Ohio History Journal

NOTES 273

mitted to the local postmaster until such time as the government, convinced of loyalty,

would issue a permit exempting it. Dual language coverage was expensive and cumber-

some and the law had as its specific purpose not so much censorship as the death of

certain papers. This fact becomes clear when it is realized that some papers had their

permits within weeks, and returned to German-language war coverage only, whereas

others never received them at all, often because they lacked the necessary "connections."

See Carl Wittke, The German-Language Press in America (Lexington, 1957), 262-291.

53. Unsere Zeit, October 19, 1917.

BAKER ON THE FIFTH BALLOT?

THE DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE: 1932

The author is indebted to the Rutgers University Research Council and to the Penrose

Fund of the American Philosophical Society for grants which, in part, financed the

research for this article.

1. John W. Davis to Newton D. Baker, July 5, 1932. Box 84, Baker Papers, Library

of Congress. Jouett Shouse to Baker, July 7, 1932. Ibid., Box 85. Joseph Proskauer to

Baker, July [?], 1932. Ibid., Box 192. On April 30, 1932, Edward M. House wrote Walter

Lippmann that "... I am sure that many of those close to the Governor [Roosevelt] feel

about Newton Baker as I do, that if the nomination does not go to our man [Roosevelt]

it should go to him [Baker]." Copy in Baker Papers, Box 116. See also, House to Ralph

Hayes, May 4, 1932. Ibid. Louis Brownlow was similarly convinced that Baker was the

most acceptable alternative to Roosevelt; see Robert Woolley to House, March 23, 1931.

House Papers, Yale University Library. Thomas J. Walsh of Montana, a Roosevelt

supporter, also regarded Baker as the logical alternative; Walsh to James R. Bennett, Jr.,

April 8, 1931. Box 382, Walsh Papers, Library of Congress.

2. William E. Dodd to Josephus Daniels, December 22, 1931; Daniels to Hon. W. A.

Ayres, November 28, 1931; and Cordell Hull to Daniels, February 29, 1932. Boxes 660

and 661, Daniels Papers, Library of Congress. Cordell Hull to William G. McAdoo,

January 21, 1932. Box 364, McAdoo Papers, Library of Congress. McAdoo to House,

January 10, 1931; Robert W. Woolley to House, October 6, 1931, House Papers. Raymond

Moley to Mrs. Malcolm L. McBride, May 11, 1932, Moley Papers, in Mr. Moley's

possession.

Hull, e.g., wrote Josephus Daniels on February 29, 1932, "I think the leadership of

the combined opposition to Roosevelt is and will continue to be in the Smith-Raskob-

Du Pont group, which according to my belief favors a virtual merger of the two old

parties except as to prohibition. Should they succeed in destroying the candidate far

out in front and who stands in their way [Roosevelt], they would then dominate all

further proceedings and nominate whomsoever they want." The result, Hull feared, might

well be the dissolution of the Democratic party after 1932. Hull, it will be recalled, was

then Senator from Tennessee and had been chairman of the Democratic National Com-

mittee for some time in the 1920's. Daniels was editor of the Raleigh, N. C., News and

Observer and had served as Wilson's Secretary of the Navy.

3. Moley interview, September 1963, tape recorded; Tom L. Johnson, My Story, Eliza-

beth J. Houser, ed. (New York, 1913), 126,139, 172-73, 251-56, and 259-61. The best

general works available on Baker's career are: Frederick Palmer, Newton D. Baker:

America at War, 2 vols. (New York, 1931); Daniel R. Beaver, Newton D. Baker and

the American War Effort, 1917-1919 (Lincoln, 1966); and C. H. Cramer, Newton D.

Baker (Cleveland, 1961).

4. "The Candidacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt," New York Herald Tribune, January

9, 1932.

5. Hayes to Baker, November 12, 1931. Box 115, Baker Papers. "Yesterday I had

luncheon with Lippmann," Hayes wrote, "who is brooding over how his space in the

paper can be most effectively useful to you."

6. George F. Milton to J. F. T. O'Connor, July [?], 1932. Box 370, McAdoo Papers.

Milton to McAdoo, February 26, 1932. Ibid., Box 366. William E. Dodd to Baker,

March 24, 1932. Box 87, Baker Papers. D. F. Houston to Josephus Daniels, March 8,

1932. Box 665, Daniels Papers.

David F. Houston, who in 1932 was president of the Mutual Life Insurance Company

of New York, wrote, "I do not care for Roosevelt as a nominee. I think he has very

limited ability and that he is enormously ambitious. In many directions he shows bad

judgment and lack of courage. He sadly failed to take a position of firm leadership in

the mess in this city [New York] due to the Tammany bosses. He seems to wish to

run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. If I had to select a candidate right now, I

think I should prefer Newton Baker."

7. Interview with Raymond Moley, September, 1963.

8. Franklin D. Roosevelt to Daniels, May 14, 1932. Box 15, Daniels Papers.

9. Daniels to William E. Dodd, April 16, 1932. Ibid., Box 664.

274 OHIO HISTORY

10. Hayes to Baker, April 8, 1932. Box 116, Baker Papers. Allan Nevins wrote from

Columbia University that "In the circles where I travel here the repugnance to the

governor--the feeling that he is a spineless man--has become extremely strong. He

has greatly injured himself by the abusive reply to Rabbi Wise and Dr. Holmes, by

his radio speech, and by his veto of a fine civil service bill. I earnestly hope our party

convention will be swung to you at the right moment." Nevins to Baker, April 15, 1932.

Box 162, Baker Papers. See also, Nevins to Baker, April 24, 1931, ibid.; and Dodd to

Baker, March 24, 1932, ibid., Box 87.

11. Interview with Raymond Moley, January 20, 1965.

12. B. Howell Griswold to Baker, April 28, 1931. Box 109, Baker Papers. Hayes to

Baker, February 6, 1932, March 18, 1932, and June 7, 1932, ibid., Box 116. Norman

Hapgood to Hayes, February 16, 1932, ibid. Hayes to Baker, November 12, 1931. Box 4,

Hayes-Baker Correspondence, Library of Congress. Melvin Traylor to Daniels, July 9,

1932. Box 667, Daniels Papers. D. F. Houston to Daniels, March 8, 1932. Box 665,

Daniels Papers.

"When I was in New York the other day," Griswold wrote Baker, "I talked . . . with

several bankers--fortunately ones of fine character and patriotism--and somewhat

to my surprise (because I thought of their local predilections) they spoke of you as

to their minds the most satisfactory candidate the Democrats could find."

13. Patrick J. Hurley (Hoover's Secretary of War) to Baker, July 2, 1932, Box 123,

Baker Papers; and James Cox to Baker, July 15, 1932, ibid., Box 79.

Hurley expressed relief upon Roosevelt's nomination since, in his judgment, Baker

"would have been our most formidable opponent." Cox, a conservative Democrat and

the party's presidential nominee in 1920, observed that "There was a certain class of

business Republicans who do not want to vote for Hoover and who would have supported

any Democrat except Roosevelt. So far as I am able to observe, this vote will be lost

to us."

14. Editorial, New York World, June 30, 1924.

15. Byron R. Newton to Baker, March 5, 1931. Box 162, Baker Papers.

16. Edith Bolling Wilson to Baker, March 26, 1930. Box 235, Baker Papers. Gary

Grayson to Baker, August 9, 1932. Ibid., Box 108. H. F. Drugan to McAdoo, January

10, 1932. Box 363, McAdoo Papers.

17. Norman Davis to Baker, April 7, 1932. Box 83, Baker Papers.

18. Interview with Robert Jackson, December 26, 1963. See also, House to McAdoo,

January 6, 1931, and House to Woolley, April 22, 1931, House Papers.

19. Haves to Baker, March 24, 1932, and April 25, 1932. Box 116, Baker Papers.

Hayes to Baker, January 27, 1932. Box 4, Hayes-Baker Correspondence. Mark O. Watson

to Baker April 6, 1932. Box 226, Baker Papers. Mark Sullivan to Baker, April 14, 1932.

Ibid., Box 214. See also George Creel, Rebel at Large: Recollections of Fifty Crowded

Years (New York, 1947), 268; Cramer, Newton D. Baker, 236. The Scripps-Howard

chain's inability openly to endorse Baker is attributable to the fact that he was general

counsel for the organization. But Gibson Gardner, for many years head of NEA, a

Scripps-Howard subsidiary, was convinced that the entire organization would endorse

Baker at the propitious moment. See Woolley to House, October 6, 1931, House Papers.

20. Moley to Mrs. McBride, May 11, 1932, Moley Papers.

21. Hull to Daniels, February 29, 1932. Box 661, Daniels Papers.

22. John J. Raskob, "Radio Address, May 1932." Jouett Shouse Papers, University

of Kentucky Library, Lexington, Kentucky.

23. Raskob to Shouse, July 7, 1932, Shouse Papers.

24. Cramer, Newton D. Baker, 238-239, 252.

25. Anonymous source. In March 1931, Jouett Shouse told Robert Woolley at a

dinner at Shouse's home that Smith was the only Democratic possibility who could not

beat Hoover. Woolley to House, March 23, 1931, House Papers. And in March 1932,

Judge Joseph M. Proskauer told Newton D. Baker in New York that "Smith was not

only under no illusions about being nominated but did not desire a nomination, that

he had reached a judgment that Roosevelt was not adequate and felt an obligation as

a Party leader to offer himself as a rallying ground for opposition in default of any

other personality which seemed adequate." Baker to John H. Clarke, April 2, 1932.

Box 59, Baker Papers. On this point James A. Farley claims that Smith from first to

last was a serious contender. Interview, May 22, 1965. See also, for this latter point

of view, James A. Farley, "Selling Roosevelt to the Party," The American Magazine,

August, 1938, p. 106; and Frank Freidel, Franklin D. Roosevelt, The Triumph (Boston,

1956), 298, 311.

26. Hayes, though much younger than Baker, was a long-time friend who had

served under Baker in the Wilson administration.

27. Hayes to Baker, September 3, 1931. Box 4, Hayes-Baker Correspondence. Hayes

to Judge John H. Clarke, September 17, 1931, and Hayes to Baker, September 10, 1931.

Box 115, Baker Papers. In most such letters Hayes and Baker used a code system

denoting persons as "X", in the case quoted, Shouse; "Y", meaning Raskob; and "Z",

NOTES 275

Smith. There is no consistency from letter to letter and Hayes no longer recalls who is

represented by these letters. The writer has supplied names in these and certain other

letters that follow from internal and other evidence. Ralph Hayes to author, November

9, 1964.

28. Hayes was hardly naive when entering negotiations with the Smith group. He

recognized that Belle Moscowitz, Shouse, and Raskob essentially were loyal to Smith,

but that they knew Smith had little chance and therefore turned to Baker only as

"their sincere alternative." Hayes to John H. Clarke, September 17, 1931. Box 115,

Baker Papers.

29. Jouett Shouse to Mrs. Newton D. Baker, December 28, 1937, Shouse Papers.

Daniels to John Stewart Bryan, December 14, 1931, and Bryan to Daniels, December 15,

1931. Box 654, Daniels Papers.

30. Hayes to Baker, November 13, 1931, and Baker to Hayes, November 30, 1931.

Box 4, Hayes-Baker Correspondence. Baker to Hayes, December 24, 1931. Box 115,

Baker Papers. Cramer, Newton D. Baker, 229, 247-48.

31. Hayes to Baker, September 19, 1931. Box 115, Baker Papers.

32. Hayes to Baker, November 17, 1931, and January 27, 1932. Box 4, Hayes-Baker

Correspondence.

33. Norman Hapgood to Baker, October 22, 1931. Box 109, Baker Papers. Hayes to

Baker, February 6, 1932, April 8, 1932, and April 11, 1932. Ibid. Box 116.

34. Walter Lippmann, "The Democratic Party: IV, Roosevelt, Smith and Baker,"

New York Herald Tribune, February 12, 1932.

35. Hayes to Baker, January 27, 1932. Box 4, Hayes-Baker Correspondence. Baker

to Hayes, February 19, 1932, and Hayes to Baker, telegram, February 23, 1932. Box 116,

Baker Papers. Jonathan Daniels to Josephus Daniels, February 19, 1932. Box 660,

Daniels Papers.

36. Hayes to Baker, April 1, 1932. Box 116, Baker Papers. Hague is referred to as

"X" in the letter.

37. Hayes to Baker, April 12, April 19, and June 7, 1932; and Baker to Hayes,

April 14, 1932. Box 116, Baker Papers. Hayes to Baker, May 6, 1932. Box 5, Hayes-Baker

Correspondence. Hayes, like many others, had reservations about Baruch's degree of

commitment to his candidate. It was common knowledge, indeed Baruch conceded years

later, that Governor Ritchie was his first choice.

38. Hayes to Baker, May 23, 1932. Box 116, Baker Papers. The Harvard Crimson,

May 19, 1932; David M. Gordon, staff, Harvard Crimson, to author, April 28, 1965.

39. William E. Dodd to Josephus Daniels, February 18, 1932. Box 660, Daniels

Papers. John H. Clarke to Hayes, May 26, 1932. Box 116, Baker Papers. Surely Baker

and Ralph Hayes were well aware of the fact that they could not accept open endorse-

ment by the Smith group. Thus, when Al Smith and Roy Howard met in June 1932,

prior to Scripps-Howard endorsement of Smith, all were agreed, including Hayes,

"concerning both immediate and ultimate objectives." Hayes to Baker, telegram, June 9,

1932. Box 116, Baker Papers.

40. ". . . . The present moment," Baker wrote, "is one for cooperation, and not

for criticism. . . ." Baker to Mark Watson, June 25, 1931. Box 4, Hayes-Baker

Correspondence.

41. Baker to Byron R. Newton, October 7, 1932. Box 162, Baker Papers.

42. Key Pittman to H. R. Cooke, March 18, 1932. Box 11, Pittman Papers, Library

of Congress. Claude Bowers to Jouett Shouse, January 19, 1932, Shouse Papers.

Pittman of Nevada, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,

contended that "Baker's flop in his League of Nations stand did not help him with the

anti-Leaguers" and "injured him materially with President Wilson's strong admirers."

43. Folder: "League of Nations Statement: 1932," Box 146, Baker Papers. "A New

Boost for the Baker Boom," Literary Digest, February 6, 1932, p. 8.

44. Clarke to Baker, February 15, 1932, and Baker to Clarke, February 22, 1932.

Box 59, Baker Papers. Josephus Daniels to Rev. N. Collin Hughes, May 14, 1932. Box

665, Daniels Papers. Joseph P. Tumulty blasted both Baker and Roosevelt as candidates

who surrendered to the "devil of expediency." New York Times, February 18, 1932.

45. Baker to Norman C. Smith, March 17, 1932. Box 209, Baker Papers.

46. New York Herald Tribune, editorial, January 27, 1932, "The Week in the World"

(Mark Sullivan's column), January 30, 1932; Springfield (Mass.) Republican, editorial,

January 28, 1932; and Providence (R. I.) Journal, editorial, January 28, 1932. Clippings

are in Box 10, Hayes-Baker Correspondence.

Mark Sullivan's observations are particularly pertinent, since he was on intimate

terms with Hayes and Baker and, like many other Republicans, he hoped for Baker's

nomination. In commenting on Baker's statement, Sullivan observed that it "is generally

interpreted as meaning that he is willing to be drafted. . . . Newton Baker's attitude

toward the Democratic nomination and the presidency is concrete and clear . . . He

will take it if it is thrust upon him, but he will not seek it." The New York Herald

Tribune editorial concluded in a similar vein that Baker's statement on the League

276 OHIO HISTORY

"bears every earmark of careful deliberation and an intention to restore its maker to

the race from which he had eliminated himself by his insistent advocacy of the League

of Nations."

47. "Speech, F. D. Roosevelt before N.Y.S. Grange," February 2, 1932. In Box 662,

Josephus Daniels Papers. The best analysis of the speech is W. A. Warn's in the New

York Times, February 3, 1932.

48. Hayes to Baker, February 20, 1932, and Baker to Hayes, February 22, 1932. Box 4,

Hayes-Baker Correspondence,

49. An early draft of Roosevelt's speech before the Grange at Albany shows an even

firmer tone on the League and debts. "I am definite and clear that the United States

should not seek to join [the League]" is scratched out. On debts: "The first lesson for

all the world is recognition that a treaty is a treaty, that a debt is a debt, that these

cannot be broken in spirit any more than they should be broken in law; and that a

national debt of honor cannot be cancelled by the creditors . . . ." House Drawer 16,

Folder 47a, House Papers. The softening of the speech was the work of House. House

noted on the draft, evidently for the benefit of future historians: ". . . I disapproved of

the entire speech and in particular what he says and did say about the League of Nations."

For Baker's views on debts see: Baker to Norman Hapgood, January 12, 1932, Box 111,

Baker Papers; Baker to Mark S. Watson, June 25, 1931, Box 4, Hayes-Baker Corre-

spondence; the Baltimore Sun, June 21, 1931; and an article by Baker in Trade Winds,

September, 1926 (in Box 9, Hayes-Baker Correspondence).

50. Hayes to Baker, April 18, 1932, and Louis Brownlow to Hayes, April 15, 1932.

Box 116, Baker Papers. Woolley to House, February 2, 1932, House Papers.

51. Richard Lloyd Jones (editor, The Tulsa Tribune) to McAdoo, December 31, 1931.

Box 363, McAdoo Papers. Jones knew Baker since college fraternity days.

52. National Popular Government League, Bulletin No. 150, July 22, 1931. Box 72,

Judson King Papers, Library of Congress. See also Bulletin No. 147, April 18, 1931,

and Judson King to J. D. Ross, November 21, 1932. Tray 69, Box 3, Norris Papers,

Library of Congress.

53. Judson King to National Popular Government League members, April 20, 1932.

Box 72, King Papers. See also Bulletin No. 115, June 21, 1932.

54. Daniels to King, February 18, 1931, and Felix Frankfurter to King, February 4,

1931. Box 2, King Papers. Keating is quoted in Walter Aitken to Thomas J. Walsh,

January 17, 1932. Box 382, Walsh Papers.

55. National Popular Government League, Bulletin No. 153, "Power Records of the

Presidential Candidates," March 18, 1932. Mrs. Bertha King describes the meeting at

which the decision was reached to stress Roosevelt's power record as opposed to that

of the other candidates in a handwritten note in: "Special Series, Correspondence

between W. Frank James and Constituents, 1930," attached to letter by Bertha King

to Baron Lyons, n.d. Box 60, King Papers.

56. King to Josephus Daniels, January 19, 1932. Box 661, Daniels Papers.

57. Thomas J. Walsh to Hon. Walter Aitken, January 27, 1932. Box 382, Walsh

Papers.

58. Memorandum, Baker to T. L. Sidlo, December 5, 1931. Box 209, Baker Papers.

See also Baker to David Y. Thomas (University of Arkansas), January 8, 1932. Ibid.,

Box 216.

59. Newton Baker to Frank Baker, July 31, 1931. Ibid., Box 36. Baker to Hayes,

July 1, 1931. Ibid., Box 115.

60. Baker to Hapgood, February 18, 1932. Ibid., Box 111.

61. Hayes to Baker, April 8, 1932. Box 5, Hayes-Baker Correspondence. Hayes to

Baker, September 18, 1931. Ibid., Box 4.

62. The entire Baker-Gompers exchange is printed in Correspondence Between Mr.

Newton D. Baker ... and Mr. Samuel Gompers ... (Washington, D. C., 1923). Copy in

New York Public Library.

63 The Wickersham Commission on Law Enforcement was appointed by President

Hoover to examine the prohibition problem. Its report at best was a muddled affair which

urged the enforcement of prohibition legislation while cautioning that it could not be

enforced. Baker in a separate opinion urged prohibition repeal.

64. Hayes to Rabbi Stephen Wise, November 7, 1931. Box 115, Baker Papers.

65. Baker to Mrs. Henry P. Talbot, June 25, 1932. Box 183, Baker Papers.

66. Baker wrote to Hayes on April 14, 1932 that he would prefer Roosevelt's

nomination to a "protracted conflict at Chicago." Box 4, Hayes-Baker Correspondence.

Roosevelt, as we shall soon see, was similarly inclined vis-a-vis Baker and offered to

support him before he learned of the Hearst-Garner-McAdoo switch.

67. McAdoo to Bernard Baruch, January 11, 1932, and McAdoo to W. E. Gonzales,

February 17, 1932. Boxes 364 and 365, McAdoo Papers. McAdoo to House, November

5, 1928, and March 18, 1931, House Papers. Hayes to Baker, quoting a Mark Sullivan

interview with McAdoo, May 13, 1932. Box 116, Baker Papers. W. W. McDowell

(former governor of Montana and friend of McAdoo) to Thomas J. Walsh, July 28, 1931,

and W. W. Lyter to Walsh, June 6, 1932. Box 383, Walsh Papers.

NOTES 277

68. McAdoo to House, January 10, 1931, House Papers. See also, McAdoo to Angus

Press Clipping Bureau, January 25, 1932. Box 364, McAdoo Papers.

69. McAdoo to William D. Upshaw, December 30, 1931, McAdoo to Brice Clagett,

January 23, 1932, and McAdoo to Richard W. Lewis, January 26, 1932. Boxes 363 and

364, McAdoo Papers. Woolley to House, July 9, 1932, House Papers.

70. "Memorandum," Box 568, McAdoo Papers.

71. Belle Moscowitz to Mrs. Guy Montgomery, June [?], 1932. Belle Moscowitz

Papers, Connecticut College for Women, New London.

72. Shouse to Baker, July 7, 1932. Box 85, Baker Papers. Hapgood to Frankfurter,

July 8, 1932. Ibid., Box 111. W. E. Woodward to McAdoo, November 18, 1932. Box 377,

McAdoo Papers. In subsequent years Shouse changed his mind and became convinced

that the Smith delegate strength would have gone to Garner. Interview with Jouett

Shouse, December 28, 1965.

73. "Memorandum," Brice Clagett, February 22, 1933. Box 380, McAdoo Papers.

74. States about to switch to Baker included Kansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Oklahoma,

Indiana, Alabama, North Carolina and possibly Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia. Hayes

to Clarke, July 6, 1932. Box 116, Baker Papers. Sennett Conner, Governor of Mississippi,

wrote Hayes on July 15, 1932 that the Mississippi delegation had been polled and

decided to cast its twenty votes for Baker on the fourth ballot. Box 116, Baker Papers.

W. A. White to Hayes, July 18, 1932, ibid.; Josephus Daniels to Hayes, July 7, 1932,

Box 665, Daniels Papers; W. D. Harris to Baker, July 1, 1932, Box 192, Baker Papers;

James Cox to Baker, July 15, 1932, ibid., Box 79; Paul V. McNutt to Baker, July 15, 1932,

ibid., Box 192; John W. Davis to Baker July 5,1932, ibid., Box 84.

75. Baker to John Stewart Bryan, August 6, 1932, ibid., Box 47.

76. McAdoo to John N. Garner, December 29, 1931, and McAdoo to Theodore H.

Price, January 8, 1932. Box 363, McAdoo Papers. Esther Everett Lape to Josephus

Daniels, July 13, 1932. Box 663, Daniels Papers. Edmund D. Coblentz, ed., William

Randolph Hearst (New York 1952), 124-140. W. A. Swanberg, Citizen Hearst (New

York, 1961), 146-47. McAdoo told Breckinridge Long three days before the convention

met that he would not help the Roosevelt cause "unless Baker became a real threat."

Long to Pittman, July 5, 1932. Box 149, Pittman Papers.

77. For a discussion of this concept, see Elliot A. Rosen, "Intranationalism vs. Inter-

nationalism: The Interregnum Struggle for the Sanctity of the New Deal," Political

Science Quarterly, LXXXI (June 1966), 274-297.