor among the poorer and least educated classes of voters, and in the ardent support given him by the low politicians, who, by playing on his prejudices and passions, moulded him to their wishes, and who organized and perfected in their own and his interests a great political machine, founded on the "spoils system." (1887.) Mem. Ed. VIII, 87-88; Nat. Ed. VII, 76.
____________. As President, Jackson did much good and much evil. He was wholly incapable of distinguishing between a public and a private foe. To him an enemy of his own was of necessity an enemy of the nation, and he followed both with inveterate hostility. . . . Jackson had many faults, but he was devotedly attached to the Union, and he had no thought of fear when it came to defending his country. By his resolute and defiant bearing and his fervent championship of the Federal Government he overawed the Disunionist party and staved off for thirty years the attempt at secession. . . . With the exception of Washington and Lincoln, no man has left a deeper mark on American history; and though there is much in his career to condemn, yet all true lovers of America can unite in paying hearty respect to the memory of a man who was emphatically a true American, who served his country valiantly on the field of battle against a foreign foe, and who upheld with the most stanch devotion the cause of the great Federal Union. (Chautauquan, January 1891.) Mem. Ed. XII, 443; Nat. Ed. XI, 202.
Jackson at New Orleans
The only really noteworthy feat of arms of the war [of 1812] took place at New Orleans, and the only military genius that the struggle developed was Andrew Jackson. His deeds are worthy of all praise, and the battle he won was in many ways so peculiar as to make it well worth a much closer study than it has yet received. It was by far the most prominent event of the war; it was a victory which reflected high honor on the general and soldiers who won it, and it was in its way as remarkable as any of the great battles that took place about the same time in Europe. (1883.) Mem. Ed. VII, xxxiii; Nat. Ed. VI, xxix.
____________. He had hereditary wrongs to avenge on the British, and he hated them with an implacable fury that was absolutely devoid of fear. Born and brought up among the lawless characters of the frontier, and knowing well how to deal with them, he was able to establish and preserve the strictest martial law in the city without in the least quelling the spirit of the citizens. To a restless and untiring energy he united sleepless vigilance and genuine military genius. Prompt to attack whenever the chance offered itself, seizing with ready grasp the slightest vantage-ground, and never giving up a foot of earth that he could keep, he yet had the patience to play a defensive game when it so suited him, and with consummate skill he always followed out the scheme of warfare that was best adapted to his wild soldiery. In after-years he did to his country some good and more evil; but no true American can think of his deeds at New Orleans without profound and unmixed thankfulness. (1882.) Mem. Ed. VII, 429; Nat. Ed. VI, 377-378.
She and the United States have great interests on and in the Pacific. These interests in no way conflict. They can be served to best purpose for each nation by the heartiest and most friendly co-operation between them on a footing of absolute equality. There is but one real chance of friction. This should be eliminated, not by pretending to ignore facts, but by facing them with good-natured and courteous wisdom—for, as Emerson somewhere says, "in the long run the most unpleasant truth is a safer travelling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Each country should receive exactly the rights which it grants. Travellers, scholars, men engaged in international business, all sojourners for health, pleasure, and study, should be heartily welcomed in both countries. From neither country should there be any emigration of workers of any kind to, or any settlement in mass in, the other country. (Metropolitan, March 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 481; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 412.
____________. To speak only of the nation concerning which there has been most recent talk of war, I not only have a great respect and admiration for the Japanese, but I very strongly feel that we have much to learn from them. I regard a good understanding between Japan and the United States as of capital consequence to this country, and as of the first importance from the standpoint of preserving peace in the Pacific. . . . But there should be the closest and friendliest relations between the two countries, conducted on a basis of absolute equality and of mutual regard and respect. (Outlook , April 1,1911.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 158; Nat. Ed. XVII, 114.
I have, from the beginning, favoured Japan and have done all that I could do, consistent with international law, to advance her interests. I thoroughly admire and believe in the Japanese. They have always told me the truth, and the Russians have not. Moreover, they have the kind of fighting stock that I like; but there is one thing that I hope will be impressed upon them, and that is the necessity for a broad, intelligent self-restrained attitude at the close of this war. I am confident that Japan will prove to the end, as she has proven so far, victorious; but then she will have before her a very great problem, and it is the solution of this problem that I fear. If Japan is careful, and is guided by the best minds in her empire, she can become one of the leaders of the family of great nations; but if she is narrow and insular, if she tries to gain from her victory more than she ought to have, she will array against her all of the great Powers, and you know very well that however determined she may be, she cannot successfully face an allied world. (To George Kennan, early 1905.) Tyler Dennett, Roosevelt and the Russo-Japanese War. (Doubleday, Page & Co., Garden City, N. Y., 1925), pp. 160-161.
If the Japanese win out, not only the Slav, but all of us will have to reckon with a great new force in eastern Asia. The victory will make Japan by itself a formidable power in the Orient, because all the other powers having interests there will have divided interests, divided cares, double burdens, whereas Japan will have but one care, one interest, one burden. If, moreover, Japan seriously starts in to reorganize China and makes any headway, there will result a real shifting of the centre of equilibrium as far as the white races are concerned. Personally I believe that Japan will develop herself, and seek to develop China, along paths which will make the first, and possibly the second, great civilized powers; but the civilisation must, of course, be of a different type from our civilisations. I do not mean that the mere race taken by itself would cause such a tremendous difference. I have met Japanese, and even Chinese, educated in our ways, who in all their emotions and ways of thought were well-nigh identical with us. But the weight of their own ancestral civilization will press upon them, and will prevent their ever coming into exactly our mould. (To Spring Rice, March 19, 1904.) The Letters and Friendships of Sir Cecil Spring Rice. (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1929), I, 398.
____________. As for Japan, she has risen with simply marvelous rapidity, and she is as formidable from the industrial as from the military standpoint. She is a great civilized nation; though her civilization is in some important respects not like ours. There are some things she can teach us, and some things she can learn from us. She will be as formidable an industrial competitor as, for instance, Germany, and in a dozen years I think she will be the leading industrial nation of the Pacific. The way she has extended her trade and prepared for the establishment of new steamship lines to all kinds of points in the Pacific has been astonishing, for its has gone right on even through the time of this war. Whether her tremendous growth in industrialism will in course of time modify and perhaps soften the wonderful military spirit she has inherited from the days of the Samurai supremacy it is hard to say. Personally, I think it will; but the effect will hardly be felt for a generation to come. Still, her growing industrial wealth will be to a certain extent a hostage for her keeping the peace. We should treat her courteously, generously and justly, but we should keep our navy up and make it evident that we are not influenced by fear. I do not believe she will look toward the Philippines until affairs are settled on the mainland of Asia in connection with China, even if she ever looks toward them, and on the mainland in China her policy is the policy to which we are already committed. (To H. C. Lodge, June 16, 1905.) Lodge Letters II, 153.
____________. Japan's sudden rise into a foremost position among the occidental civilized powers has been an extraordinary phenomenon. There has been nothing in the past in any way approaching it. No other nation in history has ever so quickly entered the circle of civilized powers. It took the yellow-haired barbarians of the North who overthrew Rome six or eight centuries before the civilization they built up even began to approach the civilization they had torn down; whereas Japan tore down nothing and yet reached the level of her western neighbors in half a century. Moreover, she entered the circle of the higher civilization bearing gifts in both hands. Her appreciation of art and nature, her refinement of life, and many of her social conventions, together with her extraordinary and ennobling patriotism, convey lessons to us of America and Europe which we shall do well to learn. Every thoughtful American who dwells on the relations between Japan and the United States must realize that each has
something to learn from the other. (Written July 1918.) Theodore Roosevelt, Japan's Part. (Japan Society, N. Y., 1919), p. 5.
Japan and the United States
Exactly as the educated classes in Europe, among the several nations, grew to be able to associate together generations before it was possible for such association to take place among the men who had no such advantages of education, so it is evident we must not press too fast in bringing the labouring classes of Japan and America together. Already in these fifty years we have completely attained the goal as between the educated and the intellectual classes of the two countries. We must be content to wait another generation before we shall have made progress enough to permit the same close intimacy between the classes who have had less opportunity for cultivation, and whose lives are less easy, so that each has to feel, in earning its daily bread, the pressure of the competition of the other. I have become convinced that to try to move too far toward all at once is to incur jeopardy of trouble. This is just as true of one nation as of the other. If scores of thousands of American miners went to Saghalin, or of American mechanics to Japan or Formosa, trouble would almost certainly ensue. Just in the same way scores of thousands of Japanese labourers, whether agricultural or industrial, are certain chiefly because of the pressure caused thereby, to be a source of trouble if they should come here or to Australia. (To Baron Kentaro Kaneko, May 23, 1907.) Julian Street, Mysterious Japan. (Doubleday, Page & Co., Garden City, N. Y., 1921), p. 225.
____________. The Japanese certainly object to Americans acquiring land in Japan at least as much as the Americans of the far Western States object to the Japanese acquiring land on our soil. The Americans who go to Japan and the Japanese who come to America should be of the same general class—that is, they should be travellers, students, teachers, scientific investigators, men engaged in international business, men sojourning in the land for pleasure or study. As long as the emigration from each side is limited to classes such as these, there will be no settlement in mass, and therefore no difficulty. Wherever there is settlement in mass—that is, wherever there is a large immigration of urban or agricultural laborers, or of people engaged in small local business of any kind— there is sure to be friction. It is against the interests of both nations that such unrestricted immigration or settlement in mass should be allowed as regards either nation. This is the cardinal fact in the situation; it should be freely recognized by both countries, and can be accepted by each not only without the slightest loss of self-respect, but with the certainty that its acceptance will tend to preserve mutual respect and friendli- ness. (Outlook , May 8, 1909.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 383; Nat. Ed. XVI, 289.
____________. I cannot too strongly express my indignation with, and abhorrence of, reckless public writers and speakers who, with coarse and vulgar insolence, insult the Japanese people and thereby do the greatest wrong not only to Japan but to their own country. . . . It is eminently undesirable that Japanese and Americans should attempt to live together in masses; any such attempt would be sure to result disastrously, and the far-seeing statesmen of both countries should join to prevent it.
But this is not because either nation is inferior to the other; it is because they are different. The two peoples represent two civilizations which, although in many respects equally high, are so totally distinct in their past history that it is idle to expect in one or two generations to overcome this difference. One civilization is as old as the other; and in neither case is the line of cultural descent coincident with that of ethnic descent. Unquestionably the ancestors of the great majority both of the modern Americans and the
modern Japanese were barbarians in that remote past which saw the origins of the cultured peoples to which the Americans and the Japanese of to-day severally trace their civilizations. But the lines of development of these two civilizations, of the Orient and the Occident, have been separate and divergent since thousands of years before the Christian era. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 432; Nat. Ed. XX, 371.
____________. The astounding thing, the thing unprecedented in all history, is that two civilized peoples whose civilizations had developed for thousands of years on almost wholly independent lines, should within half a century grow so close together. Fifty years ago there was no intellectual or social community at all between the two nations. Nowadays, the man of broad cultivation, whether in statesmanship, science, art, or philosophy, who dwells in one country, is as much at home in the other as is a Russian in England, or a Spaniard in the United States, or an Italian in Sweden; the men of this type, whether Japanese or Europeans, or North or South Americans, are knit together in a kind of freemasonry of social and intellectual taste. (Metropolitan, March 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 478; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 411.
____________. There is always time to point out the elemental fact that this country should feel for Japan a peculiar admiration and respect, and that one of the cardinal principlesof our foreign policy should be to secure and retain her friendship, respect, and good-will. There is not the slightest real or necessary conflict of interest between the United States and Japan in the Pacific; her interest is in Asia, ours in America; neither has any desire nor excuse for acquiring territory in the other continent. Japan is playing a great part in the civilized world; a good understanding between her and the United States is essential to international progress, and it is a grave offense against the United States for any man by word or deed to jeopardize this good understanding. (Written July 1918.) Theodore Roosevelt, Japan's Part, (Japan Society, N. Y., 1919), p13.
Japan in the World War
In this war Japan has played a great and useful part. That she had her special and peculiar grievances against Germany goes without saying. So had we. She took these grievances into account precisely as we took our grievances into account. But she ranged herself on the side of humanity and freedom and justice exactly as we did. Her duty has been, first of all, to drive Germany from the Pacific and to police and protect the Orient. If she had not done this it is probable that at the present moment a British and American force would be besieging Kiao-Chau and that our commerce would be suffering from German raids in the Pacific. Great Britain and the United States are able to keep their fleets out of the Pacific at this moment because the Japanese fleet is there. But she has done much more than this. Gradually, as the war has grown she has extended her assistance all over the globe. Her volunteers have appeared in that most hazardous of all military branches, the air service, at the extreme fighting front. She has sent her destroyers to protect English and American troop ships and cargo ships in the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea and the Mediterranean. (Written July 1918.) Theodore Roosevelt, Japan's Part, (Japan Society, N. Y.; 1919), pp. 5-6.
See Also Orient; Patriotism; Philippines; Russo -Japanese War; "Yellow Peril."
The Japanese I am inclined to welcome as a valuable factor in the civilization of the future. But it is not to be expected that they should be free from prejudice against and distrust of the white race. (To Sir George Otto Trevelyan, May 13, 1905.) Mem. Ed. XXIII, 438; Bishop I, 381.
____________. What wonderful people the Japanese are! They are quite as remarkable industrially as in warfare. In a dozen years the English, Americans and Germans, who now dread one another as rivals in the trade of the Pacific, will have each to dread the Japanese more than they do any other nation. In the middle of this war they have actually steadily increased their exports to China, and are proceeding in the establishment of new lines of steamers in new points of Japanese trade expansion throughout the Pacific. Their lines of steamers are not allowed to compete with one another, but each competes with some foreign line, and usually the competition is to the advantage of the Japanese. The industrial growth of the nation is as marvellous as its military growth. It is now a great power and will be a greater power. As I have always said, I cannot pretend to prophesy what the results, as they affect the United States, Australia, and the European Powers with interests in the Pacific, will ultimately be. I believe that Japan will take its place as a great civilised power of a formidable type, and with motives and ways of thought which are not quite those of the powers of our race. My own policy is perfectly simple, though I have not the slightest idea whether I can get my country to follow it. I wish to see the United States treat the Japanese in a spirit of all possible courtesy, and with generosity and justice. At the same time I wish to see our navy constantly built up, and each ship kept at the highest possible point of efficiency as a fighting unit. If we follow this course we shall have no trouble with the Japanese or any one else. But if we bluster; if we behave rather badly to other nations; if we show that we regard the Japanese as an inferior and alien race, and try to treat them as we have treated the Chinese; and if at the same time we fail to keep our navy at the highest point of efficiency and size—then we shall invite disaster. (To Spring Rice, June 16, 1905.) The Letters and Friendships of Sir Cecil Spring Rice. (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1920.) I, 472-473.
In California the question became acute in connection with the admission of the Japanese. I then had and now have a hearty admiration for the Japanese people. I believe in them; I respect their great qualities; I wish that our American people had many of these qualities. Japanese and American students, travellers, scientific and literary men, merchants engaged in international trade, and the like can meet on terms of entire equality and should be given the freest access each to the country of the other. But the Japanese themselves would not tolerate the intrusion into their country of a mass of Americans who would displace Japanese in the business of the land. I think they are entirely right in this position. I would be the first to admit that Japan has the absolute right to declare on what terms foreigners shall be admitted to work in her country, or to own land in her country, or to become citizens of her country. America has and must
insist upon the same right. The people of California were right in insisting that the Japanese should not come thither in mass, that there should be no influx of laborers, of agricultural workers, or small tradesmen— in short, no mass settlement or immigration. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 429; Nat. Ed. XX, 368.
____________. As yet the differences between the Japanese who work with their hands and the Americans who work with their hands are such that it is absolutely impossible for them, when brought into contact with one another in great numbers, to get on. Japan would not permit any immigration in mass of our people into her territory, and it is wholly inadvisable that there should be such immigration of her people into our territory. This is not because either side is inferior to the other but because they are different. As a matter of fact, these differences are sometimes in favor of the Japanese and sometimes in favor of the Americans. But they are so marked that at this time, whatever may be the case in the future, friction and trouble are certain to come if there is any immigration in mass of Japanese into this country, exactly as friction and trouble have actually come in British Columbia from this cause, and have been prevented from coming in Australia only by the most rigid exclusion laws. Under these conditions the way to avoid trouble is not by making believe that things which are not so are so but by courteously and firmly facing the situation. (New York Times, November 15, 1914.) Mem. Ed. XX, 119; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 102.
Japanese Exclusion—Defense of
He [Admiral Yamamoto] kept insisting that the Japanese must not be kept out save as we keep out Europeans. I kept explaining to him that what we had to do was to face facts; that if American laboring men came in and cut down the wages of Japanese laboring men they would be shut out of Japan in one moment; and that Japanese laborers must be excluded from the United States on economic grounds. I told him emphatically that it was not pos-sible to admit Japanese laborers into the United States. I pointed out to him those rules which Secretary Wilson quoted in his memorandum, which show that the Japanese Government has already in force restrictions against American laborers coming into Japan, save in the old treaty ports. I pointed out that under our present treaty we had explicitly reserved the right to exclude Japanese laborers. (To Elihu Root, July 13, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 75; Bishop II, 65.
Japanese Exclusion — Necessity of
One practical problem of statesmanship, . . . must be to keep on good terms with these same Japanese and their kinsmen on the mainland of Asia, and yet to keep the white man in America and Australia out of home contact with them. It is equally to the interest of the British Empire and of the United States that there should be no immigration in mass from Asia to Australia or to North America. It can be prevented, and an entirely friendly feeling between Japan and the English speaking peoples preserved, if we act with sufficient courtesy and at the same time with sufficient resolution. (To A. J. Balfour, March 5, 1908.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 128; Bishop II, 110.
Japanese Exclusion — Reason for
An effort to mix together, out of hand, the peoples representing the culminating points of two such lines of divergent cultural development would be fraught with peril; and this, I repeat, because the two are different, not because either is inferior to the other. Wise statesmen, looking to the future, will for the present endeavor to keep the two nations from mass contact and intermingling, precisely because they wish to keep each in relations of permanent good-will and friendship with the other. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 433; Nat. Ed. XX, 372.
____________. It has taken many centuries for Europeans to achieve a common standard such as to permit of the free immigration of the workers of one nation into another nation, and there is small cause for wonder in the fact that a few decades have been insufficient to bring it about between Japan and the American and Australian commonwealths. Japan would not, and could not, at this time afford to admit into competition with her own people masses of immigrants, industrial or agricultural workers, or miners or small tradesmen, from the United States. It would be equally unwise for the United States to admit similar groups from Japan. This does not mean that either side is inferior; it means that they are different. (Metropolitan, March 1915.) Mem. Ed. XX, 479; Nat. Ed. XVIII, 411.
Japanese Exclusion—Right of
I admit in the fullest way every nation's right to keep out any classes of immigrants who come in to work or to live. As you know, I never liked our having abandoned this right in the present treaty with the Japanese. (To H. C. Lodge, October 20, 1911.) Lodge Letters II, 412.
Japanese Immigration — National Control Over
I insisted upon the two points: (1) that the nation and not the individual States must deal with matters of such international significance and must treat foreign nations with entire courtesy and respect; and (2) that the nation would at once, and in efficient and satisfactory manner, take action that would meet the needs of California. I both asserted the power of the nation and offered a full remedy for the needs of the State. This is the right, and the only right, course. The worst possible course in such a case is to fail to insist on the right of the nation, to offer no action of the nation to remedy what is wrong, and yet to try to coax the State not to do what it is mistakenly encouraged to believe it has the power to do, when no other alternative is offered. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 431; Nat. Ed. XX, 370.
See also Immigration.
Japanese in California
I am utterly disgusted at the manifestations which have begun to appear on the Pacific slope in favor of excluding the Japanese exactly as the Chinese are excluded. The California State Legislature and various other bodies have acted in the worst possible taste and in the most offensive manner to Japan. Yet the Senators and Congressmen from these very States were lukewarm about the Navy last year. It gives me a feeling of disgust to see them challenge Japanese hostility and justify by their actions any feeling the Japanese might have against us, while at the same time refusing to take steps to defend themselves against the formidable foe whom they are ready with such careless insolence to antagonize. (To H. C. Lodge, May 15, 1905.) Lodge Letters II, 122.
See Federalist, The.
Thank Heaven, I have never hesitated to criticise Jefferson; he was infinitely below Hamilton. I think the worship of Jefferson a discredit to my country; and I have as small use for the ordinary Jeffersonian as for the ordinary defender of the house of Stuart—and I am delighted to notice that you share this last prejudice with me. I think Jefferson on the whole did harm in public life. . . . He did thoroughly believe in the people, just as Abraham Lincoln did, just as Chatham and Pitt believed in England. . . . Jefferson led the people wrong, and followed them when they went wrong; and though he had plenty of imagination and of sentimental inspiration, he had neither courage nor farsighted common sense, where the interests of the nation were at stake. (To Frederick Scott Oliver, August 9, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 27-28; Bishop II, 23-24.
____________. The more I study Jefferson the more profoundly I distrust him and his influence, taken as a whole. (To H. C. Lodge, September 21, 1907.) Lodge Letters II, 282.
____________. Heaven knows how cordially I despise Jefferson, but he did have one great virtue which his Federalist opponents lacked—he stood for the plain people, whom Abraham Lincoln afterward represented. By the way, speaking of Jefferson, isn't it humiliating to realize that Jefferson —who I think was, not even excepting Buchanan, the most incompetent chief executive we ever had, and whose well-nigh solitary service as President to his country, the acquisition of Louisiana, was rendered by adopting the Federalist principles which he had most fiercely denounced—isn't it humilating to think that he should have been, as President, rather more popular than Washington himself at the very close of his administration, and that almost all the State legislatures, excluding Massachusetts but including Rhode Island and Vermont, should have petitioned him to serve for another term and should have sent him formal messages of grateful thanks for his services after his term was over? (To Justice W. H. Moody, September 21, 1907.) Mem. Ed. XXIV, 82; Bishop II, 71.
____________. Jefferson was fond of science, and in appreciation of the desirabilityy of non-remunerative scientific observation and investigation he stood honorably distinguished among the public men of the day. To him justly belongs the credit of originating . . . [the] first exploring expedition ever undertaken by the United States Government. (1896.) Mem. Ed. XII, 359; Nat. Ed. IX, 504
Jefferson, though a man whose views and thories had a profound influence upon our national life, was perhaps the most incapable executive that ever filled the presidential chair; being almost purely a visionary, he was utterly unable to grapple with the slightest actual danger, and, not even excepting his successor, Madison, it would be difficult to imagine a man less fit to guide the State with honor and safety through the stormy times that marked the opening of the present century. Without the prudence to avoid war or the forethought to prepare for it, the Administration drifted helplessly into a conflict in which only the navy prepared by the Federalists twelve years before, and weakened rather than strengthened during the intervening time, saved us from complete and shameful defeat. (1882.) Mem. Ed. VII, 424; Nat. Ed. VI, 373
See also Democratic Party; Madison, James; Popularity; Westward Movement
Jesuits in America
Inspired by a fervent devotion to their church and religion, which was akin both to that of the early Christian martyrs and to that of the most warlike crusaders, these early Jesuits were among the pioneers in the exploration of the New World, and baptized and converted to at least nominal Christianity scores of tribes from the Bay of Fundy to Lake Superior and the mouth of the Mississippi. They suffered every conceivable kind of danger, discomfort, and hardship; they braved toil and peril like knights-errant of the Middle Ages, and they met the most terrible deaths with cheerful, resolute composure. At one time is looked as though they might build up a great empire in the interior of this continent, with converted tribes of Indian warriors as its buttresses; and yet the fabric which they so laboriously reared proved unsubstantial and crumbled without in any way fulfilling its promise. Most of the Indians whom they had converted lapsed into heathenism, and most of the remainder remained Christians in little save the name. The lasting services they rendered were less as pioneers of Christianity than as explorers and map-makers. (Independent, November 24, 1892.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 289-290; Nat. Ed. XII, 249.
The lamentable and terrible suffering to which so many of the Jewish people in other lands have been subjected, makes me feel it my duty, as the head of the American people, not only to ex-press my deep sympathy for them, as I now do, but at the same time to point out what fine qualities of citizenship have been displayed by the men of Jewish faith and race, who having come to this country, enjoy the benefits of free institutions and equal treatment before the law. I feel very strongly that if any people are oppressed anywhere, the wrong inevitably reacts in the end on those who oppress them; for it is an immutable law in the spiritual world that no one can wrong others and yet in the end himself escape unhurt. (To Jacob H. Schiff, November 16, 1905; read at Carnegie Hall, New York City, November 30, 1905.) The Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Settlement of the Jews in the United States. (N. Y. Cooperative Society, 1906), p. 18.
Jews in America
I am glad to be able to say, in addressing you on this occasion, that while the Jews of the United States, who now number more than a million, have remained loyal to their faith and their race traditions, they have become indissolubly incorporated in the great army of American citizenship, prepared to make all sacrifice for the country, either in war or peace, and striving for the perpetuation of good government and for the maintenance of the principles embodied in our Constitution. They are honorably distinguished by their industry, their obedience to law, and their devotion to the national welfare. They are engaged in generous rivalry with their fellow-citizens of other denominations in advancing the interests of our common country. This is true not only of the descendants of the early settlers and those of American birth, but of a great and constantly increasing proportion of those who have come to our shores within the last twenty-five years as refugees reduced to the direst straits of penury and misery. All Americans may well be proud of the extraordinary illustration of the wisdom and strength of our governmental system thus afforded. In a few years, men and women hitherto utterly unaccustomed to any of the privileges of citizenship have moved mightily upward toward the standard of loyal, self-respecting American citizenship; of that citizenship which not merely insists upon its rights, but also eagerly recognizes its duty to do its full share in the material, social, and moral advancement of the nation. (To Jacob H. Schiff, November 16, 1905; read at Carnegie Hall, New York City, November 30, 1905.) The Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Settlement of the Jews in the United States. (N. Y. Cooperative Society, 1906), pp. 19-20.
See Also Anti-Semitism; Dreyfus, Alfred; Kishineff Massacre.
See American, The Blatant.
See Nationalism; Patriotism.
Yesterday afternoon we had Professor Yamashita up here to wrestle with Grant. It was very interesting, but of course jiu jitsu and our wrestling are so far apart that it is difficult to make any comparison between them. Wrestling is simply a sport with rules almost as conventional as those of tennis, while jiu jitsu is really meant for practice in killing or disabling our adversary. In consequence, Grant did not know what to do except to put Yamashita on his back, and Yamashita was perfectly content to be on his back. Inside of a minute Yamashita had choked Grant, and inside of two minutes more he got an elbow hold on him that would have enabled him to break his arm; so that there is no question but that he could have put Grant out. So far this made it evident that the jiu jitsu man could handle the ordinary wrestler. But Grant, in the actual wrestling and throwing was about as good as the Japanese, and he was so much stronger that he evidently hurt and wore out the Japanese. With a little practice in the art I am sure that one of our big wrestlers or boxers, simply because of his greatly superior strength, would be able to kill any of those Japanese, who though very good men for their inches and pounds are altogether too small to hold their own against big, powerful, quick men who are as well trained. (To Kermit Roosevelt, February 24, 1905.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 535; Nat. Ed. XIX, 480.
Jones, John Paul
I feel that the place of all others in which the memory of the dead hero will most surely be a living force is here in Annapolis, where year by year we turn out the midshipmen who are to officer in the future the Navy, among whose founders the dead man stands first. Moreover, the future naval officers, who live within these walls, will find in the career of the man whose life we this day celebrate, not merely a subject for admiration and respect, but an object lesson to be taken into their innermost hearts. Every officer in our Navy should know by heart the deeds of John Paul Jones. Every officer in our Navy should feel in each fiber of his being the eager desire to emulate the energy, the professional capacity, the indomitable determination, and dauntless scorn of death which marked John Paul Jones above all his fellows. Address of President Roosevelt on the Occasion of the Reinterment of the Remains of John Paul Jones at Annapolis, Md., April 24, 1906. (Government Printing Office, 1906), pp. 4-5.
Yellow journalism . . . deifies the cult of the mendacious, the sensational, and the inane, and, . . . throughout its wide but vapid field, does as much to vulgarize and degrade the popular taste, to weaken the popular character, and to dull the edge of the popular conscience, as any influence under which the country can suffer. These men sneer at the very idea of paying heed to the dictates of a sound morality; as one of their number has cynically put it, they are concerned merely with selling the public whatever the public will buy—a theory of conduct which would justify the existence of every keeper of an opium den, of every foul creature who ministers to the vices of mankind. Outlook, March 6, 1909, p. 510.
____________. Of all the forces that tend for evil in a great city like New York, probably none are so potent as the sensational papers. (Atlantic Monthly, September 1897.) Mem. Ed. XV, 160; Nat. Ed. XIII, 125.
See also Press.
In our country I am inclined to think that almost, if not quite, the most important profession is that of the newspaper man, including the man of the magazines, especially the cheap magazines, and the weeklies; and I speak as a member of the brotherhood myself. The newspaper men—publishers, editors, reporters—are just as much public servants as are the men in the government service themselves, whether these men be elected or appointed officers. Now, we have always held in higher honor the public man who did his duty, and we have always felt that the public man who did not do his duty was deserving of a peculiar degree of reprobation. And just the same way about the newspaper man. The editor, the publisher, the reporter, who honestly and truthfully puts the exact facts before the public, who does not omit for improper reasons things that ought to be stated, who does not say what is not true, who does not color his facts so as to give false impressions, who does not manufacture his facts, who really is ready, in the first place, to find out what the truth is, and, in the next place, to state it accurately—that man occupies one of the most honorable positions in the community. (At Milwaukee, Wis., September 7, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XV, 456; Nat. Ed.XIII, 544.
Journalist—Power of the
The power of the journalist is great, but he is entitled neither to respect nor admiration because of that power unless it is used aright. He can do, and he often does, great good. He can do, and he often does, infinite mischief. All journalists, all writers, for the very reason that they appreciate the vast possibilities of their profession, should bear testimony against those who deeply discredit it. Offenses against taste and morals, which are bad enough in a private citizen, are infinitely worse if made into instruments for debauching the community through a newspaper. Mendacity, slander, sensationalism, inanity, vapid triviality, all are potent factors for the debauchery of the public mind and conscience. The excuse advanced for vicious writing, that the public demands it and that the demand must be supplied, can no more be admitted than if it were advanced by the purveyors of food who sell poisonous adulterations. (At the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XV, 362; Nat. Ed. XIII, 517.
Journalist—Service of the
Exactly as I put as the first requisite of the man in public life that he should be honest, so I put as the first requisite of the man writing for the newspaper that he should tell the truth. Now, it is important that he should tell the whole truth, for there can be no greater service rendered than the exposure of corruption in either public life or in business, or in that intricate web of public life and business which exists too often in America to-day. . . . If an article is published in a magazine, exposing corruption, and the article tells the truth, I do not care what it is, the writer has rendered the greatest possible service by writing it; but I want to be certain that he is telling the truth. (At Milwaukee, Wis., September 7, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XV, 459; Nat. Ed. XIII, 547.
See Also Editors; Muckrakers.
Joy of Living
With all my heart I believe in the joy of living; but those who achieve it do not seek it as an end in itself, but as a seized and prized incident of hard work well done and of risk and danger never wantonly courted, but never shirked when duty commands that they be faced. (Metropolitan, October 1918.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 264; Nat. Ed. XIX, 244.
Joy of Living
See Also Duty; Life; Strenuous Life; Work.
The judge who by word or deed makes it plain that the corrupt corporation, the law-defying corporation, the law- defying rich man, has in him a sure and trustworthy ally, the judge who by misuse of the process of injunction makes it plain that in him the wage-worker has a determined and unscrupulous enemy, the judge who when he decides in an employers' liability or a tenement-house factory case shows that he has neither sympathy for nor understanding of those fellow citizens of his who most need his sympathy and understanding; these judges work as much evil as if they pandered to the mob, as if they shrank from sternly repressing violence and disorder. The judge who does his full duty well stands higher, and renders a better service to the people, than any other public servant; he is entitled to greater respect; and if he is a true servant of the people, if he is upright, wise and fearless, he will unhesitatingly disregard even the wishes of the people if they conflict with the eternal principles of right as against wrong. He must serve the people; but he must serve his conscience first. All honor to such a judge; and all honor cannot be rendered him if it is rendered equally to his brethren who fall immeasurably below the high ideals for which he stands. (To Charles J. Bonaparte, January 2, 1908.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 522; Nat. Ed. XX, 449.
We are unfit to be called a free people if we permanently surrender the right to shape our destinies, and place this right in the hands of any man not responsible to us. I do not believe that it is wise or safe to pretend that we have self- government and yet by indirect methods to permit outsiders to rob us of self-government. I believe that the only ultimate safety to our people is in self-control, not in control from the outside. I do not believe in snap judgments; I do not believe in permitting the determination of a moment to be transmuted into a permanent policy; but I do believe that the serious, sober, well-thought-out judgment of the people must be given effect; I do believe that this people must ultimately control its own destinies, and cannot surrender, the right of ultimate control to a judge any more than to a legislator or an executive. As a matter of expediency it may be, and in my opinion it is, desirable that the control by the people over the judge shall be exercised more cautiously and in different fashion than the control by the people over the legislator and the executive; but the control must be there, the power must exist in the people to see to it that the judge, like the legislator and the executive, becomes in the long run representative of and answerable to the well-thoughtout judgment of the people as a whole. (At New York City, October 20, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 274; Nat. Ed. XVI, 207.
Exactly as he is no true patriot who fails to uphold the judge who is a far-seeing and fearless public servant, so he is no true patriot who hesitates to point out the facts when the judge does not serve the people. Ours is a government of the people, and no man has a right to be in public life who is not in a high and true sense the servant of the people; and the doctrine that there shall not be honest, fearless, and temperate criticism of any judge is not only unworthy of being held by any free man who respects himself, but is a betrayal of the cause of good government; for only thus can there be proper discrimination in the public mind between the wise judge who serves the people and his equally honest brother who, because he lacks the statesmanlike qualities or clings to outworn (that is, to fossilized) political theories, does damage to the people. (Outlook, November 5, 1910.) Mem. Ed. XII, 532; Nat. Ed. XI, 260.
____________. It is absolutely necessary that there should be discrimination between, and therefore intelligent criticism of, the judges who by their power of interpretation are the final arbiters in deciding what shall be the law of the land. Men ought not to be classed together for praise or blame because they occupy one kind of public office. The bonds that knit them in popular esteem or popular disfavor should be based, not upon the offices they hold, but upon the way in which they fill these offices. Chief Justice Taney was, I doubt, not, in private life as honorable a man as Chief Justice Marshall; but during his long term of service as chief justice his position on certain vital questions represented a resolute effort to undo the work of his mighty predecessor. If, on these positions, one of these two great justices was right, then the other was wrong; if one is entitled to praise, then the other must be blamed. (Outlook , March 4, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 125; Nat. Ed. XVII, 87.
Judges—Divine Right of
The doctrine of the divine right of judges to rule the people is every whit as ignoble as the doctrine of the divine right of kings; and this doctrine is now chiefly and powerfully upheld by the legal and financial representatives of privilege. We believe that the American people has about made up its mind that it is to be master within its own house, and that its representatives are in good faith to represent it and not to attempt to impose their wills upon it against its will. (At Chicago, December 10, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 479; Nat. Ed. XVII, 354.
Nothing has been so strongly borne in on me concerning lawyers on the bench as that the nominal politics of the man has nothing to do with his actions on the bench. His real politics are all important. (To H. C. Lodge, September 4, 1906.) Lodge Letters II, 228.
Under our American system of government the judge occupies a position such as he occupies nowhere, else in the world, a position that makes him, so far as the negative side of legislation is concerned, the most important legislative official in the country. . . . I emphatically believe that we have been wise in giving great power to our judges, including this power of judicial interpretation of statutes to see whether they conform to the fundamental law of the land. But I also firmly believe that like any other power, this power can be abused, and that it is a power which the people have temporarily parted with and not one which they have permanently alienated. (At New York City, October 20, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 266; Nat. Ed. XVI, 200.
The question of applying the recall in any shape is one of expediency merely. Each community has a right to try the experiment for itself in whatever shape it pleases. . . .
I do not believe in adopting the recall save as a last resort, when it has become clearly evident that no other course will achieve the desired result.
But either the recall will have to be adopted or else it will have to be made much easier than it now is to get rid, not merely of a bad judge, but of a judge who, however virtuous, has grown so out of touch with social needs and facts that he is unfit longer to render good service on the bench. It is nonsense to say that impeachment meets the difficulty. In actual practice we have found that impeachment does not work, that unfit judges stay on the bench in spite of it, and indeed because of the fact that impeachment is the only remedy that can be used against them. Where such is the actual fact it is idle to discuss the theory of the case. Impeachment as a remedy for the ills of which the people justly complain is a complete failure. A quicker, a more summary, remedy is needed. (Before Ohio
Constitutional Convention, Columbus, February 21, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 185; Nat. Ed. XVII, 137.
____________. In a great many States there has been for many years a real recall of judges as regards appointments, promotions, reappointments, and re- elections; and this recall was through the turn of a thumbscrew at the end of a long-distance rod in the hands of great interests. I believe that a just judge would feel far safer in the hands of the people than in the hands of those interests. (At Carnegie Hall, New York City, March 20, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 215; Nat. Ed. XVII, 164.
[Our opponents] speak as if the judges were somehow imposed on us by Heaven, and were responsible only to Heaven. As a matter of fact judges are human just like other people, and in this country they will either be chosen by the people and responsible to the people, or they will be chosen by, and responsible to, the bosses and the special interests and the political and financial beneficiaries of privilege. (At Philadelphia, April 10, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 270; Nat. Ed. XVII, 203.
I most earnestly urge upon the Congress the duty of increasing the totally inadequate salaries now given to our judges. On the whole there is no body of public servants who do as valuable work, nor whose moneyed reward is so inadequate compared to their work. Beginning with the Supreme Court, the judges should have their salaries doubled. It is not befitting the dignity of the nation that its most honored public servants should be paid sums so small compared to what they would earn in private life that the performance of public service by them implies an exceedingly heavy pecuniary sacrifice. (Eighth Annual Message, Washington, December 8, 1908.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 593; Nat. Ed. XV, 504.
Judges as Legislators
We stand for an upright judiciary. But where the judges claim the right to make our laws by finally interpreting them, by finally deciding whether or not we have the power to make them, we claim the right ourselves to exercise that power. We forbid any men, no matter what their official position may be, to usurp the right which is ours, the right which is the people's. We recognize in neither court nor Congress nor President, any divine right to override the will of the people expressed with due deliberation in orderly fashion and through the forms of law. (At Madison Square Garden, New York City, October 30, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 460; Nat. Ed. XVII, 337.
Judges as Public Servants
Taken as a whole, the judges of the country are, and have been, more useful public servants than any other public men. A wise and upright judge can render, and does render, in the long run, rather better service than can be rendered even by the right type of executive or legislative officer; and I believe that we find a larger proportion of men who reach the proper official standard among judges than among the members of any other class of public servants. Yet, while not merely granting that this is the fact, but insisting upon it, it remains true that the judges are public servants just as other officials are, that they are, or should be, responsible to the public just as other officials are (for it is idle to call a man a servant of the public unless he is responsible to the public) and that therefore there should be criticism of them just as of other officials. In the case of judges it is even more essential than in the case of other public officials that the criticism should be wise and temperate, and, above all, that it should be absolutely truthful. (Outlook , March 4, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 117; Nat. Ed. XVII,
See Also Constitution; Legalism; Marshall, John; Recall.
Judicial Decision—Subjects for
We hold emphatically that . . . [social and industrial legislation] are not properly matters for final judicial decision. The judges have no special opportunity and no especial ability to determine the justice or injustice, the desirability or undesirability, of legislation of such a character. Indeed, in most cases, although not in all, the judges in the higher courts are so out of touch with the conditions of life affected by social and industrial legislation on behalf of the humble that they are peculiarly unfit to say whether the legislation is wise or the reverse. Moreover, whether they are fit or unfit, it is not their province to decide what the people ought or ought not to desire in matters of this kind. They are not lawmakers; they were not elected or appointed for such purpose. They are not censors of the public in this matter. (Century Magazine, October 1913.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 552; Nat. Ed. XVII, 407.
____________. It was this case [Tenement Cigar Case] which first waked me to a dim and partial understanding of the fact that the courts were not necessarily the best judges of what should be done to better social and industrial conditions. The judges who rendered this decision were well-meaning men. They knew nothing whatever of tenement-house conditions; they knew nothing whatever of the needs, or of the life and labor, of three-fourths of their fellow citizens in great cities. They knew legalism but not life. . . . This decision completely blocked tenement-house reform legislation in New York for a score of years. It was one of the most serious setbacks which the cause of industrial and social progress and reform ever received. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 98; Nat. Ed. XX, 84.
See Also Law; Recall.
See Courts; Law.
There is one consideration which should be taken into account by the good people who carry a sound proposition to an excess in objecting to any criticism of a judge's decision. The instinct of the American people as a whole is sound in this matter. They will not subscribe to the doctrine that any public servant is to be above all criticism. If the best citizens, those most competent to express their judgment in such matters, and above all those belonging to the great and honorable profession of the bar, so profoundly influential in American life, take the position that there shall be no criticism of a judge under any circumstances, their view will not be accepted by the American people as a whole. . . . Just and temperate criticism, when necessary, is a safeguard against the acceptance by the people as a whole of that intemperate antagonism toward the judiciary which must be combated by every right-thinking man, and which, if it became wide-spread among the people at large, would constitute a dire menace to the Republic. (Sixth Annual Message, Washington, December 3, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 410; Nat. Ed. XV, 350.
____________. Unless the Federal judiciary is willing to submit to temperate criticism where it goes completely wrong, and to amend its shortcomings by its own action, then sooner or later there is certain to be dangerous agitation against it. (To H. C. Lodge, September 12, 1910.) Lodge Letters II, 391.
We have a right to demand that our judiciary should be kept beyond reproach, and we have a right to demand that, if we find men against whom there is not only suspicion, but almost a certainty that they have had collusion with men whose interest was in conflict with those of the public, they shall at least be required to bring positive facts with which to prove there has not been such collusion, and they ought themselves to have been the first to demand such an investigation. (In Assembly Chamber, Albany, April 6, 1882.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 12; Nat. Ed. XIV, 11.
On the one hand, the very men who by their actions seek to degrade the judiciary into the position of a servile register of the popular whim of the moment will cheerfully render lip-loyalty to the theory that a judge should be upright and independent. On the other hand, the very men who strive hardest to prevent the judge from being a real popular servant, and who wish, on the contrary, to make him an instrument for defeating the popular will in the interests of a special class, are always loudest in their assertion that they are really championing the cause of popular rights. The men whose patriotism is really rational and sincere, the men who really believe in the just rule of the people, and neither in the selfish rule of a plutocracy nor the selfish rule of a mob, stand as equally opposed to the extremists of both classes. (Outlook, February 25, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 115; Nat. Ed. XVII, 78.
____________. An independent and upright judiciary which fearlessly stands for the right, even against popular clamor, but which also understands and sympathizes with popular needs, is a great asset of popular government. (Before Ohio Constitutional Convention, Columbus, February 21, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 184; Nat. Ed. XVII, 136.
See also Constitution; Courts; Division of Powers; Government; Justice; Law; Legalism; Popular Rule; Supreme Court.
Jusserand, J. J
It is the simple and literal truth to say that in my judgment we owe it to you more than to any other one man that the year which has closed has not seen a war between France and Germany, which, had it begun, would probably have extended to take in a considerable portion of the world. In last May and June the relations between the two countries were so strained that such a war was imminent. Probably the only way it could have been avoided was by an international conference, and such a conference could only have been held on terms compatible with France's honour and dignity. You were the man most instrumental in having just this kind of conference arranged for. I came into the matter most unwillingly, and I could not have come into it at all if I had not possessed entire confidence alike in your unfailing soundness of judgment and in your high integrity of personal conduct. Thanks to the fact that these are the two dominant notes in your personality, my relationship with you has been such as I think has very, very rarely obtained between any Ambassador at any time and the head of the Government to which that Ambassador was accredited; and certainly no Ambassador and head of a Government could ever stand to one another on a footing at once more pleasant and more advantageous to their respective countries than has been the case with you and me. If, in these delicate Morocco negotiations, I had not been able to treat you with the absolute frankness and confidence that I did, no good result could possibly have been obtained, and this frankness and confidence were rendered possible only because of the certainty that you would do and advise what was wisest to be done and advised, and that you would treat all that was said and done between us two as a gentleman of the highest honour treats what is said and done in the intimate personal relations of life. If you had been capable of adopting one line of conduct as a private individual and another as a public man I should have been wholly unable to assume any such relations with you; nor, on the other hand, however high your standard of honour, could I have assumed them had I not felt complete confidence in the soundness and quickness of your judgment. The service you rendered was primarily one to France, but it was also a service to the world at large; and in rendering it you bore yourself as the ideal public servant should bear himself; for such a public servant should with trained intelligence know how to render the most effective service to his own country while yet never deviating by so much as a hand's breadth from the code of mutual good faith and scrupulous regard for the rights of others which should obtain between nations no less than between gentlemen. I do not suppose that you will ever gain any personal advantage, and perhaps not even any personal recognition, because of what you have done in the past year, but I desire that you should at least know my appreciation of it. (To Jusserand, April 25, 1906.) J. J. Jusserand, What Me Befell. (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1933), pp. 325-326.
____________. The Ambassador has been here for fifteen years, and he has fulfilled as very, very few Ambassadors have ever done, the two prime functions of an Ambassador—showing genuine devotion to his own country, and showing genuine purpose to do all that can be done for the country to which he is accredited.·The Ambassador has proved himself as able a servant of France as France has ever had in her long line of able servants. And he has also proved himself as loyal a friend of America as even France has produced since 1778.
We greet the Ambassador and through him we pay homage to France. Thank heaven, at last we stand shoulder to shoulder with France, as one hundred and forty years ago, in our hour of dark trial, the forefathers of the French of today stood shoulder to shoulder with our forefathers here. (At New York City, December 8, 1917.) Year Book of the Pennsylvania Society 1918. (Penna. Society, N. Y., 1918), P. 45.
The first requisite for the welfare of any community is justice; not merely legal justice, but ethical justice, moral justice, the kind of justice meant by the ordinary man when he says that he wishes fair play or a square deal. In order to get this justice it is absolutely necessary that there should be order; and there can be no order unless there is law, and unless the law is rigidly and honestly enforced. Crimes of greed and violence and crimes of greed and cunning must alike be repressed, for it makes no difference what form wrong-doing takes so long as it is wrong-doing; and important though it is to have good legislative and executive officers, it is even more important to have an upright, fearless, and independent judiciary, bent with whole-hearted and intelligent zeal upon serving the interests of all the people. Justice is based upon law and order, and without law and order there can be no justice. The triumph of disorder and lawlessness is certain in the end to mean not only the undoing of the reputable rich but the undoing of the reputable poor; and indeed the undoing of everybody, reputable or disreputable, for not even scoundrels can permanently flourish in a society in which the conditions have passed a certain degree of anarchy. But it must never be forgotten that law and order are not in themselves ends, but means toward obtaining justice. . . . Without law and order there can be no permanent justice; but law and order are good only when used to bring about such justice. (Outlook, February 25, 1911.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 110; Nat. Ed. XVII,74.
____________. We cannot afford to rest satisfied until all that the government can do has been done to secure fair dealing and equal justice as between man and man. In the great part which hereafter, whether we will or not, we must play in the world at large, let us see to it that we neither do wrong nor shrink from doing right because the right is difficult; that on the one hand we inflict no injury, and that on the other we have a due regard for the honor and the interest of our mighty nation; and that we keep unsullied the renown of the flag which beyond all others of the present time or of the ages of the past stands for confident faith in the future welfare and greatness of mankind. (At Colorado Springs, Col., August 2, 1901.) Mem. Ed. XV, 327; Nat. Ed. XIII, 458.
____________. We need to check the forces of greed, to insure just treatment alike of capital and of labor, and of the general public, to prevent any man, rich or poor, from doing or receiving wrong, whether this wrong be one of cunning or of violence. Much can be done by wise legislation and by resolute enforcement of the law. But still more must be done by steady training of the individual citizen, in conscience and character, until he grows to abhor corruption and greed and tyranny and brutality and to prize justice and fair dealing. (At Harrisburg, Pa., October 4, 1906.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 89; Nat. Ed. XVI, 75.
The ideal of elemental justice meted out to every man is the ideal we should keep ever before us. It will be many a long day before we attain to it, and unless we show not only devotion to it, but also wisdom and self-restraint in the exhibition of that devotion, we shall defer the time for its realization still further. (Before Republican Club of New York City, February 13, 1905.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 465; Nat. Ed. XVI, 346.
____________. This is a democracy, a government by the people, and the people have supreme power if they choose to exercise it. The people can get justice peaceably, if they really desire it; and if they do not desire it enough to show the wisdom, patience, and cool-headed determination necessary in order to get it peaceably, through the orderly process of law, then they haven't the slightest excuse for trying to get it by riot and murder. (To Victor A. Olander, Secretary- Treasurer, Illinois State Federation of Labor, July 17, 1917.) Mem. Ed. XXI, 176; Nat. Ed. XIX, 169.
The Department of Justice is now in very fact the Department of Justice, and justice is meted out with an even hand to great and small, rich and poor, weak and strong. Those who have denounced you and the action of the Department of Justice are either misled or else are the very wrong- doers, and the agents of the very wrong-doers, who have for so many years gone scot-free and flouted the laws with impunity. Above all, you are to be congratulated upon the bitterness felt and exprest towards you by the representatives and agents of the great law-defying corporations of immense wealth who, until within the last half dozen years, have treated themselves and have expected others to treat them as being beyond and above all possible check from law. (To Bonaparte, December 23, 1907.) Joseph B. Bishop, Charles J. Bonaparte. (Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y., 1922), p. 150.
Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong. (1916.) Mem. Ed. XX, 239; Nat. Ed. XVIII,
We know that there are in life injustices which we are powerless to remedy. But we know also that there is much injustice which can be remedied, and this injustice we intend to remedy. We know that the long path leading upward toward the light cannot be traversed at once, or in a day, or in a year. But there are certain steps that can be taken at once. These we intend to take. Then, having taken these first steps, we shall see more clearly how to walk still further with a bolder stride. We do not intend to attempt the impossible. But there is much, very much, that is possible in the way of righting wrong and remedying injustice, and all that is possible we intend to do. We intend to strike down privilege, to equalize opportunity, to wrest justice from the hands that do injustice, to hearten and strengthen men and women for the hard battle of life. (At Madison Square Garden, New York City, October 30, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 461; Nat. Ed. XVII, 338.
Justice and Legalism
Our prime concern is to get justice. When the spirit of mere legalism, the spirit of hair-splitting technicality, interferes with justice, then it is our highest duty to war against this spirit, whether it shows itself in the courts or anywhere else. The judge has no more right than any other official to be set up over the people as an irremovable and irresponsible despot. He has no more right than any other official to decide for the people what the people ought to think about questions of vital public policy, such as the proper handling of corporations and the proper methods of securing the welfare of farmers, wage workers, small business men, and small professional men. (Introduction dated July 1, 1912.) William L. Ransom, Majority Rule and the Judiciary. (Scribners, N. Y., 1912), pp. 4-5.
____________. Here again I ask you not to think of the mere legal formalism, but to think of the great immutable principles of justice, the great immutable principles of right and wrong, and to ponder what it means to men dependent for their livelihood, and to the women and children dependent upon these men, when the courts of the land deny them the justice to which they are entitled. (Before Ohio Constitutional Convention, Columbus, February 21, 1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 196; Nat. Ed. XVII, 147.
Justice and Mercy
It is even more necessary to temper mercy with justice than justice with mercy. (Review of Reviews, January 1897.) Mem. Ed. XVI, 382; Nat. Ed. XIII, 165.
See also Courts; Force; Industrial Justice; International Justice; Law; Loyalty; Lynching; Marshall, John; Social And Industrial Justice; Square Deal; Supreme Court .
The work of the juvenile court is really a work of character-building. It is now generally recognized that young boys and young girls who go wrong should not be treated as criminals, not even necessarily as needing reformation, but rather as needing to have their characters formed, and for this end to have them tested and developed by a system of probation. (Fourth Annual Message, Washington, December 6, 1904.) Mem. Ed. XVII, 266; Nat. Ed. XV, 229.