Table Of ContentTHE SPEECHES OP LOUIS DEMBITZ BRANDEIS, 1908-1916
Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of the Ohio State
University
by
John Garber Drushal, A.B., M.A.
• *•?
• ••
The Ohio State University
1951
Approved by:
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
Preface . • . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . • . . • iv
Ch. Is Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Ch. II: The Speaker . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Ch. Ill: Audiences and Occasions . • • • . .. 72
Ch. IV: Speech M e t h o d s ................... . 103
Ch. Vs Speech Analysis: "The Ballinger
Investigation1* • • . . • .. . . . . . 116
Ch. Vis Speech Analysis: “The Constitution
and Minimum Wage" .......... . • • 145
Ch. VII: Speech Analysis: “The Five Percent
Case'*....................... 169
Ch. VIII: Speech Analysis: "True Americanism" • 190
Ch. IX: Speech Analysis: "The Jewish Problems
How to Solve It" . • • • • • . . . . 208
Gh. X: Speech Analysis: "The Living Law". . 231
Ch. XI: General Summary of Speeeh Patterns • 247
Ch. XII: Brandels* Impact on His Day • • • • 268
Ch. XIIIs Summary and Conclusions . • . . . » 291
Bibliography 301
Appendix A: Copy of the speech: "The Ballinger
Investigation" • • • • • • . . . . . 313
Appendix B: Copy of the speech: "The Constitution
and the Minimum Wage" . . . . . . . . 361
Appendix C: Copy of the speech: "The Five Per
Cent Case" » • • • • • • • • • • . . 391
Appendix D: Copy of the speech: "True Americanism" 468
Appendix Es Copy of the speech: "The Jewish Problem:
How to Solve It" . . . . . • . . . . . 478
11
ECZ4S5
Page
Appendix Fs Copy of speech: "The Living Law". . 503
Appendix Gs Chronological Table of Events in
the Life of Louis L, Brandeis . . * 520
Appendix H: Chronological Table of Events in
Court Confirmation Controversy . . 523
Appendix Is Some Important Speeches of Louis D*
Brandeis . . . . . ........... > . 524
PREFACE
When the name of Louis D. Brandeis is mentioned today,
most people remember him as the distinguished Justice of
the United States Supreme Court. Much of the material
written about him emphasizes the Court period and his out
standing contribution to jurisprudence from the Supreme
bench.
During the years, Brandeis* work on the Court has
forced into the background an equally distinguished career
as an advocate before the courts and in an earlier day as
a pleader of the people*s causes. From about 1897 until
he was appointed to the Supreme Court, Brandeis was engaged
continuously in a variety of campaigns, reforms, and public
enterprises. Very early in the century he took his place
on the national scene as an active leader in social, eco
nomic ^and political controversies.
This study has concentrated on the less known but
equally important period immediately prior to Brandeis*
entrance upon his judicial career. Examining Brandeis as
a public speaker, it has attempted to analyze the important
attributes which made him successful in this type of
activity.
A project of this kind, although bearing one author*s
name, is more than one man* s work. It is a pleasure to be
able to recognize here those who have helped along the way.
iv
V
The assistance of the faculty members on my advisory
committee has been both continuous and constructive. Pro
fessors Dayton £• Heckman and E. Allen Helms of the Depart
ment of Political Science read parts of the dissertation
and gave valuable counsel. Professors Earl Wiley, Henry
Moser, and William Utterback of the Department of Speech
have read the early drafts and given valuable assistance.
My advisor, Professor Harold P. Harding of the Department
of Speech, has been most generous of his time and very
helpful at each stage of the study. To make this record
complete, my gratitude to each of these men is recorded
here.
The librarians of the University of Louisville
(Kentucky) Law Library, Mrs, G-erald Kirven and Mary Jo
Arterberry, were very cordially cooperative during my
two visits. My special appreciation must be expressed
for their permission to work in the Brandeis collection
housed there.
During my visit to the Boston Public Library, John
M. Garroll, Deputy Supervisor of the Reference Division,
and the staff in the Patent Room gave generous and thor
ough assistance, making my work there more effioient.
The same is true of the staff in the New York Public
Library. Helen Newman, librarian for the United States
Supreme Court Library, has been helpful on my visits
there, and her valuable counsel and advice have been
Vi
very much, appreciated.
The inter-library loan service staff in the Ohio
State University library, in charge of Mrs. Mabel Crowe
Blake, was always prompt and cordial in its work. Maudie
Nesbitt, librarian at the College of Wooster, gave con
siderable time in inter-library loan services. The li
braries which loaned material were those of the State
University of Iowa, Northwestern University, Cornell Uni
versity, The Library of Congress, and the John Crerar Li
brary of Chicago. The staff members of the newspaper li
brary of the Ohio State Museum gave frequent assistance
both in making their own files available and in providing
microfilm services.
From time to time various members of the Brandeis
family, and others who knew him, have been most cordial
and gracious in granting time for interviews. These con
tributed greatly to the Interestingness *and completeness
of the study. These interviews were with Adele Brandeis,
at Louisville, Kentucky, June 6, 1950; Charles G. Burling-
ham, at New York, June 16, 1950; Clyde S. Gasady, at
Boston, June 13, 1950; Leilia Colburn, at Boston, June 14,
1950; Judd Dewey, at Boston, June 13, 1950; Joseph Gilbert,
at New York, June 16, 1950; and Louis B. Wehle, at New
York, June 16, 1950.
Those who have done the typing of the manuscripts,
Mrs. Ralph Wagner and Anne Genung of Wooster and Mae Star-
buck of Columbus, have been faithful and competent in
vii
their tedious assignments.
The members of my family have shown an amazing
tolerance to the demands of the academic life. They have
been inspired by my wife, Dorothy Whitted Drushal, who
must share the credit for an appreciation of the goal and
for the sacrifice to achieve it.
To all of these who have made the task both pleasant
and profitable, X record here my sincere gratitude.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1. Purpose
The purpose of this study is to present from the
point of view of the rhetorical critic an analysis of some
of the significant speeches of Louis Dembitz Brandeis during
the period 1908 to 1916*
2. Method
For many centuries the work of the rhetorician has
been the concern of scholars. From the early critic-
teachers of Greece through the rhetors of Rome and the
new education of the Renaissance, the study of public ad
dress has been as diverse in approach as it has been per
sistent. Professor Cooper noted in his introduction to
Plato*s Gorglas1 that rtan attack upon rhetoric was nothing
new, and Is perennial.” Aristotle was both a critic and
a teacher.® Cicero was both an orator and a critic of the
oratory of others.3 Legatees of this problem have striven
continuously to find a guiding rule by which the critic
could approach the study of public address with the assur
ance that he was following a path that at best would be
accepted by the orthodox, and at worst would be recognized
as standard by the noneonformists. To date no literary
scholar has found the formula of complete objectivity for
the critic, rhetorical or otherwise.
1
2
Although no complete answer to the question has been
found, certain principles of criticism have developed
through the years, so that at the present time the critic
has at least a starting point for his work. Though it is
not the purpose of this study to analyze the history of
rhetorical criticism in its attempt to develop these cri
teria, it is important at this point to consider the basis
for the study of public address in general, and more par
ticularly to present the methodology of this study.
During every period of political development, during
every era of man's modern culture, and in whatever degree
of educational advancement, public address has been recog
nized as one of the Integral functions of society. When
democracy flourished, it became the molder of public opinion
and the tool of the peoples* leaders and would-be leaders.
When iron hands throttled the voice of the people, public
address was still studied for its artistic achievement. In
modern times, since freedom of speech has been considered
one of the inherent conditions of a free society, public
address has been one of the major factors in shaping the
political and social patterns of any given era. It is true,
as Professor Wichelns pointed out, that newer methods of
mass communication are now In vogue. "But, human nature
being what It is," he continued, "there is no likelihood
that face to face persuasion will cease to be a principal
mode of exerting Influence, whether in courts, In senate-
houses, or on the platform." More significantly for this
study, Wichelns concluded the paragraph with these words 5
"It follows that the critical study of oratorical method
is the study, not of a mode outworn, but of a permanent
and important human activity."^
The place of the student of public address as a
critic has had an important development. Prom Lucian to
De Qnincey and later, there have been those for whom a
study of public address was "rhetorical play."® Hudson
suggested that the addition of the study of a persuasive
purpose makes a study an earnest endeavor. The principle
applied in other arts is basically applicable here.
"Critics ask where art comes from, how it becomes what it
is, and what it does...."® Thonssen and Baird noted that
this "impulse to critical inquiry" has developed among stu
dents of rhetoric, though its growth here has been more
sporadic than in some areas of study.**
It is worthwhile, therefore, for students of speech
and of public affairs to come to a better understanding of
the purpose and function of the speaker in modern society.
This is all the more true when the speaker plays an out
standing role in the political life of his era. The tech
niques of rhetorical criticism provide one approach to such
a goal.8
Several modern scholars have followed the Aristotelian
pattern as a basis for their approach to rhetorical criticism.9
