|
Maryland Patriots of the Gilded Age from
Anne Arundel County
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
The
Grand Menu of All things J. Charles and Helen Linthicum Remember the Linthicums
with great gift items-tote bag, mugs, pins etc... Build Community spirit!
Remember our history! click
here for the store.
Image Source: Report of the Maryland State Normal School Building Commission, December 31, 1915: Also an Account of the Dedication of the Buildings, November 19, 1915 By Maryland State normal school building commission, John Charles Linthicum Published by , 1915
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
To return to the top of this page click here To go to the web page of Hutman Productions click here |
Chronology of American History
| As you study the lives of John Charles and Helen
Linthicum it might be helpful to comprehend the times in which they lived.
Quite exciting times indeed. Along with the events listed here keep in
mind that the times brought significant cultural, philosophical and
technological changes to which Charles and Helen had to adapt. These
changes also tend to separate the Linthicums from us philosophically and
culturally despite the fact that we are part of the same national and
cultural continuum. It is important that we adjust our perceptions
accordingly and to so to speak, put ourselves into their shoes. Perhaps
this timeline will help with that process. Keep in mind also that
throughout this period the sounds of music, the smells of the kitchen and
the look of clothing and of architecture should also be factored in as
they too changed through time and set the scene for the human dramas that
unfolded. * 1861 - Confederate States of America (the Confederacy)
established in Montgomery, Alabama. |
|
Charles and Helen Linthicum both came of age during the period of the "Gilded Age". It is therefore useful to reflect upon that time period a bit to gain an understanding of their cultural roots. Both Linthicums benefited from the accumulation of wealth that characterized the period. They also typified the dedication of Americans of the times to patriotism and the political process. Additionally the Linthicums played an important role as philanthropists helping others through clubs, and scholarships. "In American history, the Gilded Age refers to major growth in
population in the United States and extravagant displays of wealth and
excess of America's upper-class during the post-Civil War and
post-Reconstruction era, in the late 19th century (1877-1890). The wealth
polarization derived primarily from industrial and population expansion.
The entrepreneurs of the Second Industrial Revolution created industrial
towns and cities in the Northeast with new factories, and contributed to
the creation of an ethnically diverse industrial working class which
produced the wealth owned by rising super-rich industrialists and
financiers such as Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew
Carnegie, Henry Flagler, and J.P. Morgan. Their critics called them
"robber barons", referring to their use of overpowering and sometimes
unethical financial manipulations. There was a small, growing labor union
movement, led in part by Samuel Gompers, who created the American
Federation of Labor (AFL), founded in 1886. It featured very close
contests between the Republicans and Democrats, with occasional third
parties. Nearly all the eligible men were political partisans and voter
turnout often exceeded 90 % in some states. To return to the top of this page click here |
One fine early Fall day in 2008 I read an article in the Maryland
Gazette concerning the creation of a new park and memorial to J.
Charles Linthicum. The article mentioned the Star Spangled Banner but
little else. I went out to the park to take a look at the monument which
you can see below. A fine granite monument in a quiet park with green
grass and new trees along the side of the historic railway track in
Linthicum. It is right across the street from the old Linthicum station.The monument is a rectangular granite stone with polished sides and flat top with a metal plaque attached to the top with the lyrics and notation to the Star Spangled Banner and a flag and relief on its top surface. The impressive inscription on the side of the stone referred to Mr. Linthicum and his work authoring legislation which made the Star Spangled Banner the official anthem of the United States. (From Baltimore Sun, March 1, 1981, Possibly Sweetser Portrait)The monument is beautiful and both the park and the monument make a welcome addition to the town of Linthicum which really needs all the beautification and formal architectural detailing it can get so as to project its identity in the center of the ever prevalent suburbs. The planners did a great job. But as I stood there looking at the monument and thinking of J. Charles Linthicum- Something important is missing. Don't I have a picture of Mr. Linthicum in my bar- its been there for over 20 years now. Yes I do and I think he is there because of something he did in regard to Prohibition. Well it turns out that he did. He was the man who launched the first legislation on the floor of congress that had as its goal the overturning of the 18th amendment which brought to our country the scourge and chaos of prohibition. Not only that that the fight against prohibition for Mr. Linthicum was his pride and joy. This is even more impressive in that he himself was a tea totaler! He realized that prohibition had brought more crime rather than less and that its enforcement was next to impossible (some what like the way the war on drugs today is looking) Surely it is important to recognize Mr. Linthicum's patriotism and dedication to this fight. So to be prepared I launched some serious research which has turned up the facts provided here. (As time goes by more will be added and more editing will occur but I wanted to get it right up on line asap so as to have the resources available to assist others in the consideration of my suggestions. Who Cares? One of the most responsibilities of historians is to provide research which will project the relevance of their work to others. Here are a few thoughts and suggestions for the use of this information. 1. Education- Those going to the J. Charles Linthicum Park and viewing the memorial should have an opportunity to learn about he man. They can do so via this web page or publication to follow or at the park itself. Equipped with the essential ingredient of background knowledge the park will become not just a place to be but a place where the awesome accomplishment of Charles Linthicum and his family can become real. This is the essential way to utilize facts to inspire those of the present who must continue our struggles into the future. I envision an annual parade to mark the date of the Beck-Linthicum amendment and other activities that the county and local groups can create so that the inspiration of the monument and the place can be made real from year to year. 2. As an anthropologist I am amazed by the role that J. Charles Linthicum played in the history of the region. Linthicum and those of his generation growing up in the aftermath of the Civil War were living in dramatic change. Within one generation they had been transformed by the environment from patriotic farmers, generally Methodists, into Doctors, Lawyers, and in Charles Linthicum's case into a congressman who was a lawyer specializing in medicine. Over one generation the farm houses of the tillers of the land had become country homes with the Linthicum's building their residences in town homes in Baltimore. A farmer no more Charles Linthicum became not only a congressman but a world traveler. The local land records present a picture of ever increasing land holdings at the same time as income levels must have risen due to the higher levels of professionalization. These must have been exciting times. The generation following the Civil War saw technology and transportation and industry all grow. However, the importance of all this lies not so much in their past but in the future they would see unfolding. This is also the generation which saw the First World War and the Great Depression and the scourge and chaos of Prohibition. Charles Linthicum, educator, lawyer, historian and congressmen stood on the heights of the achievement of his generation and looked into the chasm of war and the threat of the virtual destruction of life as it was then known. So I guess the life of J. Charles Linthicum is a very good place to start to figure out both how the country grew and how it survived. He had a central role in it all with his personal experience of the transformation of the modern nation as well as his role within the government as chairman of the foreign relations committee at the center of foreign affairs. His one of the longest records of a congressman in history at the time he died. Some leads- *The history of property transfers within the Linthicum family is complex but important. Lateral transfers are especially important. Many of the land transactions reflect a consolidation of land holdings within the family as land holders within the family died. Could this be an outcome of a population of soldiers not returning from the Civil War? Other factors were probably economic with the viability of small holdings in doubt as technology modernized. **Transportation also played an important role. Linthicum was at an early period attached to an important railroad - the Baltimore Annapolis which provided fast transport to the cities and brought in those seeking land and housing for residences. Here J. Charles Linthicum was also in the center of it all. How could a person hope to attend the major educational institutions which were then undergoing massive development without the rail land or other improvements in transportation? Charles attended the Normal School, University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University. These are all relatively distant from Linthicum. ***And something also for the women. I have included information here concerning the wife of J. Charles Linthicum- Mrs. Helen A. Linthicum. Mrs. Linthicum herself arrived with significant wealth from a past marriage. Her background as well as that of her husband can be traced to patriot ancestors as her genealogy created as a member of the D.A.R. demonstrates. If you read the newspaper accounts Mrs. Linthicum appears to be an example of the ever growing role of women in the history of the united states. She was not only in the society columns but is also written about as a member of political organizations as well as an officer in the D.,A.R. At one point she was represented in the paper as "Baltimore Matron" in a stand alone picture. So I hope these few initial thoughts will be. inspirational and give some meaning to the dry facts assembled here. If you have anything to add please contact me at: cbladey@verizon.net To return to the top of this page click here |
The Star
Spangled Banner And Fort McHenry
"an affair of honor."
|
Proposes National Museum Mr. Linthicum Seeks Cannon and Thinks Fort McHenry Best Site As the first steps toward building a historic museum within the confines of Fort McHenry so intimately linked with associations dear to patriotic citizens, the Government was requested yesterday to give to Baltimore a bronze cannon or field piece mounted on a carriage and six cannon balls to be used for exhibition purposes. Congressman Linthicum introduced the bill in the House of Representatives, according to a Sun Bureau dispatch. In speaking of his action last night he stated it had been brought to his notice that the Government had a number of brass field pieces captured during the Spanish American War which were not being used. As Fort McHenry is perhaps the most historic spot connected with Baltimore, said Mr. Linthicum, I believe it would be a good place to start a museum of historic things. It looks at present as though the bill, now in committee, authorizing the War Department to take direct charge of Fort McHenry will be favorably reported, and in that case it will be an additional reason for making it a museum of history. -The Sun., June 8, 1912, Vol. CLI, Issue 23, p. 16. (deleted history of the battle song and fort… …"The country needed a national song to give expression to its patriotism. It wanted only the event to produce it and that event was furnished in the attack on Baltimore. This song of Key's aroused the dormant patriotism of the nation for human nature would not withstand its irresistible appeal to the love of country. It lifted the national spirit from the vale of gloom and despair in which it had been floundering to the sunlit heights of confidence and victory. It heralded the dawn of a new day to our Federal Government. In moral value it was worth ten thousand bayonets. Conclusion This, Mr. Speaker, is the story of Fort McHenry. And now the environs of a great and populous city embrace the little fort which once so heroically defied the King's Navy and the royal forces of war. No longer is its position the outpost of the sentinel. It has become a place of sheltered security, nesting close in the bosom of that city with which its past is so intimately associated. Its walls, once a bulwark of defense, and its guns, once a guaranty of protection, have lost their power. Up to within a few weeks ago it still maintained with pathetic chivalry that position it could fill in name only. Time has ruthlessly robbed it of everything except its golden memories. But as long as our Nation lives, as long as noble deeds beget admiration or the love of country moves mankind, "The Star Spangled Banner" will be sung: and few who sing "Oh! say, can you see by the dawn's early light" will be able to refrain from going back in mental contemplation to the actual scene at Fort McHenry and dwelling upon that brilliant and stirring chapter which the little fort on the Patapsco contributed to the history of our second war with Great Britain. The committee on Military Affairs in favorably reporting the bill now before this House said: "It appears that in the present plan of national defense Fort McHenry no longer occupies a position of strategic military value, and that several proposals have been heretofore offered that it be converted to uses foreign to its present character as a military post. After considering this bill and hearing the statements of those representing patriotic organizations interested in the subject this committee is of the opinion that Fort McHenry is so intimately associated with historical events of vital moment in the early history of our country as to endear it in the affections of all Americans that its use for the sentiment which now attaches to it and that its preservation as a Government reservation under the control of the Secretary of War, and its partial use as a museum of historic relics would be absolutely appropriate with respect to this sentiment. The War Department states that the enactment of the measure will not conflict with the interests of that department and that there is no objection to its passage." I trust this House will pass this bill. I hope that the little fort which has played such an important part in our history may be preserved to us and to the generations that follow., Its ground the shrine of patriotic admiration. I believe that in the near future Congress will see fit to do something even better than protecting from base use this historic spot. I want to see erected near the ramparts of the old fort, plainly discernible to the ships that now pass in peaceful and endless array, a beautiful monument to Francis Scott Key and to the defenders of Fort McHenry at the time of the British attack on that fortification. -The Part Played by Fort McHenry and "The Star Spangled Banner" In Our Second War with Great Britain Speech of Hon. J. Chas. Linthicum Of Maryland in the House Of Representatives August 5, 1912., p.40. 512 JOINT RESOLUTIONS. Majority of American citizens at large, has gone on record as Resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the Resolved, That the Secretary of State of Maryland be and Approved April 9, 1924.
NO. 5. Requesting Congress to pass Bill recently introduced in the WHEREAS, Fort McHenry is the most notable national herit- WHEREAS, In addition Fort McHenry is the hallowed spot WHEREAS, A bill has been recently introduced in the House H.R. 14 Seventy-first Congress first session. A Bill to make The Star-Spangled Banner the national anthem of the United States of America. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the united States of America in Congress assembled, That the poem written by Francis Scott Key entitled" The Star-Spangled Banner," with music by John Stafford Smith, be, and the same is hereby ,declared to be the national anthem of the United States of America and under its care and protection. H. J. Res. 47 Seventy-first Congress, first session. Joint Resolution Proposing the adoption of the Star-Spangled Banner as the national anthem. Whereas the Star-Spangled Banner for more than a century of use has become deeply enshrined in our hearts as the anthem of our country; and Whereas tradition and history have always associated the melody and words of this immortal song with heroic deeds and patriotic endeavor; and Whereas both the Army and Navy have adopted it as their anthem; and Whereas on occasions certain musical conductors have been guilty of refusing to play it: Therefore be it. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Star-Spangled Banner be adopted and authorized as the national anthem of the United States of America, and that recognition be given to it as such on all appropriate occasions. Now, Mr. Linthicum, we will hear you. Mr. Linthicum. Mr. Chairman before beginning the hearings, we will have the Star-Spangled Banner played by the band, Lieut. Charles Benter leader. Mr. Celler. Of the Navy Band? Mr. Linthicum. The Navy Band. (At this point, the band played the Star-Spangled] Banner, the words being sung by Mrs. Elsie Jorss Reilley, of Washington D.C.). Statement of Hon., J. Charles Linthicum, A Representative In Congress from the State of Maryland. Mr. Linthicum. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of H.R. 14, and of my colleague's bill H.J. Res 47, is to have Congress and the administration indorse as the national anthem the poem written by Francis Scott Key known as The Star-Spangled Banner. This poem has been promulgated by the Army and the Navy, approved by President, with music, almost from the time that man's memory runneth not to the contrary. Ever since the War of 1812; ever since it was written in 1814, it has been adopted by the Army and the Navy as the national anthem of our country. There have been suggestions at various times for some other song or poem to be adopted as the national anthem, but national anthems can not be written at any time-they are inspired. It has become dear to the hearts of the people. There must be an inspiration, there must be background for the creation of a national anthem. This national anthem written by Francis Scott Key, as everybody knows, was written at old Fort McHenry, Md. Congress has provided funds for the rehabilitation of Fort McHenry. The fort has been reconstruction in the manner it was in 1814 during the war and when The Star-Spangled Banner was written. As Key stood on that ship, anchored out from Fort McHenry, on the 13th of September, he witnessed the battle between the British forces, commanded by Admiral Cockburn, at Fort McHenry and the Americans. He witnessed this battle throughout the entire day; he saw some 1,500 shells thrown at the old fort by the British forces and at night viewed the rockets red glare. This battle continued from 6 o-clock in the morning of the 13th throughout the day and up until the next morning. Francis Scott Key, laying out there in the harbor on this ship, viewed this whole battle. Naturally, he wondered what the outcome would be, He realized that the British forces had invaded and captured Washington, and burned the public buildings and some of the other places, and he wondered what would take place at Baltimore, where they had assembled great forces. And so, with this great tension, he wondered what would be the result to his country, to his native land and to his city of Baltimore. Darkness grew on, he battle continued, and he was there on the ship. He could only know by a rocket or shell thrown once in a while from the old fort that the old fort was holding out and, as the morning came on, he tried to peer through the darkness and ascertain whether the old fort was still holding out and, as the darkness lifted and he saw te Star-Spangled Banner waiving from the fort, he was inspired- he not only had the ability, but he was inspired by patriotism; he was inspired by the fact that this old fort was holding out against the tremendous forces which had fought in the battles of Napoleon. And then came the writing of this poem, The Star-Spangled Banner. And then came the writing of this poem,, The Star-Spangled Banner. No other anthem no other poem, no other author, could ever get the setting which Key got when at old Fort McHenry when his country's fate hung in the balance and, when that song, that poem, was written by him, everybody began to sing it. It seemed to unite the forces of the South and of the North; it seemed to bring to this country something which it had never had-a national anthem, which meant everything to patriotism and everything to the future of our country. So this anthem, written by Francis Scott Key, united us into one great Nation; it gave us patriotism; it gave us something to center ourselves about and it meant more to the cause of freedom and to the winning of this second war of independence than a thousand or ten thousand bayonets would have meant. So we come here today to ask something which has never been done, and that is the adoption of this poem by the National Government s it should be, so that, in future years, as it goes down, people will recognize it as having been adopted b y the Congress of the United States and the President of this great Republic. I do not want to take too much time, but when you hear the music, or when you hear this lady sing it, or when it is sung anywhere, there seems to be an inspiration about us; there seems to be a feeling which no other music creates, there seems to be something in this poem in this anthem, which affects us as no other poem or anthem could affect us. (p.4.) (p.2)"Statement of Mrs. J. Charles Linthicum, State Captain of the State of Maryland Daughters of 1812. Mrs. Linthicum- I have the honor to being the captain of the State of Maryland D.A.R. and I wish to say that every one of the societies of the Daughters of the American Revolution throughout The State of Maryland are all heart and soul for this bill, and I have very lately seen Mrs. Holloway and she has been very ill and she said, if she only could live to know this bill had passed, she felt as though she could see her Creator with satisfaction. I also have the extraordinary honor of having named Constitution Hall and it is going to be my extreme pleasure to present to Constitution Hall that glorious flag that carries with it the Star-Spangled Banner. This flag will hang from the ceiling of that great hall. (Applause) pp. 17-18. -Legislation to Make "The Star-Spangled Banner" the National Anthem. Hearings before the Committee on the judiciary House of Representatives, Seventy-first Congress, Second Session On H.R. 14.,Serial 3, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1930. "Representative J. Charles Linthicum of Maryland presented a large American flag to the Daughters this morning and asked them to get behind Congress, especially the Speaker of the House, to secure the passage of the bill to make "The Star-Spangled Banner" the national anthem" -"D.A.R., Votes to Bar Dry Law Debates.", The New York Times, April 19, 1930. pg. 5. Not to Become Federal Jail. Baltimore, Oct. 20- Attorney General William D. Mitchell today informed Representative J. Charles Linthicum the Federal government would not use the Fort McHenry property here as a jail for violators of the prohibition laws. (Linthicum had fought against the proposal on behalf of several patriotic groups)-Morning Herald ., Hagerstown, Maryland, Tuesday, October 21, 1930| Page 1 "Rep. Linthicum Sees Victory On National Anthem. Has Tried Twelve Years to Get Bill Through Congress. Washington- Staid, serious Rep. John Charles Linthicum of Maryland believes that within a short while he will be in a position to enjoy the satisfaction of victory after a twelve year battle with congress. For just that number of years Linthicum has persistently fought to have a bill passed-one that, because he has been so consistently turned back, he has come to regard as a sort of an affair of honor. That bill is to have congress declare the "Star Spangled Banner" the national anthem of this country. Since 1916 he has had a bill to this effect before the house of representatives almost continuously. But until this year, invariably the bill has died in committee or else crowded out in the rush of legislation. A short while before the seventy first congress adjourned, however, the house did vote for passage of the measure. It went to the senate, but never came out of committee. The Maryland chapter of the National Society of United States Daughters of 1812 first interested him in the matter. At the request of this organization he introduced the measure for the first time in March 1916. but after war conditions and the accompanying rush of legislation preventing his bill getting very far. He reintroduced it in April of 1921 but it met the same fate. In January 1923, it was introduced for the third time. Interest had increased. The house judiciary committee called representatives of various patriotic organizations to Washington and obtained their views. Four other representatives in the meantime had introduced similar bills. But in the closing hours of the 68th congress the bill was caught in the yarn and died. Not to be daunted, Linthicum came back to the next congress and for the fourth time introduced his bill. His time it didn't even get out of committee. By this time Linthicum had come to regard his bill as something akin to an affair of honor. He was determined that the house should have an opportunity to make an expression of some sort. Therefore, when President Hoover convened the special session in April of 1929, despite the fact that it was to be limited to consideration only of tariff and farm relief, at the first opportunity he dropped his bill in the hopper for the fifth time. And he pushed it to the point that exactly a year later the house did take it up, passed it and sent it to the senate. Linthicum's contention is that the "Star Spangled Banner" is now considered by all as the national anthem. Since 1849, under orders from the navy department, the "Star Spangled Banner" is played at both morning and evening colors. The anthem for the service, he says certainly should be the anthem for the people. -Herbert Plummer, Decatur Daily Review, The | Decatur, Illinois | Friday, August 22, 1930 | Page 8 "Today marks 50th anniversary of our National Anthem. By Judge Edwards Delaplaine. The official adoption of the anthem is of special historical interest to Frederick not only because the author of the song was a former resident of this city but also because another former resident had a part in the progress of the passage of the bill through the halls of Congress. It was during the First World War when Mrs. Ruben Ross Holloway, president of the Maryland Society, United States Daughters of 1812, urged Congressman J. Charles Linthicum of Baltimore to introduce " a bill to make Francis Scot Key's immortal song the National anthem. " He introduced it on April 10, 1918. A few years ago, it was recalled that Linthicum, was not unfamiliar with Frederick County; as a young man he had served as a public schoolteacher in the one-room school at Old Braddock along the National Highway between Frederick City and Braddock Heights. Soon after the 71st Congress convened on April 15, 1929, Linthicum introduced the national anthem bill once more. Eleven years had passed since the time he first introduced it. the second session of the 71st Congress convened on Dec. 2, 1929, and on Jan. 31, 1930, hearings on the bill began before the House Judiciary Committee. The bill came up for consideration on the floor of the House on April 21, 1930. For the history of Frederick, it is a noteworthy coincidence that when the bill reached the floor the Clerk of the House was a former resident of Frederick. William Tyler Page, who wrote the American Creed in 1918. William Tyler Page was born in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Walker Y. Page at ….When the national anthem bill came up for consideration on the floor of the House on April 21, 1930 Speaker Nicholas Longworth, who was Theodore Roosevelt's son-in-law, was in the chair, and William Tyler Page, then 61 years old was called on to read the bill that had been introduced by Congressman Linthicum, stating that the poem had been written by Francis Scott Key and the music had been composed by John Stafford Smith. But, the Judiciary Committee had made a drastic amendment, striking out the name of Francis Scott Key and the name of John Stafford Smith leaving the brief form: "That the composition consisting of the words and music known as The Star-Spangled Banner is designated the national anthem of the United States of America." Speaker Longworth then stated: "The question is on agreeing to the amendment." The amendment was agreed to and, thereupon, the bill as amended was ordered to be read a third time. It was read and declared passed. William Tyler Page, the Clerk of the House, then had the duty, which was a real pleasure for him of certifying to the action of the house: "Passed the House of Representatives April 21, 1930. Attest: "W. M. Tyler Page, Clerk." On the same day, the measure H.R. 14-- was read twice in the United States Senate and was referred to the Senate Committee on the judiciary. Then, the measure was discharged from that committee and, thereupon , was referred to the Committee on the Library. After a long summer vacation the Congress reconvened on Dec. 1, 1930. It was the third and final session of the 71st Congress. As the session would come to an end not later than the third of March 1931, there was grave danger that the national anthem bill would, once more, fail of passage. Mrs. Reuben Ross Holloway, president of the Maryland Society, United States Daughters of 1812, was not the only patriotic person who was deeply worried. Another worried American citizen was Captain Walter I. Joyce, a veteran of the Spanish-American War, and a leader in the Veterans of Foreign Wars. He had presented a petition supporting the national anthem bill which was the most immense petition ever presented to the Congress of the United States. According to Captain Joyce, the petition had been signed by five million American citizens. On March 3, 1931 the final day of the final session of the 71st Congress, the fate of the national anthem bill was hanging in the balance. Mrs. Holloway appealed in desperation to Senator Millard E. Tydings a native of Havre de Grace, who although scarcely more than 40 years old, had become one of the most influential members of the Senate. Presiding in the Senate that day was Vice President Charles Curtis of Kansas, who had been elected as Herbert Hoover's running mate in the contest against Alfred E. Smith and Joseph T. Robinson in 1928. Because of strong pressure for action on legislation before the final hour of the final day of the final session, there was considerable tension on the floor of the Senate. Tydings was primed for action. Because of his sagacity and tenacity, Tydings managed to persuade Senator Coleman L Blease, former governor of South Carolina, to withdraw an objection, and just before the close of the final session the poem/song written by Francis Scott Key in 1814 finally was accepted as our official National Anthem. On the same day, the measure received the signature of President Hoover… -Frederick News-Post | Frederick, Maryland | Tuesday, March 03, 1981 | Page 1 "The Star Spangled Banner" is not the national anthem of the U. S. The U. S. has no national anthem, officially. In an effort to induce Congress to adopt Francis Scott Key's poem as the national anthem, representatives of many a patriotic and military organization flocked before the House Judiciary Committee last week to urge enactment of a bill for that purpose. The bill's author: Maryland's Representative John Charles Linthicum from the district containing Fort McHenry, over which Key, a prisoner on a British warship, beheld his country's flag still flying on the morning of Sept. 15, 1814, after an all night bombardment. The high-vaulted committee room resounded with a sample rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" by the U. S. Navy Band. Two sopranos sang all its four verses to prove that its words were not difficult, that its pitch was not too high. Proudly Captain Walter I. Joyce of the Veterans of Foreign Wars dumped before the Committee a great bale of documents which he said contained 6,020.000 signatures petitioning the anthem's official adoption. Said he: "I stood on San Juan Hill in '98 and heard four bands play that tune. All around me in pup tents men were lying sick with fever but when they heard that glorious old tune, every last man somehow got to his feet." Dr. James E. Hancock, president-general of the Society of the War of 1812, denied that the tune was difficult. Said he: "Even the mocking birds in Florida learned the song from the buglers when soldiers were encamped there en route to Cuba in the Spanish War." Representative Emanuel Celler of New York approved adoption of the song, but insisted that the name of James Stafford Smith be stricken out as the author of the music. The tune, he claimed, was taken directly from that of an old English barroom ballad sung by jovial members of London's Anacreon Club. The first verse of that song: To Anacreon in heaven, where he sat in full glee, A few sons of harmony sent a petition, That he their inspirer and patron -would be, When this answer arrived from the jolly old Grecian; Voice, fiddle, and flute, no longer be mute, I'll lend ye my name and inspire ye to boot; And, besides, I'll instruct you, like me, to entwine the myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine. -"Wanted an Anthem", Monday February 10,1930. Time.,http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,738585,00.html Prevent Use of Famous Fort As Federal Jail. Baltimore. Jan. 2. Fort McHenry which thwarted the British bombardment of Baltimore and inspired Francis Scott Key to write the Star Spangled Banner has been "saved" by patriotic Baltimoreans. A suggestion was made in Washington recently that the historic fort be transformed into a prison for federal prisoners and brought vigorous protests from the Sons of the American Revolution, the veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion auxiliary. They had their representatives, Representative J. Charles Linthicum and Senator Millard E. Tydings democrats, to strenuously oppose such action event though Key was a prisoner aboard a British boat when he watched the rockets red glare bursting over the fort. Linthicum said he was given the promise of William D. Mitchell, Attorney General whose department has charge of federal prisoners that the fort will not be placed to such use… -The Lincoln Star, Lincoln, Nebraska, Friday, January 2, 1931, p.7. The Star Spangled Banner is recognized in: Title 36 of the United States Code Subtitle I—Patriotic and National Observances and Ceremonies Art A, Chapter 3.One of the difficulties with the adoption of the song were claims that it was difficult to sing. Others did not approve of the origin of the tune which was that of an English drinking song. Lyrics provided below:
The ANACREONTIC SONG as Sung at the Crown and Anchor Tavern in the Strand
the Words by ————————Price 6d.————————
LONDON
1
2
3
4
5
6
sic evitabile fulmen
roughly translates to "this repels thunderbolts" (It was a common fusty = close or
stuffy, old-fashioned, of stale wine The Anacreontic Song was created
for the Anacreontic Society. This London Banner," From Ludgate Hill to Capital Hil"l. The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress, 34 (3), 136-170. “The Star-Spangled Banner” was one of two pet causes of Maryland Democrat J. Charles Linthicum. (The other was the repeal of Prohibition.) Linthicum took up the issue during World War I after the importuning of an eccentric Baltimore matron named Ella Virginia Houck Holloway, described by the Baltimore Sun as “an imposing figure [who] always appeared in public wearing a tall shako, a cylindrical beaver hat with plume, that rose a foot above her head.” Mrs. Holloway’s ardor for the flag made her charmingly daft or a damned nuisance. She patrolled the streets of Baltimore, ever on the qui vive for violations of flag etiquette. If her portfolio was modest—chairwoman of the Committee on the Correct Use of the Flag of the United States Daughters of the War of 1812—her energy was boundless. Rep. Linthicum pressed on. The United States needed an official anthem, or so he declared, and it had better have been written in Maryland. He brushed aside the numerous criticisms lodged against the “Banner”: that it was beyond the range of shower-stall singers; that its imagery was militaristic, and thus unsuited for a peaceable nation; that it was Anglophobic (in the third stanza, the mother country tracks in “foul footsteps’ pollution”); that it was Anglo-philic, borrowing as it does an English tune; that the music of a “ponderous old English booze-song” was inappropriate since the Prohibition Amendment had banished the demon rum from sea to tea totaling sea; and that imposing an official song on Americans went far beyond the legitimate powers of the federal government. http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17704/article_detail.asp
|
Introduction- For the time being I will post information concerning the anti prohibition legislation here. As time goes by there will be clarification.
Image Source: John Philip Hill (left), outgoing congressional "wet" leader congratulating Rep. John C. Linthicum of Md., who was elected to succeed him as "wet" leader 1927, Maryland State Archives.
|
1926 This is the uneventful prenatal history of the controversy over the President's executive order (TIME, May 31) authorizing the appointment of state and other local officers as dollar-a-year Federal prohibition agents so that they could make arrests not only in other cities and counties but also in other states...... There followed a few minor eruptions in the press and then more and more vigorous ebullitions in Congress. More vigorous reaction came from some of the Democrats in the House. Representative Linthicum of Maryland exclaimed: "We were on the verge of believing that the President had become a follower of the Jeffersonian policy of state rights rather than that of the Hamiltonian doctrine of centralization, but before the echoes of his Williamsburg speech [TIME, May 24] have died away, we find him entering upon the most centralized power of the national Government by this executive order." Not only the Wets who stood against the order, but also the opponents of the President—and that includes all Democrats and most Republicans, even those called Regulars—seized on the order as a means for making trouble. The questions of personal politics, of prohibition and of state rights were inextricably intertwined. But the Wets tried to press their advantage. Senator Bruce and Senator Edge would like a national referendum on prohibition. (It is doubtful if any legal way could be found to bring about such a referendum.) An apparently unusual event occurred—Senator Joseph T. Robinson, the Democratic leader, indorsed this idea. The current explanation of Mr. Robinson's support of the proposal is that he regards himself as a presidential candidate for 1928, and wants, to dodge the prohibition issue by a referendum or its promise." -"A Turmoil"June7, 1926, Time. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,721992,00.html
What might be portended by a secret meeting, in Washington, D. C., of
the following: James Wolcott Wadsworth, onetime (1915-27) U. S. Senator
from New York; Edward Stephen Harkness, Manhattan philanthropist, and
Charles Hamilton Sabin, Manhattan banker; Sidney Trowbridge Miller,
Detroit lawyer-philanthropist; Pierre Samuel du Pont, Delaware
industrialist-educator; Benedict Crowell, Cleveland engineer; Senators
Walter Evens Edge of New Jersey and William Cabell Bruce of Maryland;
Representative John Charles Linthicum of Maryland; and many another?
Among the others was Capt. William H. Stayton of Baltimore, active chief of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment. That was what the secret meeting last week, at Mr. Wadsworth's house, portended. All those present were "Wets." They called themselves the Moderation League, Inc. They would not tell precisely what they talked about. All they would say was that the Moderation League Inc., without superseding Captain Stayton's A. A. P. A., would promote a national non-partisan movement to clarify Prohibition's place in 1928 election platforms. -"Moderators"k, Time, December 26,1927., http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,751769,00.html In the House, Representative John Charles Linthicum of Maryland, leader of the "wet bloc," was re-elected and so were most of his most vigorous bloc-mates—New York's Sirovich, La Guardia, Black; Illinois' Sabath, Britten; Missouri's Dyer. But Representative S. Harrison White, wet Coloradoan, is out and Maryland's John Philip Hill, Leader Linthicum's predecessor, failed to get back into Congress. All this in the face of the best efforts of the Association against the Prohibition Amendment.Prohibition's foes were, however, philosophical. They reminded prohibiters that 15 millions of voters had voted for the wet. The A.A.P.A. feeling was that not even high Hooverism will be able to carry the "experiment" to a satisfactory conclusion. And if, after all the hullabaloo, high Hooverism fails, who then can oppose modification? -"America is Dry" Monday November 19, 1928 Time., http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,928188,00.html "It was just the sort of argument that one would expect to hear if an average U. S. daycoach should be stalled between stations and a better-than-average red-faced Irish-American started talking loudly. In the House of Representatives, the loud one was Representative James A. Gallivan of Massachusetts, whose specialty is alliterative abuse. Quoth he at the beginning of last week: ". . . Prohibition, its proconsuls, parasites, and plug-uglies . .,. has even reserved to itself and its allies a monopoly of murder—murder without penalty. The right to murder Americans abroad without fear or favor, it delegates to bandit organizations; the right to murder Americans at home by poisonous liquors remains with the Anti-Saloon League and its allied bootleggers, and the right to wreck and drown American sailors and shoot up foreign seamen goes to its rum cruisers. "Floggings, gougings, and arson are the special privileges of prohibition's standing army—the Knights of the Nightshirt. . ." etc., etc. As usually happens, thoughtful persons present held their tongues—for a while. But soon (next day) everyone was joining in. The Representative train, en route to supply moneys for the Treasury and Post Office Departments, but stalled by a proposed amendment to prohibit poisonous denaturants in industrial alcohol, became clamorous. The amendment had been offered by Representative John Charles Linthicum of Maryland, who cited the facts that 10% of all industrial alcohol in the U. S. has annually been leaking into beverage channels under Prohibition; that there were 11,700 deaths in 1926 from poisonous alcohol..... " -"Representative Debate", Time., February 27, 1928 "The fight against prohibition in the campaign will be largely directed by a small group within the Association…Congressman J. Charles Linthicum of Maryland…Linthicum is the leader of the wet" Evidently Mr. Linthicum is none too sure of his group of ninety, for he plans to ask only sixty-four members to serve on the anti-prohibition committee he is about to organize in the House as a preliminary to introducing the wet bill that had its birth at Senator Wadsworth's house. of Representatives and as such will carry on as far as possible the legislation program recently decided upon by the conference at Senator Wadsworth's home….The chief feature of the Wadsworth group plan so far as Congress is concerned is a bill to amend the Volstead act by making its prohibitive clause refer specifically and exclusively to hard liquors and say nothing about wine and beer. Its advocates know that there is not one chance in a million for the passage of such a bill. It is to be put in as a part of a program to keep the fight alive between now and election" -"Making Prohibition the Campaign Issue.", The New York Times., March 4, 1928. "Representative Debate.", Monday, Feb. 27,1928.Time. As usually happens, thoughtful persons present held their tongues—for a while. But soon (next day) everyone was joining in. The Representative train, en route to supply moneys for the Treasury and Post Office Departments, but stalled by a proposed amendment to prohibit poisonous denaturants in industrial alcohol, became clamorous. The amendment had been offered by Representative John Charles Linthicum of Maryland, who cited the facts that 10% of all industrial alcohol in the U. S. has annually been leaking into beverage channels under Prohibition; that there were 11,700 deaths in 1926 from poisonous alcohol. Up stood Michigan's Cramton to say: "It is interesting to me to see what the policy is to be of the wet block in the House as presented by its newly chosen leader, the gentleman from Maryland. The policy of our other friend from Maryland, John Philip Hill, was to destroy the Eighteenth Amendment by authorizing beer and wine, but it is apparent that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Linthicum], the new leader, has on his banner, 'Hamstring enforcement in any way we can do it.' …Next day, Wet Leader Linthicum took what satisfaction he could from a parliamentary victory, forcing the whole House to go on record on a Prohibition issue for the first time this session. But again his anti-poison amendment lost, 61 to 283, with 89 members not voting and 91 absent. Prohibition in 1928, as finally provided for in the bill passed last week by the bickering Representatives of the People, will cost about $28,000,000—13 millions for the Prohibition Unit, 15 millions for the U. S. Coast Guard. -http://205.188.238.109/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846721,00.html "What's What in Washington. By Charles F. Stewart. Washington, March. -Baltimore seems to be recognized as the wet citadel of the United States. A person might have thought it would be New York. But no. The house of representative's wet bloc leadership appears to go to a Baltimorean as of right. Before Congressman John Phillip Hill's days in Washington there really wasn't a wet leader in the lower house. There was wet sentiment but it wasn't consolidated. Hill quickly aligned it under his banner when he arrived on the scene three terms ago from the third Maryland district, which is part of Baltimore. But for the next two years, at least Hill won't be available. He tried to get into the senate, was licked and thereby lost his status.. The wets had to elect a new standard bearer. They promptly and unanimously chose J. Charles Linthicum of the fourth Maryland district, which is the other part of Baltimore. Hill's a republican, Linthicum's a democrat. Congressman Carew, a New York democrat, nominated Linthicum for the wet leadership. Congressman Britten, a Chicago republican seconded him. Republican and Democratic Party labels don't count a nickel's worth in the wet-and-dry fight. Everybody knew that. But why should the wets stick on tight to a Baltimorean with men like Gallivan and LaGuardia, Linkham and Cellar-yes and women, like Mrs. Kohn-just as wet as they can be? It must be that Baltimore's a kind of hall-mark of wetness-a guarantee that anybody who is stamped with it is thoroughly saturated clear through. Be that as it may, Linthicum's right on the job. Most of congress has gone home, but Linthicum's door in the house office building is wide open, Linthicum's at the desk and his typewriter a tapping the keys. "The work we wets do between now and next December will tell its story." he says. "There are a few real wets in congress and a few real drys, but the vast majority, though they're reckoned as drys now, are ready to flop in a minute, and vote wet, if they believe their districts want them to. "Our business is to convince this huge majority that the country's sick of the soaking wet regime of lawlessness which is what so-called prohibition actually is, and wants to get back to genuine temperance. "Congress dry-in principle? Why, its ready to change overnight, the minute it senses a change in public sentiment," Under the constitution we're entitled now to beer and light wines, Linthicum holds, since the Eighteenth amendment prohibits only intoxicants and beer and light wines are non-intoxicating he says. So his first proposal; is to modify the Volstead law. Then his aim is to go after the amendment not by re-amendment, but by means of a constitutional convention, to adopt a new code of fundamental laws, which could be done, he points out, by a simple majority, without the necessity for repeated two-thirds votes. Linthicum denies that he wants "hard licker" back on the contrary temperance is what he declares he's working for. Linthicum's program isn't so very new, though the constitutional convention feature of it is comparatively so, but at any rate he 's a new hand at the helm. The drys haven't picked their new leader yet since Congressman W.D. Upshaw, their old one, was elected last fall to stay home. Linthicum hopes to put one over on 'em while they're making up their minds. -Times | Hammond, Indiana | Thursday, March 17, 1927 | Page 9 "Washington, Dec. 13 A rift in the3 ranks of anti-prohibitions in the House became apparent today when New York Tammany representatives, followed by many of the others opposed to the dry laws, made it known that they would not follow Representative La Guardia into his new "militant wet bloc." The Tammany following charged that Mr. La Guardia was merely "playing local politics" and said they would continue to recognize the leadership of J. Charles Linthicum of Maryland, for several sessions head of the so-called "beer bloc." Meanwhile Mr. Linthicum was trying to pour oil on the trouble wet element. He addressed a letter to Mr. La Guardia and Representatives Schaefer of Wisconsin and Englebright of California, lieutenants of Mr. La Guardia, making a plea for a solid front. The whole trouble started yesterday when Mr. A. Guardia, Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Englebright issued a call to wet representatives of both parties to meet tomorrow morning for formation of a "militant wet bloc." Mr. Linthicum was not consulted about this meeting and other leading wets today denied any knowledge of the move until they had received invitations to attend. Many of these were in open opposition to the move today. As spokesman for the New York Democrats, Representative Loring M. Black said that none of them would attend the La Guardia meeting. "Mr. La Guardia knows that we New York Democrats have been behind this wet movement from the start." Mr. Black said. "He knows too that we all could go home over the weekend and could not easily attend this meeting tomorrow. Why didn't he call the meeting in a regular way without splitting things up as he has?" -"Wet Bloc Avoided by Tammany Men.", The New York Times., Dec. 14, 1929, pg.21. "James Beck Hits At Prohibition. Washington, Jan . 15.--A blistering attack upon prohibition by Rep. James M. Beck, (R.) of Pennsylvania, and selection of Rep. J. Charles Linthicum (D) of Maryland, to lead the anti-prohibition forces, featured the revolt in congress against the volsteadism today. Beck and Linthicum had been boomed for the chairmanship of the unofficial congressional committee on modification of he Volstead act. Beck withdrew his name, leaving the field clear for Linthicum, who has headed the group the last two years. -Morning Call, The | Laurel, Mississippi | Thursday, January 16, 1930 | Page 8 "James Beck Hits At Prohibition. Washington, Jan . 15.--A blistering attack upon prohibition by Rep. James M. Beck, (R.) of Pennsylvania, and selection of Rep. J. Charles Linthicum (D) of Maryland, to lead the anti-prohibition forces, featured the revolt in congress against the volsteadism today. Beck and Linthicum had been boomed for the chairmanship of the unofficial congressional committee on modification of he Volstead act. Beck withdrew his name, leaving the field clear for Linthicum, who has headed the group the last two years. -Morning Call, The | Laurel, Mississippi | Thursday, January 16, 1930 | Page 8
-February 24,1930, Gettysburg Times, page 3.
"House Wets Choose Beck. Among other developments in the prohibition situation today, the House wet bloc of seventy members selected Representative James M. Beck of Pennsylvania, Solicitor General in the Coolidge Administration, as chairman of the executive committee of its campaign for the modification and repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. The wet group named for Representatives, or "House minute men," to attend sessions of the House, and present at every opportunity arguments in favor of changes in the dry laws. They are….Decision to petition the House Judiciary Committee for a hearing on the bill to legalize 2.75 per cent beer was decided upon by the group. The executive committee of fifteen, headed by Mr. Beck, consists of Representatives….J. Charles Linthicum of Maryland…." -"Borah and Wheeler Assail Dry Officer.", The New York Times. Jan. 28, 1930, pg. 2. "House "Wet" Bloc to Hold Own Hearings Washington, Jan. 21 (AP)-The militant and defiant "wet" bloc of the House went ahead today with plans for conducting its own hearings on proposals for the modification of the prohibition laws. Under the leadership of Representative J. Charles Linthicum of Maryland, an executive committee will be established to take charge of the hearings. Prominent people from all sections of the country are to be invited to appear. Linthicum says it will be prepared to make a "sweeping investigation of conditions and recommendations." The executive committee, like the House "wet" organization itself, will be entirely extra-official so far as congressional procedure is concerned. It will not have the power of subpoena and can administer oaths only with the witnesses' consent. The witnesses themselves will be voluntary and are to be asked to bear their own expenses. - Moberly Monitor-Index | Moberly, Missouri | Tuesday, January 21, 1930 | Page 4 Statement of the Hon J. Charles Linthicum A Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland Mr. Linthicum. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it is the purpose this morning to open the hearings by having several Members of Congress who have introduced resolutions speak upon them before the committee. I shall avail myself of a few minutes at the beginning of the hearing to express my views upon certain of the resolutions. I personally have no resolution before the committee, because there has been a resolution introduced to which I am favorable and which expresses my views. I want to say in the beginning that I am unalterably opposed to the return of the saloon, just as every witness who has spoken before this committee has been opposed to it. I am in favor of what is known as the Sabath amendment, which is an amendment providing the Government control of the liquor question, and which provides that the sale or issuing of liquor in any State shall be prohibited unless b y legislative enactment of the State it is asked for. I would suggest an addition to that resolution, and the addition would be that this resolution of Mr. Sabath's should be submitted to the convention, because it is a question which invades the individual rights of the citizens and not the State's rights as is expressed by the legislature. I shall go into that question a little more fully later on. It has been definitely established by various witnesses, drawn from every station of human endeavor, that prohibition enforcement has broken down, and further, that it is a matter of impossibility to enforce it. It has been shown that the use of liquor gradually decreased until the eighteenth amendment was adopted- and, that is the point I want to bring especially to the attention of the committee- it has been expressed by a number of witnesses, but I wish to call direct attention to the curve in the line of consumption of liquor., Prior to the prohibition amendment there was a constant decrease in the4 use of alcoholic liquors, but just as soon after the passage of the Volstead Act as people could adjust themselves to it the manufacture, sale, and consumption of liquor began to increase. It is shown, for instance, that the number of pieces of distilling apparatus has increased from 95,933 for the first full year of prohibition to 247,052 in 1928. The total amount of liquor seized has increased from 5,805,000 gallons in 1921 the first full year of prohibition to 30,429,301 in 1929. Federal arrests of prohibition violators increased from 34,175 in 1921 to 66,195 in 1929 and convictions in Federal courts have increased since 1921 from 17,962 to 50 55,546 in 1920. Showing, as I have said, that from the time almost of the passage of the prohibition act the consumption of liquor has begun to increase, and that the courts have been trying more cases. the results of these increases in arrests have been that the courts of our country handling prohibition cases have become crowded in their dockets and unable to dispose of the matters before them. In order to dispose of these matters they have established what is known as '"bargain days." Bargain day is that day on which offenders may come before the court, or the district attorney, and agree that if he will only fine them and not imprison them, they will plead guilty, and the consequence is that vast numbers of these cases are disposed of on bargain day; it being definitely understood that the offender will not receive any jail sentence. Mr. Bachmann. May I ask you there, right on that point, do you know what States or what courts you have reference to, or do you have reference to all? Mr. Linthicum., To Federal courts. Mr. Bachmann. All of them? Mr. Linthicum. Practically all, yes. That is the only way they can dispose of them. The result is-and this is a matter which is commonly known by everybody and definitely known by this committee and the Members of Congress-by reason of prohibition the jails and penitentiaries of our country have become overcrowded. In Atlanta which was built for about 1,200 and some persons, there is something like 3,600, and every one of our penitentiaries now is crowded with offenders either of prohibition or some other offense against the Government or the State, and we are providing for the building of more penitentiaries and are about to appropriate some $7,000,.000 for that purpose; while in England-let me draw the comparison- in England, while we are building penitentiaries for the incarceration of these offenders, in England they are, I am informed by a witness before this committee, about to tear down some of their penitentiaries because they have no further use for them,. The Chairman. May I say, Mr. Linthicum that the information was regularly sent from London to the New York Times, describing what was going on there, and was published in the columns of the New York Times, about the decrease and the selling of prisons in England. Mr. Linthicum. I am very glad to have that definite information, Mr. Chairman. Now, there has been a great deal of discussion before the House about poisoned alcohol, and we have not done anything about it, and the Government continues to poison its alcohol. Many denaturants are used in this industrial alcohol to prevent its use for drinking purposes, poisons. Under No. 44, I believe it is, they are using wood alcohol. The consequence is that we are producing people with blindness, people with cirrhosis of the liver. People are dying from the effect of these poisons. And this denaturant on the part of the Government, which we have been endeavoring to prohibit, certainly as to poisonous denaturants, has caused a great deal of trouble in our country. It has been testified that in the enforcement of prohibition 1,361 American citizens have been shot and killed; occupants of automobiles have been shot at and in some cases killed on the highways; the Coast Guard, one of the most important and historical institutions of our country and of the Government, has been debased, and has been brought largely into disrepute because of its attempt to enforce the prohibition act. The killing on the Black Duck off Boston Harbour, the consumption of liquor by Coast Guardsmen has done a great deal toward this, and it has been brought almost to the point of the tea party in Boston when men go and tear down posters asking men to enter the Coast Guard. They tore down these posters in the city of Boston. The question therefore, arises: Shall we continue in the present debased condition, or shall we as man to man and citizen to citizen discuss some outcome of the present horrible condition in which we find ourselves? I am a temperance man, and I mention this fact because just a short time ago I received a clipping from a paper. It consisted of the pictures of three people, myself on the left, my friend Mr. Crampton in the center, and Senator John J. Blaine on the right. It said over my picture: "Is he an American? " Over Mr. Cramton's picture, to the best of my recollection: " A type that knows no joy," And on the right, I forget just what that did say. For that reason, I bring out the fact that I am an American citizen, that my people came to this country in1658, that we have always stood for the Constitution, have been loyal to the Government, and we propose to stick to the Constitution, even including the eighteenth amendment, so long as it shall continue in the Constitution, but we reserve the right to fight for the elimination of the eighteenth amendment from the Constitution by another amendment or otherwise, just as the proponents of prohibition had a right to fight for its insertion in the Constitution. I personally think it is wrongfully in there, and I have always fought against it and voted against it. Much has been said about prosperity, and I am told that the drys proposed to bring that question before you, though they have been very silent in what they are going to say, and who they intend to produce; nevertheless, it has been one of their great slogans "Prosperity." No one is in a position to say whether the prosperity of the country has been due to prohibition or whether it is due largely to the result of the war and th decrease of production during the time of the war, and then the increased production and the increase of farm products after the war. Then you must also, in considering this question of the money you find in the savings banks that everybody is getting practically-except Congressmen-everybody is getting practically twice what they did before the war. The laboring man who got $1.50 a day before the war is now getting $3 and $3.50 a day, and to that is largely due the increases in deposits in savings banks. I want to draw the distinction also between the question of simply prohibition and saloons. I believe, and I think everybody believes, that the saloon has always been a detriment to this country; that it has hindered prosperity and should long before have been eliminated. So that it is my position that if this prosperity is due to the liquor question it would have been ever greater had the Government eliminated the saloon and regulated the liquor traffic. We would then be receiving a very handsome revenue from the liquor traffic, which now is going to the underworld. We know that revenues which we would have received, or savings which we could have made, would be as follows: Federal enforcement costs the Nation, after deducting $5,500,000 in fines, $36,000,000 a year; loss in Federal revenues, estimated, s high as $850,000,000; los in State, city and county revenues, $50,000,000. Total $936,000,000, which the Government is losing, and the Government and the States and the cities are losing. I want to say for the information of the committee, and as suggesting how wise the State of Michigan is, an editorial which I read from the Baltimore Sun- (Mr. Linthicum went on to describe how the state of Michigan taxed malt and wort that is the ingredients used to make beer and made a substantial sum of money while at the same time was able to estimate a huge quantity of illegal beer that was most likely being produced from it.) .....Mr. Linthicum, …Now in reference to the Sabath resolution, I say I would add to that resolution that it shall be submitted to conventions of the States, and I say that for two reasons. The resolution gives to the Government the power to regulate, and yet prohibits liquor in every State where it is not definitely asked for by legislative enactment. While this does not restore to the States the right to control the liquor traffic, it does actually give them the right to eliminate it entirely if they so desire. I am not so sure that the States have any inherent right to control the liquor traffic, and I am constrained to believe what Senator Bruice said, that it might just as well have had the right bestowed upon it under the Constitution as the control of bankruptcy and interstate commerce in the beginning, and that it would not be out of the way, nor I might say, encroaching upon the reserved powers of the States, to give the Government the right to control the liquor traffic. Mr. Sumners. Right there, Mr. Linthicum, without interrupting you now, I want to refer to that later. Mr. Linthicum. Yes, certainly. I think the eighteenth amendment should be repealed with an amendment as suggested by the Sabath amendment and submitted to conventions of the States. And another reason I wish to give for the submission of this to conventions of the States, as I said first, it is because the conventions would represent the people, would leave the sole question of repeal of the eighteenth amendment and the enactment of an amendment in place thereof, to the vote of the people and the elimination of all other questions in the campaign. Now there is another reason. When the constitution was adopted the country was pretty evenly divided and pretty well represented by its legislatures as to the apportionment to the counties and to the cities, but I want to take my city for example and then I shall quote others. In my State of Maryland we have a general assembly consisting of 29 members of the State senate, of which 6 are from the city of Baltimore; and the house of delegates of 147 members, of which 36 are from the city of Baltimore. Baltimore City has a population of 940,000 people. The State as a whole has a population of 1,000,000 people. So that the city, with a population of 940,000 people, has one-sixth of the senate and one fourth of the house of delegates. So that the people of Baltimore are not proportionately represented when it comes to the adoption of an amendment by a legislative body. If it were by convention then all the people would have a say as to the adoption of the amendment, and each individual would have a right to vote upon that direct question. For that reason, as an additional reason, I think it should be submitted to the convention. (discussion followed clarifying Mr. Linthicum's views on the convention) -Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, Seventy First Congress Second Session H.J. Res. 11,38,99,114,219,and 246.,Serial 5, February 12,13,19,20,26,27, March 4,1930, Part 1, United States Government Printing office, Washington , 1930. p. 397
"The meeting late today was presided over by Representative J. Charles Linthicum, one of the anti-dry leaders in the House, who said that his group planned to call "a great many witnesses in connection with the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment." -"House Body is Cold to Juryless Trial, Subcommittee Defers Action on Wickersham Plan Until Dry Hearing Ends (hearing on enforcement)", -The New York Times., Feb. 12,1930, pg. 3. "Washington, March 4.-The attack of the anti-prohibitionists on the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead act was completed in the seventh day of presenting evidence before the House Judiciary Committee today with a final assault on the constitutionality of the whole prohibition legal structure by Breckenridge Long, former Assistant Secretary of State; a denunciation of the effects of prohibition by for women active in public life, one a mother of four sons, and a summation of the wet case by Representative J. Charles Linthicum of Maryland, leader of the House wet bloc. …."Representative Linthicum in his summation of the testimony of the drys at the beginning of the day's session suggested a manner in which States may make revenue out of liquor, despite prohibition. Michigan he said, recently instituted a tax on malt and other brewing materials from which it has collected $570,184 so far, an indicated revenue of $1,200,000 annually. "The tax alone would indicate that 22.870,000 gallons of illicit beverages had been made or five gallons for each State resident," Mr. Linthicum added. Figures which he presented indicated that stills in use had increased from 99,533 in 1919 to 247,052 in 1929. He charged that 30,000,000 gallons of liquor were seized last year. "The prohibition cases are increasing, he added. "the prisons are crowded and $7,000,000 has been asked for new ones. The government continues to poison alcohol and the Coast Guard is in disrepute" Reiterating the opposition of all witnesses to the return of the saloon, Mr. Linthicum spoke in favor of the Swedish system, under which distribution of beverages would be placed int the hands of a responsible, limited corporation. "We thank the Anti-Saloon League for eliminating the saloon. Now let them help us eradicate te speakeasy," he added. -"Four Women Assail Effect of Dry Law, End Wets' Hearing"., The New York Times., March 5, 1930. "Representative J. Charles Linthicum of Maryland, leader of the wet bloc in the House, arrived here today to lay plans for the program in Congress. It was hardly to be expected, he said, that anything definite toward repeal or modification could be accomplished until the Seventy-third Congress, three years hence, but the program could be started by the handful of wets now in the House, carried further by the increased number issued for the Seventy-second Congress by the recent elections and "put over" by the majority that they hope to elect in "the battle of '32" Mr. Linthicum's plan is to form all the present wets in the House into a compact organization. -"Dry Straddle Fatal, Fess Again Warns." The New York Times., November 13, 1930.
Zeus may well have been thinking of something else when Pallas Athene,
mature and fully armed, was born from his ponderous brow. Certainly when
Chairman Simeon Davison Fess of the Republican National Committee
thought and said: "The party will remain Dry or it will be split" (TIME,
Nov. 17) he was not contemplating the creation of a mature, warlike body
of Wet Republicans which almost simultaneously appeared. Perhaps instead
Mr. Fess was thinking in terms of the Methodist Board of Temperance,
Prohibition & Public Morals statement fortnight ago: "Any catering to
the Wets, any toleration of a suggestion of modification, would light
fires of bitter resentment in the hearts of the men and women who
trooped to the polls ... in 1928."
Onetime Senator James Wolcott Wadsworth Jr. of New York was the plume in the Wet Athene's helmet last week. He cried: "Senator Fess . . . cannot see what is going on in this country. Tears dim his sight. . . . Does the Senator think we can carry Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois and a half-dozen other States whose people spoke last week on this question . . . [and] hope to cajole repeal-Republicans, millions of good men & women, into an attitude of complacency concerning the thing they regard as vital?" President Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia University, for years the man who has written Wet planks for the Republican platform and for years seen them thrown out, declared: "Senator Fess . . . adds that 'if the Republican party stands for repeal, it might as well say good-day.' . . . My reply is that if the Republican party does not stand for repeal it might as well say goodnight. . . . The elections of November 1930 are the handwriting on the wall." Representatives Fred Albert Britten of Illinois and Leonidas Carstarphen Dyer of Missouri also cried out against Mr. Fess's leadership. The Wet Republican press re acted even more sharply, and certain arch-Republican editors captioned editorials FESS OUGHT TO GO and THE BLIND SENATOR FROM OHIO. Hearst papers quoted an unnamed Republican leader as saying: "If this split continues there will be a Nationalist party in 1932." Fuss-budgety Senator Fess seemed embarrassed. After taking time to discuss and think over his statement, he last week told news gatherers that he had made it as an individual, not as party spokesman. He said also that his mind was open to modification recommendations from the Wickersham Commission. But he did not retract his theory that the party must not weasel on Prohibition, that it must be Dry. Wet Bloc. Democratic Representative John Charles Linthicum of Maryland, long leader of the small group of avowed Wets in the House, saw his opportunity in the split which Chairman Fess, in trying to avert, had created. Rushing to Washington, Congressman Linthicum sent invitations to all 71st House members to attend a Wet Bloc organization meeting early in December. Of Chairman Fess's statement he said: "It means a Democratic victory beyond a doubt." Mr. Linthicum put Repeal above party, insisting: "Regardless of party platforms, the fight to elect Wet members . . . will continue. . . . We have just begun to fight." Sage, he did not envisage Repeal as possible before the 73d Congress, but declared "constructive Wet activity'' might achieve much in the 72nd Congress, "when we will have at least 140 repealist votes to say nothing of the men . . . who are now wavering. . . . We can safely tell our people that light wines & beer are not far in the offing . . . especially if Mr. Hoover's commission indicates that the present form of Prohibition is unsuccessful.'' To his support came Republican Congressman James Montgomery Beck of Pennsylvania, declaring: "The 72nd Congress, which in my opinion will be more closely divided on the Wet & Dry issue than the election returns would indicate . . . [should] refuse to waste public moneys by attempting to enforce the unenforceable." The Commission. With rumors rampant that it would recommend light wines & beer, that it would advise calling a Constitutional convention for considering Repeal, and above all that it was hastening its deliberations so as to present a report to the opening session of Congress on Dec. 1, the Wickersham Commission, object of concern to both Chairman Fess and Leader Linthicum. last week surprised Prohibition Director Amos Walter Wright Woodcock by summoning him. After hearing what he had to say, the Commission abruptly adjourned for ten days. This unexpected action forthwith was explained as an Administration measure to prevent Prohibition debate in the next Congressional session before the necessary supply-bills are passed. Later, it became known that the commissioners had rejected unanimously all proposals for both Repeal and 4% beer. The Women's Christian Temperance Union, convened at Houston, Tex., shouted "Praise God!" -"The G.O.P. Divides", November .24, 1930, Time., http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,740751-2,00.html "The "wet bloc" in the House met today and voted to change its name from the Unofficial Committee on Modification of the Volstead Act to the Unofficial Committee of the House of Representatives Opposed to National Prohibition. Representative J. Charles Linthicum, the leader, presided and it was matter of considerable comment that among those present were ten members of the House heretofor not identified with the organization…" -"House Wet Bloc Puts 10 More on its Rolls.", The New York Times., Dec. 17, 1930. "I have always taken the position that ratification by Legislature was not the proper way to ratify the Eighteenth Amendment," said Representative J. Charles Linthicum of Maryland, leader of the House "wet bloc." -"Mitchell Hastens Appeal on New Jersey Wet Ruling; Dry Raids will Continue.," The New York Times., Dec. 18,1930. 1932 Election of Roosevelt On November 8, Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic party scored one of the great electoral triumphs of American political history. Roosevelt polled nearly twenty-three million votes to his opponent's less than sixteen million, and carried forty-two states to Hoover's six. In the Congress, which had been evenly divided, Democrats gained a310 tolI7 House majority and a 60 to 35 Senate advantage. Four years earlier, Hoover had received S8.2 percent of the ballots; now he got just 39.6 percent. Undoubtedly the economic depression bore principal responsibility for the rejection of Hoover, but prohibition played a part as well. With both parties offering vague and cautious economic plans, prohibition appeared to be one issue in 1932 on which party positions were clearly distinguishable." Its importance in the election became evident in various ways. The election increased wet strength in Congress even more dramatically than it shifted party power. Despite the Democratic landslide, a few repeal espousing Republicans, like James Wadsworth of New York and Everett Dirksen of Illinois, won their first election to the House of Representatives. Wadsworth, who defeated both a Democrat and an independent dry candidate, clearly profited from changing attitudes toward prohibition in his conservative, western-New York district since his defeat for the Senate six years earlier in a similar three-sided contest. The New York Times calculated that the Seventy-third Congress would have 343 wet Representatives and 61 wet Senators." Wet support in the House had previously reached a peak of 187 votes on the Beck-Linthicum resolution, and the Senate had always been drier. Of the more than one hundred Congressmen turned out in 1932, some -such as Wesley L. Jones of Washington, Reed Smoot of Utah, and James E. Watson of Indiana-were among the most influential dry Senators. Quite a few surviving incumbents had reversed earlier positions and come out for repeal during the campaign. Whatever part advocacy of repeal actually contributed to the Democratic landslide, politicians and other contemporary observers gave it major credit for the outcome. They thought the prohibition issue had determined many votes. This belief proved crucial to the process of abolishing the Eighteenth Amendment. The election of 1932 was widely interpreted as a voter directive for repeal. Those involved in antiprohibition agitation quickly labeled it so. Jouett Shouse, for the AAPA, declared the mandate "overwhelming."" The WONPR assessed the returns and proclaimed, "The citizens of the United States through the instrument of the ballot made it quite clear and definite on November 8th that they do not want National Prohibition."" Representative James Beck called the election "a clear mandate to Congress to end, as soon as possible, the tragic folly of Federal prohibition."" Soon signs appeared that many of Beck's colleagues in the House concurred. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP9.html By Mr. Linthicum: Joint resolution (J. j. Res. 208) proposing an amendment to the eighteenth amendment of the Constitution; to the Committee on the Judiciary By Mr. Beck: Joint resolution (H.J. Res. 209) proposing an amendment to the eighteenth amendment of the Constitution; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. Sabath: Joint resolution (H.J. Res. 210) proposing an amendment to the eighteenth amendment of the Constitution; to the Committee on the Judiciary. -January 15, 1932, The Journal of the House of Representatives., p.247 "Cracked Ice". By George H. Manning. Washington-For the fist time since enactment of the Volstead act, members of the House of Representatives today will have opportunity to vote definitely on the prohibition question. This opportunity will come when Representative J. Charles Linthicum of Baltimore, chairman of the unofficial Democratic wet bloc of the House moves to discharge the House Judiciary Committee from further consideration of the resolution introduced jointly by himself and Representative James M. Beck of Philadelphia, head of the wet Republicans in the House,, to give the states eventually the right to determine whether they shall have prohibition. From communications reaching offices of members from all states, it is evident there is a general misunderstanding as to the significance of today's vote. In fact, there is some misunderstanding even among members of the House. The general impression seems to be that the Linthicum-Beck resolution provides for a direct referendum by the people on the prohibition question. This is not true. What the resolution does is to amend the Constitution by continuing in effect the present wording of the Eighteenth Amendment but to add to that wording a proviso stating that the prohibition shall not be construed as abridging or denying the right of any state to authorize and regulate the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors wholly within the borders of the state. The resolution further provides that the power granted the states to control the liquor traffic within their own borders shall not be construed to empower Congress to authorize the shipment, transportation or transportation into any state when this has been prohibited by the state. Stated simply the Linthicum-Beck resolution provides for a return to state option, and continues the Eighteenth Amendment in effect in those states which vote dry. On the other hand, it would permit states which wanted to control the manufacture and sale of liquor within their own borders to do so without hindrance. The feature of the bill which has equated the impression that it is a referendum measure is the section which provides the amendment to the Eighteenth Amendment must be ratified by constitutional conventions-not by the legislatures-called especially for that purpose. It is true, however, that this would, in a sense, be a referendum, for it would be necessary for the people of each state to choose delegates to the convention and this would be done by ballot. While the vote today will not be on the resolution itself, it is generally conceded that a vote for the motion will classify a member as a wet, while a vote against will definitely classify him as a fry. - Middletown Times Herald | Middletown, New York | Monday, March 14, 1932 | Page 7 Drys Win Prohibition Test in Congress 227 to 187. Motion Lost to Bring Resolution Before the House. Anti-Prohibitionists Muster Unexpected Strength in Fist Test Vote in 12 years…..By Paul Mallon. Washington, March 14.-Anti-prohibitonists today lost their motion to bring the Beck-Linthicum resolution before the House but mustered the unexpected strength of 187 votes in the first clear cut test on prohibition in 12 years. The House voted 227 to 187 against discharging the judiciary Committee from consideration of te resolution. The resolution called for submission to the states of an amendment to the constitution in effect returning to the states the control of the liquor traffic. Discharge of the committee would have brought the resolution directly before the House. The vote took place to an accompaniment of fiery speeches and reminders that this "is the ides of March--stand up and be counted." Dry orators, in such efforts as they made to speak, met with jeers and interruptions from a militant wet minority. Galleries were crowded with men and women sitting in the aisles. Defeat had been expected by the anti-Prohibitionists. Only the most optimistic wet leaders thought the minority would be able to gather such strength as it did. It represented the largest wet strength in the House since 1917 when the 18th amendment was submitted. The anti-prohibitionists were aided materially by a number of representatives listed as dry who felt that the Beck-Linthicum repeal resolution should be brought before the House for a direct vote. The House never before has come so close to voting directly upon a repeal proposition. Prior to the roll-call estimates of the wet possibilities ran all the way from 160 to 130 votes. The leaders generally expected not more than 175. The total comes within three votes of the outside maximum claim of the anti-prohibitionists. The importance of the vote was obvious on the floor and in the gallery. It was preceded by brief but warm debate in which only one of the drys, Rep., Moore, Repn., O., participated. Practically every seat on the floor was taken for the first time in many days. A number of Congressmen were so anxious over the outcome that they kept their own roll-calls at their places. The crowd in the gallery was so boisterous that Speaker Garner was unable to maintain control over it at times. The roll-call was interrupted by applause when four women members voted with the anti-prohibitionists. They were Mrs. Florence P. Kahn, Repn., Calif, Mrs. Ruth Prat, Repa., N.Y. Mrs. Mary T. Norton, Dem. N.J., and Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, Repn., Mass. Speaker Garner did not vote. His name was not called, in accordance with the custom of the house. The rule provides that a Speaker may cast his vote if he desires but he generally is not expected to vote. After preliminary details were dispensed with the Speaker gave 20 minutes to the opposing sides for debate in preparation for the vote on the anti-prohibitionists motion to discharge the House Judiciary Committee of further consideration of the Beck-Linthicum home rule amendment, the specific question on which the hours was to pass. The house was unusually silent, as if it were witnessing a great event, when Representative J. Charles Linthicum, Dem., Maryland took the floor. "The crucial time in the long fight for the liberty and liberation of the American people has arrived," he said, "not in 12 years, the life of the amendment, have we had an opportunity to vote directly upon it. "Scripture tells us he who is not with us is against us, so I tell you that he who votes against the discharge of the committee today is not willing to submit he question to the people. "The discharge of the Judiciary Committee means the consideration of this subject. It does not mean that you must vote for the resolution to amend the 18th amendment, but it does mean that you will give the Congress a chance to discuss this very vital issue." He was frequently interrupted by applause from the smiling wet sector of the House. Drys stared at him, their faces giving no indication of their feelings. Far at the left in members gallery Rev. E. C. Dinwiddie, dry crusader, crossed his legs and looked unconcerned. Women were sitting in the gallery aisles and the crowd was so nervous that Speaker Garner had difficulty in keeping order. The wet side of the case was addressed also by Rep. O'Connor, Dem., N.Y. one of the original anti-prohibitionists of the house. Rep. Bachman, Repn. , W. Va., asked Linthicum if a vote for his resolution meant a vote for return of the open saloon. "If I believed that the open saloon would come back I would not support this resolution," Linthicum replied. Jeers and cheers punctuated the proceedings. The drys had their turn for a demonstration when Re. Ellis Moore, Repn., Ohio boyish appearance, was introduced. They rose, applauded and yelled. "The gentleman from Maryland has confessed his reason is false because he would accept an amendment to prevent return of the saloon." Moore said. "It means return of the saloon." Loud cries of "no," "no" interrupted him. Moore was prevented from continuing for a moment. "Furthermore," he said when quiet was restored, "It would place prohibition in politics. Anti-prohibitions greeted this with laughter and again prevented Moore from going on. A loud yell came from the gallery during this demonstration. Moore scowled at his opponents he continued determinedly with his speech. No other dry offered to take the floor, so the anti-prohibitionists continued with brief addresses. The House was anxious for the vote. As each "four-minute" speaker concluded, there was a swelling cry: "Vote!" "Vote!" -Daily News | Huntingdon, Pennsylvania | Monday, March 14, 1932 | Page 6
-House Journal., March 14, 1932, p. 545-6 (Library of Congress)
"Last, but of more immediate interest to the people than any others, are the resolutions relating to the Eighteenth Amendment., During the first session of the Seventieth Congress, only three resolutions proposed the repeal of the National Prohibition Amendment and only six called for modification. In the first session of the Seventy-second however, eighteen resolutions demanded outright repeal and sixty-three asked for modification. A brief description of the most important modifications suggested might help to clarify thinking upon this all-absorbing topic. House Joint Resolution No. 208 introduced by Representative J. Charles Linthicum of Maryland, would permit Congress to regulate or prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquor, the importation thereof into, and the exportation thereof from the United States and all territories, for beverage purposes. This power is given on the condition that it shall not be construed or applied to abridge or deny the right of any state to authorize and regulate the manufacture, sale, transportation, and use of such intoxicating liquors wholly within its borders. Furthermore, the power to regulate shall not be construed to empower Congress to authorize the shipment, transportation, or importation of intoxicating liquor into any state where its sale, transportation, or use has been prohibited by the laws of that state. This amendment was debated in the House of Representatives and a vote upon a motion to discharge the committee failed to carry. The same identical resolution was introduced thirty times and by different Representatives. " -"Legislation-Proposed Amendments to the Constitution Introduced during the First Session of the Seventy-Second Congress.", Paul H. Giddens, =The George Washington Law Review., p.357. First Session= December 7, 1931 - July 16, 1932. March 14, 1932 On March 14, 1932, the
House voted on the question of bringing out from the -Straw Votes: A Study of Political Prediction - Page 156 by Claude Everett Robinson, Columbia University Council for Research in the Social Sciences - Elections - 1932 - 203 pagesThursday, March 17, 1932- Sheboygan Journal and other large cities, officers of the Clinic. Led Wets In House Test Vote b Democrats To Hold Meeting On Saturday It was a dry victory, but the unexpected strength which the wets showed in the vote to take up the Beck-LINTHICUM resolution in the house caused Representatives CHARLES LINTHICUM (left) of Maryland and Representative James M. Beck (right) of Pennsylvania to congratulate each other. They're leaders of the anti- PROHIBITION forces in congress and authors of the resolution to re- submit the eighteenth amendment to the people. Al... In March 1932 House wets mustered enough strength to force the first roll call ever on repeal. (of prohibition). The vote came on a petition to discharge from committee a resolution similar to Raskob's home-rule amendment offered by Representatives James Beck and J. Charles Linthicum of Maryland. Beck had drafted the resolution in consultation with AAPA leaders. Although the discharge vote failed 227 to 187 it achieved the wet objective of putting every House member's prohibition position on record just prior to their reelection campaigns. Furthermore, it vividly demonstrated that repeal sentiment in the House was nearing a majority. -The Gospel of Barbecue: Poems , David E. Kyvig, Fanonne Jeffers, Honorée Fanonne JeffersKent State University Press, 2000 ISBN 0873386728, 978087338672 Monday, Mar. 21, 1932 Counting Day By HP-Time. com Monday,
Mar. 21, 1932 Before packed galleries the House roll was being called on the first clear-cut issue of the 18th Amendment since its original passage Dec. 18, 1917 by a vote of 282-to-128. A parliamentary petition by 145 Wets had forced this question: Shall the House take up a resolution by Pennsylvania's Beck and Maryland's Linthicum to amend the Constitution for the return of liquor control to the States? The Wets, with no hope of actual victory, purposed by this ballot to put every House member on record on Prohibition, weed out the weaslers for the coming campaign, exhibit the growing Wet strength. Before the counting began, Drys claimed the Wet vote would not exceed 160. Wets predicted they would get at least 180. Final result: 227 Drys voting No; 187 Wets voting Aye. Though the Drys, as was expected, defeated the Beck-Linthicum resolution, the Wets were jubilant at making a better showing than they anticipated. They had planted a large and solid milestone from which to measure their future progress. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,7433 "The spokesman for the House wets, the men who are planning the campaign and will bear the brunt of its direction once it gets under way, are James M. Beck of Pennsylvania, Fred A Britten of Illinois, Richard s. Aldrich of Rhode Island, Florence P. Kahn of California, Hamilton Fish Jr. and Fioello H. La Guardia of New York and Leonidas C. Dyer of Missouri, all Republicans, and Parker Corning, John J. O'Connor and Thomas H. Cullen of New York, J Charles Linthicum of Maryland, Mrs. Mary T. Norton of New Jersey and James T. Igoe of Illinois all Democrats. Mr. Beck has been chose leader of a Republican wet bloc numbering sixty-four members of the House which promises to cooperate with the bipartisan group above, which is headed by Mr. Linthicum." "I said on Monday that the fight against national prohibition is nearing the end. I did not say this because the wish is father to the thought, but after a very close scrutiny of what took place. When it is realized that the 187 members who voted for the discharge of the Judiciary Committee on House Joint Resolution 208 represents a constituency of 52,000,000 people, it can readily be seen that we are nearing half the population of the Union. A change of less than 8 per cent of the votes, or 31, would give the wets a majority. Maryland cast five of its six votes for discharge; Pennsylvania 18 of its 36; Rhode Island all of its 3; Massachusetts 13 of its 16; Connecticut all of its 5; New Jersey, all of its 12 and New York 32 of its 43. That represents the abounding sentiment of the East, and there is not much doubt that in the next Congress the East will be practically solid against national prohibition. A Spread Toward the West. Sentiment against national prohibition was for some time confined to the urban sections of the East, but in the test on Monday, Ohio cast13 votes against it. Illinois 16, Michigan 9, Wisconsin 9 and California 11, showing that the trend of public opinion in the urban sections of the Middle West and on the Coast is rapidly veering against the amendment. The Anti-Saloon League walls are crumbling; the clarion call for liberty and liberation will soon demolish this structure. There is little doubt that many of the districts which voted dry on Monday will be carried by wets and vote wet in the next Congress. Only one more election is necessary for the defeat of national prohibition. I say this not only because of reports from the dry districts, but because the reapportionment act which will be in force before the next Congress will give the urban population a large increase in representation. I figure that this increase will be largely wet- some 54 and it is most likely that the wets will have a two-thirds vote in the House of the Seventy-third Congress; they will certainly have more than a majority. Outlawing the Saloon. The drys made a great fight. They eliminated the saloons, which is a blessing to our country, but they went too far when they placed a legislative amendment in the Constitution. Had that merely excluded the saloon and empowered Congress to regulate the liquor traffic, they would have fared better. You can not enforce a law which is against public sentiment. There is clear evidence of this when you note that 700,000 cases have been tried in our courts and that 500,000 people have been convicted. Imagine a law which places a stigma on 500,000 citizens! The old jails have been overcrowded and vast sums have been appropriated for the construction of new ones, though persons who favored the prohibition amendment told us that if it were adopted we should have little use for prisons. They said there would be slight crime; that the almshouses would be practically closed, and that the country would be morally better off. Cost of Enforcement. In every Congress the appropriations for the enforcement of this non-enforceable amendment and the Volstead act have increased until they have now cost our people $378,000,000. More than $231,000,000 worth of goods has been confiscated and more than $10,000,000 has been lost in what would have been revenue. Had we this lost revenue at this time there would be no deficiency in the Treasury Department but an abundant surplus. There would be no need for a sales tax or the increase of the income tax. I have enough faith in the American people to know that they will not continue this experiment which has been so destructive to so many of our people, so drastic in its enforcement and so destructive to the life, liberty and morality of our country. I am convinced that the conventions, both Democratic and Republican, which meet in Chicago, will find prohibition a most important topic, and I believe both parties will deal with it in their respective platforms. The question must be settled rightly and it cannot be rightly settled until it is submitted to the direct vote of the people. There is no better proposition to submit to the people than that provided for in this resolution. It offers the best way and perhaps the only constitutional way in which we can let the people decide. -"For the Wets", By J. Charles Linthicum, Representative from Maryland, The New York Times, March 20, 1932, pg XXI "Representatives J. Charles Linthicum and Vincent Palmisano and former Representative John Philip Hill favor a beer parade in Baltimore such as Mayor Walker plans for New York. Walter H . Buck president of the Baltimore Association Against the Prohibition Amendment; Edgar Allan Poe Jr., head of the Crusaders here, and other civic and political leaders sowed interest in the idea of a national demonstration. Mr. Buck explained that his association was interested in repeal of the prohibition amendment rather than modification, and expressed regret that the Baltimore Association of Commerce recently refused to follow the lead of similar bodies in Chicago and New York,, which passed resolutions calling on Congress to pass a bill making beer available for tax revenue. Mr. Poe said he felt sure that the members of the Crusaders would be willing to march here in a beer parade. But in the absence of official advice on the matter from the Crusaders' New York headquarters he was unwilling to commit himself. -"Linthicum for Parade.", The New York Times., April 17, 1932, pg.2.
To return to the top of this page click here
|
Chairman House Foreign Affairs Committee
|
50 Church St., New York City: (source see above) Additional Sources: "Linthicum supports education aid to China,"U.S.-China Educational Exchange: State, Society, and Intercultural Relations, 1905-1950,Hongshan Li, Rutgers University Press, 2008 Japan's Cultural Policy Toward China, 1918-1931: A Comparative Perspective,See Heng Teow, Harvard University Asia Center, 1999. 1915 Representative Linthicum, a Democrat from Maryland, then very ably brought out the high character of our consular service, stating that "probably no other government in the world is securing more valuable services from its consular employees than those services which are being rendered our government by the men in its service." He pointed out, however, among the reforms which would still further improve the consular service the elimination of the apportionment provision in making appointments. Mr. Linthicum's remarks were in part as follows : "Many reforms in our diplomatic and consular service have been brought about recently. We need the very best men we can secure in the foreign service of this country. We require men of genuine talent and ability, and when we have secured such men, and they have satisfactorily demonstrated their worth, they ought to be rewarded and spurred on to even more valuable efforts. These places ought to be open to all classes of our people possessing the necessary training and qualifications. Under the present arrangement relating to apportionment among the states and the restrictions with which these places are surrounded, through no fault of the officers of our state department, these appointments do not always go to those possessing the best qualifications for them." Representative Campbell, a Republican from Kansas, then addressed the House and asked Mr. Linthicum how foreign nations "with a consistent foreign policy that have foreign offices with men trained in the foreign service, who carry out the policy of their country, could have respect for a great nation that gives as a reward to political campaigners, or those who have given contributions, the office of ambassador or minister to the great countries of the world, and too often without any regard whatever as to their fitness for work in statecraft and diplomacy, as we have just been shown by the case of Santo Domingo?" In reply Mr. Campbell was asked what remedy he proposed. Mr. Campbell then offered the following plan: "Simple enough. I would make all officers below the secretary of state continuing officers. I would not change the assistant secretary of state, I would not change the counselor for the state department, and I would have officers who are familiar with the precedents and with international law and usage, and also familiar with the details of the office and able to carry out a consecutive foreign policy." It was then pointed out by Mr. Barkley, Democratic Representative from Kentucky, that "regardless of parties and administrations in the past, with very few exceptions, and small exceptions, too, our representatives abroad have
-Good Government, National Civil Service League, National Civil
Service League., 1914
Item notes: v.31-32 1914-1915
"Congressman J. Charles Linthicum, a member of the House Naval Affairs Committee, visited the pier at 6 o'clock tonight accompanied by his brother, J. Hampton Linthicum. They called on Captain Hinsch of the Neckar, and despite the orders that had been issued that no one was to go aboard the vessel after sundown Tuesday, the order was placed aside and the party was taken on board the interned North German Lloyd liner. (U boat involved was the Deutschland.) -"Crew Fear U-Boat's Fate.", New York Times. July 20, 1916, pg. 1. Mr. LINTHICUM. The Germans erected monuments during
the war for their adequately safeguarded from the standpoint of design, from the
standpoint Mr. LINTHICUM. I had in mind that if the National
Government erected one … Mr. LINTHICUM. In my statement I had in mind the
splendid work being done memorial to our soldiers, and I am very sure that
President Harding will say Representative Linthicum Back From South America Marylander Sent to Select Sites for Buildings To House U.S. Embassies and Consular and Commerce Department Offices. New York, Jan. 7 (Special)- Representative J. Charles Linthicum, Maryland, arrived in New York this morning following a tour of South America. He was accompanied by Mrs. Linthicum. He is returning to Washington to assume his duties in Congress. Sought Building Sites Mr. Linthicum made the trip for the Foreign Service Building Commission, which is composed of Secretaries Kellogg, Mellon and Whiting, Senators Borah and Swanson and Representatives Linthicum and Porter. The purpose of this trip was to select the sites in South American countries in which the United States Government will erect buildings to house embassies, legations, consular and Department of Commerce offices. Thirty-Three Projects under Way Representative Linthicum said there were thirty-three such projects by the United States Government underway all over the world. The vessel on which Mr.. Linthicum returned came from Peru and Chile by way of the Panama Canal and Havana. Capt. W. C. Benaut, her commander, said the receptions accorded President-elect Hoover in South America exceeded in popular enthusiasm anything he had ever witnessed before in those countries. -The Baltimore Sun, Jan. 8, 1929.
1931 The Moses-Linthicum Act on the Foreign Service
"An Act for the Grading and
Classification of Clerks in the Foreign Service . . "To rectify deficiencies in the Rogers Act, on February 23, 1931, Congress enacted the Moses-Linthicum Act. Constituting a revised, comprehensive, organic act for the Foreign Service, although it reiterated much of the Rogers Act, it ranked Foreign Service officers in eight regular classes, plus unclassified officers, increased their salaries ranging from $3,500 to $10,000 annually, and provided for annual leaves, sick leaves of absence, and other details concerned with commissioning and retirement arrangements. Innovative in two major respects, it reorganized the Foreign Service Personnel Board and modified arrangements respecting the overseas clerical staff. It formulated elaborate regulations to govern the Personnel Board's composition, authority, and functions concerning matters of compiling and appraising efficiency reports of officers and maintaining confidentiality of their correspondence and records (except for the President, the Secretary of State, and Board members). It supplemented these matters with specifications pertaining to automatic within grade salary increases, special allowances, and improvements in the retirement program. It also revised and regularized the system of diplomatic clerks, organizing them in two categories consisting of senior clerks arranged in five classes and junior clerks in three classes, with annual salaries ranging from $2,750 to $4,000, and it dealt with their appointment, advancement, and special living expenses. The Moses-Linthicum Act also updated and improved the organization and management of the Foreign Service. Assessing this revision in 1934 Assistant Secretary Wilbur Carr, who played a major role in devising the substance of the acts of 1924 and 1931 and who has been called the "Father of the Foreign Service." observed that "the Foreign Service had finally attained the goal for which Presidents, Secretaries of State, and the businessmen of the country had striven for years" -U.S. Department of State: A Reference History, Elmer Plischke. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999 p.314 1932 World Court Introduced Resolution May 2, 1932. To enable the United States to pay a portion of the expenses of the Permanent Court of International Justice for 1932. Sent to House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs. Hearings were held on May 6, 13,20 and 24 of 1932. The concept put forth by Linthicum was that by funding the court the United States could avoid funding other arbitrations which it had been funding such as in Sweden, Panama, Cuba, Egypt, Guatemala, Spain and Mexico. While saving money fair and just settlements could be made more efficient. June 15, 1932 the Resolution reached the floor of the house. -Source:"The Linthicum Resolution on the World Court",,MO Hudson - American Journal of International Law, 1932
|
|
Oleomargarine: Hearing Before the Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Seventieth Congress, First Session, on H. R. 10958 ... By Committee on Rules, United States Congress. House. Committee on Rules, United States, Congress, House Published by U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1928 Original from the Library of Congress I am in receipt of another letter from Mr. J. Chas. Linthicum, who requested that I interest our organization in the better conditions of dairy products, and his resolution received the proper investigation, and is most startling in its revelations. The investigation was made by the chiefs of the various departments of the Department of Agriculture, which includes some eminent scientists, and states that thousands of children under sixteen years contract bovine tuberculosis through eating butter and drinking . milk contaminated with bovine tubercular bacilli, and that 6,000 children under five years die every year of bovine tuberculosis. Much more is contained in this letter that 1 have not room to give, but Mr. Linthicum wishes all our members who agree with him that the above conditions should be changed, and for the enactment of a national inspection law to protect the children, to write to your congressman in care of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., expressing your views and asking him to favor this resolution for the above law.
-The Railroad Telegrapher, Order of Railroad Telegraphers (U.S.),
Order of Railroad Telegraphers (U.S., Order of Railroad Telegraphers,
1916
Item notes: v.33:pt.1 (1916)1
"The board of directors of the Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis at the monthly meeting last week adopted several resolutions which placed the association squarely on record regarding the further protection of dairy products in line with the resolution recently introduced by J. Charles Linthicum, of Maryland in the House of Representatives." -"Demand Pure Dairy Food.", The Washington Post,, March 5, 1916, pg. ES12 "Federal inspection of milk, butter, and dairy products entering into interstate commerce was advocated in the House today by J. Charles Linthicum, a Maryland Democrat, who has pending before the Rules Committee a resolution for a Congressional Investigation of "the truth of charges that milk, butter, ice cream, and other products of milk are in many cases, filthy, disease-breeding, and unfit for human consumption." "It is claimed" said Mr. Linthicum, "That many huge frauds discovered by the Internal Revenue Bureau have been committed by butter factories and butter dealers. These factories are free from Government inspection, and they are able to get in oils and artificial colorings and thereby greatly increase their output, which is sold as butter,. Thus the factories defraud the Government of its taxes and the consuming public in the character of article sold." According to Mr. Linthicum, Hoard's Dairyman, a dairy journal, says: "The large central creameries have been the chief, though not the only sinners. They have invaded the territory of the local creameries and forced them to let down the bars to all that is bad in cream." -"Asks Federal Dairy Law". The New York Times. April 2, 1916, pg. 18
|
|
-Report of the Commissioner of Education., United States Office of Education, Government printing office, 1910,p.46,
|
|
Geneology Lineage of Honorable J. Charles Linthicum Gen1.1 Gen. II-D Thomas Linthicum Jr., mar. June 22, 1698, Deborah Wayman, dau. of Leonard, Sr., and Dorcas Wayman. Gen. III-I Hezekiah, school-master, b. Nov. 7, 1723, mar. cir. 1750,Sarah Bateman, b. 1713, dau. of Henry and Sarah (Powell) Bateman. Gen. Iv-6 Abner, Sr., b. 1763, mar. 1791, Rachel Jacob, gr. dau. of Richard, Sr., and Hannah (Howard) Jacob. D William b. 1798, mar. 1823, Betsy Sweetser, descendant of Roger Williams. 1 Sweetser Linthicum b. 1824, mar 1847, Laura E. Smith, b. 1829, h. Children of Sweetser Linthicum Sr.
(Not Shown: Asa Shinn Linthicum, Sr., Victoria Linthicum) Elizabeth Valeria b. Dec. 17, 1847 d. Jan. 5, 1934 James Smith b. Sept. 1`9, 1850, d. June, 1912. Annie Sweetser b. Dec. 17, 1853, d. 1936 William b. Oct. 16, 1856, d. Feb. 24, 1934 Asa Shinn b. Nov. 28, 1859, d. Jan. 4, 1897. Sweetser Jr. b. July 4, 1869 d.1997 Victoria April 17, 1865, d. April 11, 1867 Honorable John Charles Linthicum b. 1867, d. 1932. For twenty-two years represented his District in Congress. Mar. (1) Nov. 28, 1893, Eugenia May Biden; mar. (2) Mar. 9, 1898, Helen A., Clarke. No Children.(The Linthicums adopted Helen's Nephew later known as: J. Charles Linthicum Junior following his 18th birthday) Dr. George Milton, b. Aug. 17, 1870 d. 1935 Seth Hance b. July 26, 1873 d.1965 Wade Hampton b. Feb. 14, 1876.d,1945 -Genealogy of the Linthicum and Allied Families., Matilda, P. Badger, Baltimore, Md., 1934.,p.64.
Masonic Biography Entered the Masons December 10, 1900 Becomes Master Mason February 11, 1901 Member: John H.B. Latrobe Lodge in Baltimore -Source: Maryland Grand Lodge. Sweetser Linthicum Feb.
19, 1991 notes 1658-Thomas Linthicum, Sr., "The settler" (Original spelling: Linscomb name changed to Linthicum at time of American Revolution) English/Welsh, eighteen years old at the time. Becomes tobacco planter owning lands on West and South rivers and in Crofton Area. 1699- Willed plantation-"Linthicum Walks" near Crofton to Thomas, Jr. Son. Descendant of Thomas Jr. Abner living at Linthicum Walks moves to North Anne Arundel County February, 28, 1801 purchased tract of land "Andover" from Richard Ridgely. Becomes Linthicum Heights. 1857- Twin Oaks, home of Charles Linthicum,built by grandfather William Linthicum. November 26, 1867- Born, "Turkey Hill" Linthicum Heights, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Parents: Sweetser and Laura Ellen Linthicum 1801- Settlement-Sweetser Linthicum Sr., father of J. Charles, was large land owner and farmer. Property on the North side of the Patapsco River, Baltimore County. Owned wharf on the Patapsco and owned a boat used to ship produce to Baltimore. Farm required large number of workers who settled nearby. A self sufficient community developed. "Uncle Charley" grew up on this farm. Charles helped with chores on the farm. Was known as ambitious and energetic. Liked riding farm boat and wagons going to markets in the city. He hauled ice from the Patapsco River in Winter. The home place had an ice house. J. Charles loved ice skating on the pond (now parking lot and field of St. John's Lutheran Church, Maple Road, Linthicum Heights. Education: Attended Anne Arundel County and Baltimore City public schools. Wanted to become a teacher. 1886- Graduated Maryland State Normal School, Baltimore. 19 years old 1886-7 Taught in Anne Arundel County 1887- Transferred to Frederick County becomes principal of Braddock School. Entered Johns Hopkins University studying Political History and economics. Takes up interest in law and politics. 1890- Graduates University of Maryland Law School, opens law practice with partner brother Seth H. Linthicum, Sr., Baltimore City. Partnership lasted for the rest of Charles' life.(1932) 1893- Marries Eugenia May Biden and lived in Baltimore. No children. 1897- Eugenia Dies. 1898- J. Charles marries Helen A. Perry Clarke, widow, Father was Dr. John L. Perry of Saratoga Springs, New York. Ancestor was Captain Oliver Hazard Perry, naval hero of war of 1812. There were no natural children. . Helen assisted with the political career. 1933, Feb. 17, Memorial U.S. Rep. Cole of Md. :Mrs. Linthicum's devotion to him was a matter of knowledge to all of his friends in the House. Their home was open to all of us, and the hospitality of tat home which most of us enjoyed will live in our memories for all time." 1903- Ran for the Maryland House of Delegates, Third Legislative District, Baltimore City. 1905- Due to success runs for State senate. Hotly contested election. Serves in the Senate till 1911. 1908- Election, Served also as Presidential elector Dem. for William Jennings Bryan and Kern. 1908-1911- Serves as Judge Advocate General to Governor Austin L. Crothers. 1908- With his brothers: Seth H. Linthicum, Sr., Wade Hampton Linthicum, Dr. George Milton Linthicum and Sweetser Linthicum Sr. forms Linthicum Heights Company. Purpose was to develop portions of family land-originally settled by Abner Linthicum.\ Linthicum Heights Developed: "Well-planned, "Beautiful" surrounding Baltimore and Annapolis Short Line Railroad (Later becomes Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Railroad)
Charley Linthicum, proud of community, attends church suppers, bazaars, carnivals and community affairs. He made his home "Twin Oaks" available for these events held on the lawn. (most events were held adjacent to the Old Town Hall near intersection of Maple and Camp Mead Roads) 1909- Linthicum Heights Company gives two lots on the North East corner of Maple and Camp Meade roads to Linthicum Heights Methodist Protestant Church. (a "pretty" gray stone church was erected becoming: Linthicum Heights United Methodist Church. Charles and brothers and sisters donate stained glass window "The Good Shepherd" in memory of their parents: Sweetser and Laura Ellen Linthicum. John Charles' wife Helen donates a large bell in memory of her niece, Mrs. Virginia Perry Dillon. Later the church moves to School Lane. Money via John Charles Linthicum's will funds 15 metal-bell carillon. Bells are inscribed "to the glory of God and in honor of his wife Helen A. Linthicum." Bell remains in the grey stone church. 1910- Democratic candidate for United States Congress( House of Representatives) Fourth District of Baltimore City. 1911- Elected to 62nd congress March 4. (served until 1932. Accomplishments- Erection of U.S. Post Office and Federal Court Building, Baltimore additionally- Marine Hospital, Veterans Hospital, Appraisers Store. Helped to enlarge and improve port of Baltimore, preservation of Fort McHenry, Erection at Fort McHenry of Francis Scott Key Monument dedicated also to soldiers and sailors of War of 1812, helps fund via appropriation the restoration of warship "Constellation. He supported veterans and veterans organizations. Was concerned about conservation and environment and natural resources. Favors low tariff. Supports World Court, Friend and supporter of Woodrow Wilson. Did not drink, opposed Prohibition 1918- Bill establishing "The Star-Spangled Banner" as national anthem introduced. "Perhaps Congressman Linthicum's best known legislation". Works with Mrs. Ruben Ross Halloway, Society of the War of 1812., Daughters of the American Revolution and Sons of the American Revolution, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign wars and others. Petition of almost 5 million names supported the legislation. 1927- Becomes chairman of Anti- Prohibition Lobby. Responsible for repeal of 18th Amendment. (He thought Volstead Act "infringed upon the rights of the people and did more harm that good for the nation. 1930- April Star Spangled Banner Bill passed 1931- March, 3 Star Spangled banner bill signed into law by president Hoover. 1981- March 3, Ceremony and reception held Fort McHenry recognizing work on Star Spangled Banner legislation. Linthicum Family members in Attendance. Highest honor was succession to chairmanship of Foreign Affairs Committee of House of Representatives. Supported Foreign Service helps pass legislation improving ad updating service and construction of new embassies in foreign countries. Congressman Stephen
Gambrill" J. Charles and Helen were extensive travelers. Visited foreign counties frequently officially and as ordinary citizens. 1968- Towson State University dedicates "Linthicum Hall" in his honor. Charles and Helen established a number of scholarships at the university. He was closer to the Normal School than to other institutions. He was instrumental in getting state approval for construction of the Towson campus. Normal School becomes State Teachers College, then Towson Sate University. Linthicums maintained residence (legal) 705 St. Paul Street, Baltimore. Four-story brick, large rooms, high ceilings beautiful wood paneling. Antiques and mementos from their travels. When Congress was in session they lived at Hotel Roosevelt, Washington. Entertaining political, civilian and military people . "His great love"-
country home, Linthicum Heights, "Twin Oaks," two and one-half story brick
home. On one of highest elevations in area. Built by Congressman
Linthicum's grandfather, William Linthicum, 1857. Home gets name from
large oaks in front (no longer there). "Uncle Charley kept several beautiful peacocks that roamed around the lawns" they chased people walking through the property. Lawns and statuary were impressive. Chauffer was Alec who drove a big limousine with seal of the United States .
1932- September 23, Charles hospitalized, carbuncle on neck. Blood stream infection compounded by diabetic condition. 1932- October 5- died (candidate for 12th consecutive term as U.S. Congressman at the time the longest term of service of a Maryland representative) 1932- Memorial service February 17. "Among the remarks made by his peers were that he was gentle, kind, considerate, patient, courtly, dignified, honest, tactful, and intelligent.. Representative Bloom of New York: "his personality is the heritage which will be ever treasured in the memory of his friends and associates." Congressman Goldsborough: "Truly a fine figure." The Baltimore Sun: "He had a way of life." Sweetser Linthicum Jr.: "he was indeed a gentleman of the old school with all those fine characteristics that go with it." "Uncle Charley," "plain person who loved his family and fellow man and was friendly and kind to all. I remember one Halloween night when Aunt Helen and Uncle Charley invited our family to "Twin Oaks." My parents, Wade Hampton and Mary Delmah Linthicum, and my two sisters, Mary Del and Matilda, and I arrived fully costumed and masked. A big-time was had in guessing who was who. It was a happy time and everyone enjoyed the evening, especially Aunt Helen and Uncle Charley. We children felt that we had been well behaved, because we had remembered our parents warning not to sit on Aunt Helen's fragile musical chair. (It actually played pretty music when one sat on it.) Another time was when Uncle Charley wanted to listen to the Dempsey-Tunney prize fight, which I understand was the first boxing championship event ever broadcast. Knowing that we had a radio, he phoned us from "Twin Oaks" and asked if he and Aunt Helen could come over to listen to this great sporting event. We were pleased to have them, and everyone huddled together around the radio and listened to the fight. They were both enthusiastic listeners. They also entertained members of the various Linthicum families who were sometime accompanied by their children. Our hosts both loved children. If invited for lunch or dinner the adults would be served in the main dining room and the children would eat at the same time in a smaller adjoining room. Children and adults both enjoyed the same food and formal services by the staff. Uncle Charley was always closely attached to his brothers and sisters and interested in their loves and welfare. -Swetser Linthicum, Jr. Esq. The Life of Congressman John Charles Linthicum., Original Manuscript, Anne Arundel County Historical Society, February 19, 1991. Oil on canvas, Thomas C. Corner, 1932, Collection of U.S. House of Representatives http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000340
LINTHICUM, John Charles, a Representative from Maryland; born near Baltimore, in the locality now known as Linthicum Heights, Anne Arundel County, Md., November 26, 1867; attended the public schools of that county and Baltimore; was graduated from the State normal school in Baltimore in 1886; principal of Braddock School, Frederick County, in 1887, and taught in the schools of Anne Arundel County; studied history and political science at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore; was graduated from the law department of the University of Maryland at Baltimore in 1890; was admitted to the bar and commenced practice in Baltimore in 1890; member of the State house of delegates in 1904 and 1905; served in the State senate 1906-1909; unsuccessful candidate for mayor of Baltimore in 1907; judge advocate general on the staff of Gov. Austin L. Crothers 1908-1912; elected as a Democrat to the Sixty-second and to the ten succeeding Congresses and served from March 4, 1911, until his death; chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs (Seventy-second Congress); had been re-nominated to the Seventy-third Congress at the time of his death; delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1924; died in Baltimore, Md., October 5, 1932; interment in Druid Ridge Cemetery. (source as photo above)
JOHN CHARLES LINTHICUM, Democrat, of Baltimore, was
born at Linthicum OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTORY Published by , 1922 J. Charles Linthicum (November 26, 1867-October 5, 1932) was a U.S. Congressman from the 4th Congressional district of Maryland, serving from 1911 to 1932. Linthicum was born near Baltimore, Maryland, in the locality now known as Linthicum Heights, Maryland, and attended the public schools of Anne Arundel County and Baltimore. He graduated from the State normal school in Baltimore in 1886, and became principal of the Braddock School in Frederick County, Maryland in 1887. He also taught in the schools of Anne Arundel County, and studied history and political science at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. He graduated from the law department of the University of Maryland at Baltimore in 1890, and was admitted to the bar and commenced practice in Baltimore in 1890. Linthicum served as a member of the Maryland House of Delegates in 1904 and 1905, and in the Maryland State Senate from 1906 to 1909. He was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of Baltimore in 1907, and was a judge advocate general on the staff of Maryland Governor Austin Lane Crothers from 1908 to 1912. He was elected as a Democrat to the Sixty-second and to the ten succeeding Congresses and served from March 4, 1911, until his death. During the Seventy-second Congress, he served as chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and had been re-nominated to the Seventy-third Congress at the time of his death. Linthicum had also served as delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1924. He died in Baltimore, and is interred in Druid Ridge Cemetery. http://www.mysticgames.com/famouspeople/JCharlesLinthicum.htm J. CHARLES LINTHICUM, Democrat.
|