While father stated many times that he "hated" business he possessed
excellent business acumen, especially when this talent was exercised in
behalf of others. His dislike for business routine was undoubtedly due to
the fact that his fundamental philosophy was altruistic.
His chief interest was centered upon the building of men and women, not
in the process to make them solely self-supporting, but to develop character,
to instill in them an appreciation of the fundamental values of life. He
had little sympathy with the motive to acquire an education for the purpose
of getting something for nothing.
He knew definitely when he established the Ferris Institute that as long
as he adhered to his plan to offer educational facilities to the underprivileged
at a nominal cost that he would never accumulate a great amount of wealth.
Constructed as he was, money meant comparatively little to him.
For many years he was President of the Big Rapids Savings Bank. He did not
seek this responsibility, rather was it [sic] thrust upon him by
members of his family. As a banker he was meticulous in the performance
of his duties and insisted likewise that the directors and employees should
overlook no opportunity to be of service to the bank and to the public.
He could be and was at times a hard task-master when he was convinced the
occasion demanded it. His rigid adherence to what he believed was good banking
practice was in part due to his realization of the fact that he was acting
as a trustee for others.
When it came to the administration of his own financial affairs, he was
not as careful and cautious as he was when handling some matter for others,
with the result that he was not infrequently imposed upon. The finances
of the Institute, however, were always administered in a businesslike way.
Here, nevertheless, he permitted himself a high degree of elasticity in
dealing with the indebtedness or financial problems of his students.
Literally hundreds of old students could testify to the fact that when he
learned of their financial straits and they were conscientious and worthy,
he would step into the breach and loan them enough money to carry on, taking
only their personal note, very seldom endorsed or accompanied by any security
aside from their personal character. Seldom indeed did a man or woman disappoint
him so far as repayment is concerned.
While he was known as a "school master" he had a thorough knowledge
of good business practice, was conservative and cautious and possessed extraordinary
ability to analyze character. As a result he was always able to meet any
financial emergency which arose either in his own affairs or those of others.
His close watch over the administration of the finances of the State while
Governor testify to his Puritan conception of a Trusteeship.
Especially after he entered the political field he could, had he desired,
commanded a large annual income from his appearance on the platform. The
fees which he exacted were all out of proportion to those received by many
men who could not even approach his ability as a platform speaker. Time
and again I urged him to increase his fees and while he finally did to some
extent, it was largely to protect himself against more calls upon his services
than he felt he could fill. While a member of the Senate he made comparatively
few platform appearances except in the interims between sessions. He felt
that his duty to his State was paramount.
In his home town emergencies arose from time to time requiring financial
support to be given to some local project as is the case all over the country.
Father always contributed generously, sometimes even against his better
judgment. These projects, especially those directed toward industrial expansion
did not always turn out successfully, but resulted in loss to the citizens,
again an occurrence not infrequent in other communities.
He entertained no prejudice against wealth or those who possessed it, provided
it was earned. He was thoroughly opposed to anything that savored of greed,
unfair advantage, monopolistic practices in business and private exploitation
of natural resources. He was likewise opposed to the perpetuation of large
accumulations of wealth and as a result was a believer in appreciable inheritance
taxes.
Insomuch as he thoroughly believed that work was the salvation of mankind,
he felt that not infrequently inheritance of appreciable wealth was a handicap.
His experiences in dealing with the children of wealthy parents was probably
a factor in determining his conclusions.
He believed absolutely in the doctrine of self-help, that every man and
woman should stand on their own feet, overcome obstacles and fight their
way through. I have often wondered what would be his reaction to present
day conditions.
While he was always the champion of the "under dog", the under-privileged
class, the common man who does manual labor, his sense of justice could
not countenance violence and the destruction of property. He demonstrated
that to the satisfaction and approval of the people of Michigan during the
great copper strike. He believed that permanent industrial peace can come
only through mutual negotiation and agreement and not through legislative
action.
I use the word "medicine" in accordance with the broad definition
appearing in Gould's Medical Dictionary, "The science of the treatment
of disease; the healing art." Father had an insatiable desire for knowledge
of the physical and mental makeup of human beings. His main objective in
pursuing a medical course at the University of Michigan was to use the knowledge
thus acquired in the educational field. While he did not graduate he went
far enough to acquire a thorough knowledge of the fundamentals and throughout
his life maintained an exceptional interest in medicine, surgery, psychology
and in particular mental diseases.
His medical library was appreciable and up to date. He was a regular subscriber
to the leading medical journals and read them. On account of his medical
training supplemented by his subsequent study and research, he was able
to quickly recognize mental ineptitude in his students due to physical disabilities
which were interfering with mental progress. In such cases he would advise
consultation with a reputable physician. Had he cared to he could have been
an excellent physician particularly in the field of diagnosis.
His knowledge of medicine coupled with the ability to make decisions quickly
saved the life of my mother shortly after the birth of my brother Phelps.
There was a trained nurse in the home at the time, but mother not wishing
to bother her, went to the medicine cabinet in semi-darkness and by mistake
took an overdose of aconite, a deadly poison. I can remember her announcing
calmly to my father what she had done and his consternation, but he avoided
showing it to her. He called the nurse, gave her specific instructions and
himself prepared an antidote and various emetics and administered them.
While several physicians had been called immediately father's prompt action
had eliminated most of the poison before they arrived to follow through
with additional relief measures. He was always a tower of strength in an
emergency.
His interest in physiology was intense, but even more was he interested
in the study of the human mind, its abnormalities as well as its normal
attributes. While Governor he devoted a great deal of his time to study
and investigation of pardon and parole cases. His library is exceedingly
replete with hundreds of volumes dealing with Criminology and Psychology.
His knowledge and experience in this field enabled him to diagnose these
cases with remarkable accuracy.
He visited the prisons and various State institutions with regularity. Seldom
did he give the Wardens advance notice of his intentions, but would appear
suddenly unannounced and thus was afforded the opportunity to observe prison
and institutional routine as it really was insomuch as the absence of advance
notice prevented the preparation of any special scenery for his benefit.
His study of pardon and parole cases revealed to him phases of legal procedure
which caused him considerable wonder, if not concern. Once I remember he
ran across a couple of cases involving conviction for the commitment of
the same crime, but in one instance the sentence imposed was far more severe
than in the other. Father said he guessed the reason was that the Judge
in one case was disgruntled that particular day or was feeling sub-normal
and as a result gave one prisoner the limit while in the other case the
Judge was feeling good and dispensed justice with mercy. In dealing with
these cases he was not influenced by sentiment, but by facts substantiated
by credible evidence. He had a keen sense of justice as evidenced by the
conditions precedent which he laid down before the release of prisoners
on parole. I remember one case in particular which is typical. The prisoner
had committed embezzlement. As a result, the business in which the prisoner
himself was a partner was practically ruined, leaving the remaining partners
stranded.
While in prison this offender developed a natural talent as an author and
gradually his stories were in great demand and appeared in a number of the
leading publications of the country. His talent was not a flash in the pan
but remained consistently stable. Remuneration in appreciable sums began
to roll in and the prisoner was rapidly building a very substantial income.
When he became eligible for parole and made application therefore, he ran
up against definite conditions precedent in addition to the usual routine
requirements. The Governor insisted first that the individual should abstain
upon his release from appearing before audiences of any kind for the purpose
of exploiting his experiences in prison. In other words any showmanship
or undue publicity was barred.
He advised the prisoner to continue to develop his talent as a writer, but
most important of all was the stipulation that at regular intervals he was
to make payments to his former partners to apply on the sum he had embezzled
from the firm. The fact that the applicant for parole had served an appreciable
part of his sentence did not satisfy the "Good Gray Governor".
If he approved the parole, he wished to be assured that the prisoner would
make restitution so far as he was able to do so.
He pursued the same methods in dealing with his student body. He always
became impatient when some student who had committed some offense would
say "I'm sorry". This alone never placated him. He would insist
that to content one's self by merely saying "I'm sorry" was of
little avail unless accompanied by a definite effort to right the wrong.
The partial autobiography of Woodbridge N. Ferris ends with a brief recital
of the essential facts concerning his election to the Senate in the Fall
of 1922.
I do not know whether he prepared any record of his experiences or his reactions
to the functioning of the Senate or not. If he did, no trace of it is in
my possession. He did, however, often comment to me either orally or through
correspondence on personnel, events and policies. Some of the extracts from
his letters to me during the approximately five years of his incumbency
of a Senatorial seat provide some interesting sidelights, interesting not
because of the events he refers to, but because his comments reveal in part
his character and philosophy.
His experiences as a member of the Senate of the United States were not
particularly pleasing to him, except his contacts with a number of Senators
whose abilities and characters he greatly admired.
An interesting coincidence with reference to the personnel of the Senate
during his occupancy of a seat therein was the fact that the two Senators
from Ohio, Willis and Fess were formerly like himself engaged in the field
of education and all three men had been associated together and had been
friends for a number of years before any of them entered the political arena.
Both Senators from the Buckeye State were Republicans. Senator Willis was
Governor of Ohio at the same time my father was Governor of Michigan and
the coincidence was further paralleled by the death of Senator Willis exactly
one week after the death of my father. On page 218 of this volume will be
found a cut showing Governor Willis and Governor Ferris at the ceremonies
attendant upon the completion of the establishment of the definite boundary
line between the States of Ohio and Michigan, which had been prior to their
administrations in controversy.* Senator Fess was the last of the three
Senatorial friends to pass on and bring to a close a friendship and association
throughout the lives of all three which was unusual.
The Senior Senator from Michigan detested political jockeying, trading and
vacuous oratory. He was exceedingly impatient with unnecessary delay and
"red tape" and at such times described Senate procedure as "Government
by conversation".
The following paragraphs from his letters reflect his opinion regarding
certain phases of the Senate rules which were then and still are the subject
of considerable controversy:
March 9, 1925 "When I first came here I was positive that the Rules
of the Senate should be changed. I am just as positive now that they should
be modified, but upon the whole, the Rules work out for sane results. The
only great problem worthy of consideration is the problem of filibustering.
No one man nor no half dozen men ought to be permitted to defeat important
legislation by resorting to the "filibuster'."
February 17, 1927 "Men like Senator Reed of Missouri and members
of the Insurgent Bloc protest against cloture. If I had my way about it,
we would put on cloture oftener. They may howl as much as they please about
filibustering bad bills to death. I do not know why the judgment of a small
minority should prevail over that of the majority. It is more than probable
that in time Dawes' views of the Rules of the Senate will prevail. Of course
there isn't any immediate prospect of it."
March 5, 1927 "Congress did adjourn yesterday. I have never in all
my life witnessed such a disgraceful scene. Dawes is entirely correct. The
people elect members of the Congress to take care of their interests. This
short session has been almost a total failure. Any man attending the short
session just passed and ever after having any desire to become a member
of the Senate is a damn fool. You can draw several inferences from this
statement, but it is true. I have never seen human nature at a lower ebb
than it has been in the Senate during the latter part of this week. I stayed
up all night Tuesday and Wednesday night I remained up until midnight when
a recess was taken. Absolutely nothing was accomplished in the filibuster."
No one who has not had the opportunity for close and continued observation
of Senatorial routine can have any conception of the vast amount of work
that confronts a conscientious member of the Senate while Congress is in
session. The same observation applies likewise to members of the House.
Hours are all too few to take care of heavy correspondence, to see visitors
who want everything under the sun from admittance to the House and Senate
Galleries to a vote either for or against a measure in which they are interested.
Every visitor, especially if he can be identified as a constituent must
be taken care of in some way.
Carrying on the office routine of a Senator, especially those representing
the larger and so-called more important States, is indescribably difficult
with the amount of help allotted to these men. The performance of these
duties together with those pertaining to committee assignments leaves all
too little time for the consideration and study of the literally thousands
of bills introduced in the House and Senate.
The constructive work of the Senate is done in committees and it was here
that my father did his real work as a Senator from Michigan.
During the Senator's term of office two events transpired as the result
of the Senatorial primaries in the States of Illinois and Pennsylvania which
were to command the attention of the Senate and result in repercussions
throughout the entire country.
It was alleged that in the primaries of 1926, in Illinois on April 13 and
in Pennsylvania on May 18th, the amount of money spent in Illinois in behalf
of Frank L. Smith amounted to $458,720.00 and in Pennsylvania in behalf
of William S. Vare, $785,000.00.
As a result of the allegations as to the amount of money spent in the primaries
for candidates for the Senate, Senator Reed of Missouri introduced a resolution
setting up a special committee of five to investigate expenditures, rewards,
promises, contributions, etc. made to influence the nomination of any person
as the candidate of any political party or organization for membership in
the Senate of the United States. This resolution passed on May 19, 1926
by a vote of 50 to 13.
At the general election held on November 2, 1926, Frank L. Smith of Illinois,
candidate for the United States Senate on the Republican ticket carried
88 counties, his total vote being 842,273, giving him a plurality over George
E. Brennan of 67,330. In Pennsylvania, William S. Vare, the Republican candidate
for the Senate received 822,187 votes, giving him a plurality over William
B. Wilson of 181,507 votes.
As a result of the general election the Senate was faced with the necessity
of determining whether or not the Senators-elect, Smith and Vare should
be seated in view of the findings of the Special Committee with regard to
the charges brought involving both men.
In the case of Smith one of the chief allegations was, acceptance of certain
campaign contributions, improper because of his membership on the Illinois
Commerce Commission at the time. As to Vare, too much money spent to win
the nomination and certain allegations involving fraud, etc.
The proceedings in the Senate with reference to these two cases if given
in detail would take volumes. Just enough of a reference is made to them
here to enable the reader to understand the comments of the Senator to me
with reference to his reactions to these two cases.
"With reference to Smith and Vare, if you pursue one line of argument,
that we give to the States what the States apparently want, then both men
are entitled to seats.
"So far as I am concerned, I care very little about it. It makes little
difference whether Frank Smith is seated or not. I fear I am growing pessimistic
along all lines; in fact, I am dead sure of it. It seems to me that on every
side I find hypocrisy taking the dominant place in human affairs, hypocrisy
in education, hypocrisy in religion, hypocrisy in politics and I presume
I might go further. But it may be that I am just seeing more than I saw
formerly. Perhaps all that exists now in the form of hypocrisy has existed
for decades. At best we see only a short distance."
"I did not make myself clear in relation to Smith and Vare. As men
frequently say, I am between the devil and the deep sea. Down deep in my
heart I believe that if Illinois wants the kind of man Smith is to sit in
the Senate, Illinois should be granted that desire. The same thing applies
to Pennsylvania in the case of William S. Vare. But when I think of my country
in a national way, I feel that neither one of them should have places in
the Senate. There is not a question in the minds of able men in Washington
as to the power of the Senate to reject both men. Of course it would introduce
a new feature into the qualifications of a man elected to the United States
Senate. I grant that. From a legal standpoint I do not know what is the
right stand for a man to take. As a rule, I take no very great pride in
going along with my Party because my Party has no well developed program.
There are times, however, when I feel I must vote with the majority of the
Democrats in the Senate."
The Senate subsequently denied a seat to Smith by a vote of 61 to 23 and
to Vare by a vote of 58 to 22.