Radio Script #133
Little Talks On Common Things
January 27,1952
In the midst of the mounting evidence of graft, bribery, and corruption in the federal government today, it Is well to remind ourselves that no political party has a monopoly of this evl I. Twice before In our history scandals have rocked the government, and on both of those earl ier occasions the Republicans were in power. Clearly It is not either political party, as such, that is to blame for the corruption, but the men and the methods that control the party in power under given circumstances.
The first great Washington scandal came in the administration of Ulysses S. Grant, who was president for eight years from 1869 to 1877. Though himself honest and scrupulous, Grant headed a regime in which graft was rampant. Before the Investigations were over, not only department employees and bureau heads had been implicated, but seven cabinet officers, a White House secretary, half a dozen members of Congress, and several relatives and in-laws of the President himself. Grant had been president only six months when Black Friday hit the New York Stock Exchange. That panic resulted In an attempt by Jim Fisk and Jay Gould to corner the nation’s supply of gold. They thought they had been able to reach and fix A. R. Corbin, the President’s brother-In-law, who was Secretary of the Treasury.
Then wholesale bribery was revealed in the New York customs house, followed by the multi-mlIlion dollar scandal of the company organized to build the Union Pac i f I c Ra I I road. One of the p remote rs of th I s company was Cong res sman Oakes Ames of Massachusetts, who engineered gifts of Union Pacific stock to fellow Congressmen I n exchange for the I r votes. One of the bene factors was S chy Ie r Colfax, Vice-President of the United States. A I I th i s had occurred be fore the elect i on of 1872 when Grant was a cand I … date to succeed himself. His reelection was at once taken as free license to plunder. He had done nothing 10 chase the crooks out of his first administration.
At once the Navy Department began an orgy o,f squandering on ship repair contracts. The whiskey ring, led by Grant’s own private secretary, Gen. O. E. Babcock, plundered the government of more than four mill ion dollars in taxes. War DepartmenT officials got mixed up in the Illegal, but highly profitable, sale of weapons to France in the Franco-Prussian War. Shakedowns and kickbacks were the common thing In trade with Indians; bribery and blackmal I accompanied the collection of back taxes for the Treasury. Before Grant left office In the spring of 1877, the scandals had implicated his attorney general and his secretary of the Navy, War and Interior. There was scarcely any agency of the federal government in Grant’s admin I stration that was not Invol ved in an t rregu I arlty of some sort.
Although no persons now alive remember from any personal recollection at the time the scandals of the Grant regime, the Harding scandals are vivid In the memory of a lOT of persons of my age. Whi Ie Harding was alive the corruption was pretty well covered up, but soon after his death the scandals broke wide open. The Veterans Bureau showed graft In hospital contracts, and its head, Col. Charles Forbes, was convicted of fraud. Then the Teapot Dome scandal broke. Secretary of The Interior, A Ibert Fa II, became party to a scheme to lease the va I uab Ie 011 depos its in Wyoming to private interests led by Edward I»herty and Harry Sinclair. Fall’s payment for his official part in the deal was to be $300,000. He was convicted of accepting a bribe and went to prison.
Thomas Mi Iler, custodian of alien property after World War I, was convicted of accepting $50,000 from the former German owners of a 6 mi II ion dollar property, for enTering into a deal to hand the property back to them. When Jess Smith, a close associate of Attorney General Daugherty, committed sui ci de, the investigators Thought they had better take a look in that dl rection. They found $50,000 of the a lien property account had found Its way into Jess Smith’s bank account. Then they learned that the Attorney General had control of the Smith bank account.
Now the present scandals in the Truman administration are following the 01 d fami liar pattern. Notice that both the others followed immediate Iy after the c lose of a great war, the Ci vi I War and Wor I d War I. Another great war has now been fought. like his predecessors, Mr. Truman Inherited a government with suddenly expanded powers and greatly expanded personnel. That sort of thing necessitates delegation of more and more responslbl Ifty, and less opportun tty to check on the subordinate’s performance.
But there is more to It than that. Thus far Mr. Truman has shown no evidence of being any more energetic and determined to clean up the corruption In his administration than Grant and Harding were to clean up theirs. All three of these presidents have a tendency to protect their appointees. All three appointed to new positions men who were forced to resign from others. It seems more than I d Ie rumor that Tom Murphy refused the profi,fered Job to head a cleanup In ‘Bstigatlon because the President’s closest advisers persuaded him not to give Murphy a free hand in naming his associates and employees In the pending investigation.
The honest and painstaking President Hayes cleaned up the Grant mess and won back for the federal government the people’s respect. After Calvin Coolidge appointed independent, non-political prosecutors to clean up the Hardl~g oil scandals, the confidence of the nation returned. It can indeed be done again. It I s not too late for Presl dent Truman h imse’ f to do it. I f he fa I Is, another Hayes or another Coolidge will surely come along.
So many I isteners have responded to my request for information about a clock reel that I am really ashaned of my i~orance in asking the question. It appears there are a dozen or more old clock reels in the homes of this area,and one of them is on publ Ie exhibition at the Redington Museum of the WateNrf\’-‘vi lie HI storlea I Soc lety. A clock reel was an old-time device for winding, and at the same time measur ing, yam. The cl rcumference of the ree I was so arranged that, when a knot of yam had been measured off, the reel gave a sharp click, the way a clock strikes. Knowing how many kmots made a skein, the operator had only to count the clicks to measure the skeins of yarn.
Many I isteners have told me what a rocker Iron Is. I think the clearest explanation is one written me by Mr. Jotham Hobbs of Fairfield. He says: “A rocker Iron is a piece of iron fastened on the under side of the rocker, or frontal beam, of a cart or sled, to turn on a similar piece of Iron fastened on the front axle, held together by a king Din to permit free movement.”
A Junk bottle, Mr. Hobbs fa lis me, Is a strong glass bottle for porter or ale. But not a soul has come forward with Information about an Iron squim.
We have devoted time lately to Fairfield, Sidney, Vassalboro, Oakland and Clinton. It is time we turned again to Watervi lie’s mother town of Winslow. Through the courtesy of Mrs. William Abbott Smith, I have seen the Winslow school report for 1879. The report is signed by the Supervisor of Schools, A I den Bassett, who was, I am to I d, the father of my ne i ghbor, Mrs. I ra Be Iyea.
Winslow had 18 school districts In 1879, and some of them were in nearly as bad shape as those school districts In Fairfield that I told you about a few weeks ago. Supervisor Bassett summed up the situation In these words: “The success attending our schools is as good as can be expected when we consider the fact that, in our eighteen districts, more than thirty different teachers have been employed. There is no uniformity in textbooks, even within the same school. In some of the schools the teachers have hurried their pupils over the pages and they had little or no understanding of the principles.”
Supervisor Baseett had something to say about parents who side with their children against every teacher. He wrote: “In a well regulated school, govern …ment Is one of the first requisites. Children sent to school are expected to obey a II the rules of the teacher, which are essential to the good of the scholar and the sChool. But on entering some schools, we find scholars who think their wishes should be consulted In regard to this and that; and finding, for once In their lives, that their feelings are not regarded, they enter a complaint to their parents, who think there is no one perfect but their own children.
The parent sympathizes with the child, is sure the teacher is wrong,and won’t send the chi I d to that teacher. The ch i I d stays at home and the par.;,·,ent thus breaks the state law. “Parents should see that their children are at school regularly and punctually. When absence or tardiness cannot be explained by sickness, parents are at fault. They should avoid speaking I II of the teacher in the presence of ‘ . their chi Idren, for if the chi Id sees that his parents have no confidence In the teacher, the schools falls to benefit him. The school does not depend upon teacher or supervl sor; as are the parents, so is the schoo I.” Each of the 18 districts had an agent, who really ran the school, with only very general responslbi I ity to the supervisor. Some of those agents are we II remembered Winslow names: George Blackwe II in District 1 j Henry Pollard in District 4; Wi II iam Warren in No.7; John Webber in No.9; W. V. Hayden In No. 12; Alvah Wheeler In No. 15; and A. E. Ellis in No. 18.
As I have told you before when I talked about old school reports of other towns, I am always amazed at the frankness with which those reports talk about the teachers. Of Miss Eastman’s school this Winslaol report says: “I was not told when the school would close, and I vIsited it but once. At that time the appearance of the school was not flattering to Miss Eastman.” That was the fall term. Miss Eastman gave way to a Miss Flagg in the winter term, of whom the supervisor wrote: “The scholars could not pass a good examination, and the order was not so good as It shou Id be In a we II regu lated school.”
Of Miss Merrill In District No.6, the supervisor was doubtful but not wholly condemnatory. “This was Miss Herri II’s first school”, he reported. “She labored hard, and with experience she may make a good teacher. In some branches a fa Ir degree of improvement was made.” He gave even more praise to Miss Lunt in District 7. He said: “Miss Lunt Is a graduate of Portland High School. She labors hard and is a good Instructor. The school passed a good examination at the close of the term.” Then the supervisor makes iT appear that what he Is really doing Is damning with faint praise, for he says: “If I was to find any fault it would be that the teacher is a liTtle too mi I d in government.”
Miss Murray In District 8 got off even worse: “At each visit”, said the supervisor, “The school seemed well disposed, but was not studious, and I think bUT little proficiency was made in the studies.” Even in District 10, where the teacher was a daughter of the district agent, the supervisor minced no words. ”I was called to vIsit this school, and after examln ing I t I thought it was not a profitab Ie term, and I advised the teacher to close it.” Of the teacher in District 2, The report says: “Although she had taught two schools previous to this, she lacked judgment as a teacher, and but little or no good res u Ited from th is schoo I • ” Of Miss Harding in District 11, the supervisor. commented: “She offered ass i stance to The pup i Is wh lie recl tlng, so that they rather depended on her. Consequently The examination was not satisfactory. But, as this is Miss Harding’s firST school, she no doubt wi II do better next time.”
By no means were all of these criticized teachers women. The supervisor could be just as harsh when dealing with a man. This is what he wrote about Wi II lam Furber In District 15: “At my fIrst visit, the school was In perfect order, and the recitations were prompt; but soon afterward there seemed to be a disposition with soma of the scholars to break up the school. I was called to visit the school twice, and the last time expelled two scholars. Mr. Furber had lost control, but after my Interference things went more smooth Iy. He may yet make a successful teacher.”
When you encounter a report in which a supervisor gives adverse opinions so frankly, you are incl fned to pay more attention to those whom he praises. You get the Impression that his praise, like his blame, is completely sincere. To MIss Minnie Smith in District No.5 he gtves very high praise. “I visited the school near the commencement of the term”, he says, “and was pleased with the order and instruction. The parents and scholars speak very highly of Miss Smith as a teacher, and I have reason to be Ileve the term was successfu I. Mlss Smith Is a graduate of the Waterville Classical Institute.” Of Marcia Varney in District 3, the supervisor says: “She exhibits superIor qua II ties as an instructor, and her schoo I was we II prepared, the scholars showing that they had been well disciplined in their studies.” High praise went to George IFlles in District 8: “The district was fortunate in securing Mr. Ff les, who has taught this school several times successfully. He is an active, hard working teacher, and gives his scholars many practlca I questions to sol vee The scho I ars are to be commanded for the I r gent leman Iy conduct.”
Miss Jennie Davies also met with Mr. Bassett’s approval. “Miss Davies is a good Instructor and gave universal satisfaction. She teaches her scholars to be respectfu I in the I r address, wh Ich I s too much neg lected by teachers generl'” ally. This school was studious and passed a good examination.”
How well were these teachers paid? The highest paid teacher was Joseph Garland In District 18, who got $11 a weekj George Files in District 8 got $8 a week; R. O. Jones in District 2 got $6; Wi Illam Furber In No. 15 got $5. Miss MIAnle Smith was the highest pa I d woman teacher, gatt Ing $5 a week in cash and board valued at $1.75 a week, a total of $6.75. The lowest paid teacher was a girl in District 10, who got only $2.00 a week in cash and board va lued at $1.25. That poor gi rl may have gone hungry more than once, because the prevailing board rate throughout Winslow’s 18 school districts In 1879 was $2.00 a week. Most of the teachers, In fact, received $3.00 a week in cash and board valued at $2.00.
Even as late as 1879 there were large faml ffes on our Maine farms. Those old district schools were by r:1O means so small as one might Imagine. If the whole enrollment had been gathered into one school, there would have been 321 pupils under one roof. That Is an average of 18 pupils to every one of the 18 districts. There were In fact 48 pupi Is In Ofstrict 18; 29 in District 7; 27 in District 12. Onty two districts — No. 13 and No. 16 — had fewer than ten pup i Is.
We II, anyhow, teach ing schex> I was a pretty tough Job seventy years ago.
Year: 1952