In the midst of the mounting evidence of graft, bribery, and corruption in\u00a0the federal government today, it Is well to remind ourselves that no political\u00a0party has a monopoly of this evl I. Twice before In our history scandals have\u00a0rocked the government, and on both of those earl ier occasions the Republicans\u00a0were in power. Clearly It is not either political party, as such, that is\u00a0to blame for the corruption, but the men and the methods that control the party\u00a0in power under given circumstances.<\/p>\n
The first great Washington scandal came in the administration of Ulysses\u00a0S. Grant, who was president for eight years from 1869 to 1877. Though himself\u00a0honest and scrupulous, Grant headed a regime in which graft was rampant. Before\u00a0the Investigations were over, not only department employees and bureau heads\u00a0had been implicated, but seven cabinet officers, a White House secretary, half\u00a0a dozen members of Congress, and several relatives and in-laws of the President\u00a0himself. Grant had been president only six months when Black Friday hit the\u00a0New York Stock Exchange. That panic resulted In an attempt by Jim Fisk and Jay\u00a0Gould to corner the nation’s supply of gold. They thought they had been able\u00a0to reach and fix A. R. Corbin, the President’s brother-In-law, who was Secretary\u00a0of the Treasury.<\/p>\n
Then wholesale bribery was revealed in the New York customs house, followed\u00a0by the multi-mlIlion dollar scandal of the company organized to build the Union\u00a0Pac i f I c Ra I I road. One of the p remote rs of th I s company was Cong res \u00a0sman Oakes\u00a0Ames of Massachusetts, who engineered gifts of Union Pacific stock to fellow\u00a0Congressmen I n exchange for the I r votes. One of the bene factors was S chy Ie r\u00a0Colfax, Vice-President of the United States.\u00a0A I I th i s had occurred be fore the elect i on of 1872 when Grant was a cand I …\u00a0date to succeed himself. His reelection was at once taken as free license to\u00a0plunder. He had done nothing 10 chase the crooks out of his first administration.<\/p>\n
At once the Navy Department began an orgy o,f squandering on ship repair\u00a0contracts. The whiskey ring, led by Grant’s own private secretary, Gen. O. E.\u00a0Babcock, plundered the government of more than four mill ion dollars in taxes.\u00a0War DepartmenT officials got mixed up in the Illegal, but highly profitable,\u00a0sale of weapons to France in the Franco-Prussian War. Shakedowns and kickbacks\u00a0were the common thing In trade with Indians; bribery and blackmal I accompanied\u00a0the collection of back taxes for the Treasury. Before Grant left office In the\u00a0spring of 1877, the scandals had implicated his attorney general and his secretary\u00a0of the Navy, War and Interior. There was scarcely any agency of the federal\u00a0government in Grant’s admin I stration that was not Invol ved in an t rregu I arlty\u00a0of some sort.<\/p>\n
Although no persons now alive remember from any personal recollection at\u00a0the time the scandals of the Grant regime, the Harding scandals are vivid In the\u00a0memory of a lOT of persons of my age. Whi Ie Harding was alive the corruption was\u00a0pretty well covered up, but soon after his death the scandals broke wide open.\u00a0The Veterans Bureau showed graft In hospital contracts, and its head, Col.\u00a0Charles Forbes, was convicted of fraud. Then the Teapot Dome scandal broke.\u00a0Secretary of The Interior, A Ibert Fa II, became party to a scheme to lease the\u00a0va I uab Ie 011 depos its in Wyoming to private interests led by Edward I\u00bbherty and\u00a0Harry Sinclair. Fall’s payment for his official part in the deal was to be\u00a0$300,000. He was convicted of accepting a bribe and went to prison.<\/p>\n
Thomas Mi Iler, custodian of alien property after World War I, was convicted\u00a0of accepting $50,000 from the former German owners of a 6 mi II ion dollar property,\u00a0for enTering into a deal to hand the property back to them. When Jess\u00a0Smith, a close associate of Attorney General Daugherty, committed sui ci de, the\u00a0investigators Thought they had better take a look in that dl rection. They found\u00a0$50,000 of the a lien property account had found Its way into Jess Smith’s bank\u00a0account. Then they learned that the Attorney General had control of the Smith\u00a0bank account.<\/p>\n
Now the present scandals in the Truman administration are following the\u00a001 d fami liar pattern. Notice that both the others followed immediate Iy after\u00a0the c lose of a great war, the Ci vi I War and Wor I d War I. Another great war\u00a0has now been fought. like his predecessors, Mr. Truman Inherited a government\u00a0with suddenly expanded powers and greatly expanded personnel. That sort of\u00a0thing necessitates delegation of more and more responslbl Ifty, and less opportun\u00a0tty to check on the subordinate’s performance.<\/p>\n
But there is more to It than that. Thus far Mr. Truman has shown no evidence\u00a0of being any more energetic and determined to clean up the corruption In\u00a0his administration than Grant and Harding were to clean up theirs. All three of\u00a0these presidents have a tendency to protect their appointees. All three appointed\u00a0to new positions men who were forced to resign from others. It seems\u00a0more than I d Ie rumor that Tom Murphy refused the profi,fered Job to head a cleanup\u00a0In ‘Bstigatlon because the President’s closest advisers persuaded him not to\u00a0give Murphy a free hand in naming his associates and employees In the pending\u00a0investigation.<\/p>\n
The honest and painstaking President Hayes cleaned up the Grant mess and\u00a0won back for the federal government the people’s respect. After Calvin Coolidge\u00a0appointed independent, non-political prosecutors to clean up the Hardl~g oil\u00a0scandals, the confidence of the nation returned. It can indeed be done again.\u00a0It I s not too late for Presl dent Truman h imse’ f to do it. I f he fa I Is, another\u00a0Hayes or another Coolidge will surely come along.<\/p>\n
So many I isteners have responded to my request for information about a\u00a0clock reel that I am really ashaned of my i~orance in asking the question.\u00a0It 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.\u00a0A clock reel was an old-time device for winding, and at the same time\u00a0measur ing, yam. The cl rcumference of the ree I was so arranged that, when a\u00a0knot of yam had been measured off, the reel gave a sharp click, the way a\u00a0clock strikes. Knowing how many kmots made a skein, the operator had only to\u00a0count the clicks to measure the skeins of yarn.<\/p>\n
Many I isteners have told me what a rocker Iron Is. I think the clearest\u00a0explanation is one written me by Mr. Jotham Hobbs of Fairfield. He says: “A\u00a0rocker Iron is a piece of iron fastened on the under side of the rocker, or\u00a0frontal beam, of a cart or sled, to turn on a similar piece of Iron fastened\u00a0on the front axle, held together by a king Din to permit free movement.”<\/p>\n
A Junk bottle, Mr. Hobbs fa lis me, Is a strong glass bottle for porter or\u00a0ale. But not a soul has come forward with Information about an Iron squim.<\/p>\n
We have devoted time lately to Fairfield, Sidney, Vassalboro, Oakland and\u00a0Clinton. It is time we turned again <\/em>to Watervi lie’s mother town of Winslow.\u00a0Through the courtesy of Mrs. William Abbott Smith, I have seen the Winslow\u00a0school report for 1879. The report is signed by the Supervisor of Schools,\u00a0A I den Bassett, who was, I am to I d, the father of my ne i ghbor, Mrs. I ra Be Iyea.<\/p>\n Winslow had 18 school districts In 1879, and some of them were in nearly\u00a0as bad shape as those school districts In Fairfield that I told you about a\u00a0few weeks ago. Supervisor Bassett summed up the situation In <\/em>these words: “The\u00a0success attending our schools is as good as can be expected when we consider\u00a0the fact that, in our eighteen districts, more than thirty different teachers\u00a0have been employed. There is no uniformity in textbooks, even within the same\u00a0school. In some of the schools the teachers have hurried their pupils over the\u00a0pages and they had little or no understanding of the principles.”<\/p>\n Supervisor Baseett had something to say about parents who side with their\u00a0children 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\u00a0obey a II the rules of the teacher, which are essential to the good of the scholar\u00a0and the sChool. But on entering some schools, we find scholars who think\u00a0their wishes should be consulted In regard to this and that; and finding, for\u00a0once In their lives, that their feelings are not regarded, they enter a complaint\u00a0to their parents, who think there is no one perfect but their own children.<\/p>\n 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.;,\u00b7,ent thus breaks the state law.\u00a0“Parents should see that their children are at school regularly and punctually.\u00a0When absence or tardiness cannot be explained by sickness, parents are\u00a0at fault. They should avoid speaking I II of the teacher in the presence of ‘ .\u00a0their chi Idren, for if the chi Id sees that his parents have no confidence In\u00a0the teacher, the schools falls to benefit him. The school does not depend upon\u00a0teacher or supervl sor; as are the parents, so is the schoo I.”\u00a0Each of the 18 districts had an agent, who really ran the school, with only\u00a0very general responslbi I ity to the supervisor. Some of those agents are we II\u00a0remembered Winslow names: George Blackwe II in District 1 j <\/em>Henry Pollard in District\u00a04; Wi II iam Warren in No.7; John Webber in No.9; W. V. Hayden In No. 12;\u00a0Alvah Wheeler In No. 15; and A. E. Ellis in No. 18.<\/p>\n As I have told you before when I talked about old school reports of other\u00a0towns, I am always amazed at the frankness with which those reports talk about\u00a0the teachers. Of Miss Eastman’s school this Winslaol report says: “I was not\u00a0told when the school would close, and I vIsited it but once. At that time the\u00a0appearance of the school was not flattering to Miss Eastman.” That was the fall\u00a0term. Miss Eastman gave way to a Miss Flagg in the winter term, of whom the\u00a0supervisor wrote: “The scholars could not pass a good examination, and the\u00a0order was not so good as It shou Id be In a we II regu lated school.”<\/p>\n Of Miss Merrill In District No.6, the supervisor was doubtful but not\u00a0wholly condemnatory. “This was Miss Herri II’s first school”, he reported. “She\u00a0labored hard, and with experience she may make a good teacher. In some branches\u00a0a fa Ir degree of improvement was made.”\u00a0He gave even more praise to Miss Lunt in District 7. He said: “Miss Lunt\u00a0Is a graduate of Portland High School. She labors hard and is a good Instructor.\u00a0The school passed a good examination at the close of the term.” Then the supervisor\u00a0makes iT appear that what he Is really doing Is damning with faint praise,\u00a0for he says: “If I was to find any fault it would be that the teacher is a\u00a0liTtle too mi I d in government.”<\/p>\n Miss Murray In District 8 got off even worse: “At each visit”, said the\u00a0supervisor, “The school seemed well disposed, but was not studious, and I think\u00a0bUT little proficiency was made in the studies.”\u00a0Even in District 10, where the teacher was a daughter of the district agent,\u00a0the supervisor minced no words. ”I was called to vIsit this school, and after\u00a0examln ing I t I thought it was not a profitab Ie term, and I advised the teacher\u00a0to close it.”\u00a0Of the teacher in District 2, The report says: “Although she had taught\u00a0two schools previous to this, she lacked judgment as a teacher, and but little\u00a0or no good res u Ited from th is schoo I \u2022 ”\u00a0Of Miss Harding in District 11, the supervisor. commented: “She offered\u00a0ass i stance to The pup i Is wh lie recl tlng, so that they rather depended on her.\u00a0Consequently The examination was not satisfactory. But, as this is Miss\u00a0Harding’s firST school, she no doubt wi II do better next time.”<\/p>\n By no means were all of these criticized teachers women. The supervisor\u00a0could be just as harsh when dealing with a man. This is what he wrote about\u00a0Wi II lam Furber In District 15: “At my fIrst visit, the school was In perfect\u00a0order, and the recitations were prompt; but soon afterward there seemed to be\u00a0a disposition with soma of the scholars to break up the school. I was called\u00a0to visit the school twice, and the last time expelled two scholars. Mr. Furber\u00a0had lost control, but after my Interference things went more smooth Iy. He may\u00a0yet make a successful teacher.”<\/p>\n When you encounter a report in which a supervisor gives adverse opinions\u00a0so frankly, you are incl fned to pay more attention to those whom he praises.\u00a0You get the Impression that his praise, like his blame, is completely sincere.\u00a0To MIss Minnie Smith in District No.5 he gtves very high praise. “I visited\u00a0the school near the commencement of the term”, he says, “and was pleased with\u00a0the order and instruction. The parents and scholars speak very highly of Miss\u00a0Smith as a teacher, and I have reason to be Ileve the term was successfu I. Mlss\u00a0Smith Is a graduate of the Waterville Classical Institute.”\u00a0Of Marcia Varney in District 3, the supervisor says: “She exhibits superIor\u00a0qua II ties as an instructor, and her schoo I was we II prepared, the scholars\u00a0showing that they had been well disciplined in their studies.”\u00a0High praise went to George IFlles in District 8: “The district was fortunate\u00a0in securing Mr. Ff les, who has taught this school several times successfully.\u00a0He is an active, hard working teacher, and gives his scholars many\u00a0practlca I questions to sol vee The scho I ars are to be commanded for the I r gent\u00a0leman Iy conduct.”<\/p>\n Miss Jennie Davies also met with Mr. Bassett’s approval. “Miss Davies is\u00a0a good Instructor and gave universal satisfaction. She teaches her scholars to\u00a0be respectfu I in the I r address, wh Ich I s too much neg lected by teachers generl'”\u00a0ally. This school was studious and passed a good examination.”<\/p>\n How well were these teachers paid? The highest paid teacher was Joseph\u00a0Garland In District 18, who got $11 a weekj George Files in District 8 got $8\u00a0a week; R. O. Jones in District 2 got $6; Wi Illam Furber In No. 15 got $5.\u00a0Miss MIAnle Smith was the highest pa I d woman teacher, gatt Ing $5 a week\u00a0in cash and board valued at $1.75 a week, a total of $6.75. The lowest paid\u00a0teacher was a girl in District 10, who got only $2.00 a week in cash and board\u00a0va lued at $1.25. That poor gi rl may have gone hungry more than once, because\u00a0the prevailing board rate throughout Winslow’s 18 school districts In 1879 was\u00a0$2.00 a week. Most of the teachers, In fact, received $3.00 a week in cash\u00a0and board valued at $2.00.<\/p>\n Even as late as 1879 there were large faml ffes on our Maine farms. Those\u00a0old district schools were by r:1O means so small as one might Imagine. If the\u00a0whole enrollment had been gathered into one school, there would have been 321\u00a0pupils under one roof. That Is an average of 18 pupils to every one of the 18\u00a0districts. There were In fact 48 pupi Is In Ofstrict 18; 29 in District 7; 27\u00a0in District 12. Onty two districts — No. 13 and No. 16 — had fewer than ten\u00a0pup i Is.<\/p>\n We II, anyhow, teach ing schex> I was a pretty tough Job seventy years ago.<\/p>\n Year: 1952<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Read the script for “Little Talks” program #133, broadcast on January 27,1952<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":405,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[787,35296],"tags":[],"builder_content":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7283"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/405"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/csc-home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}