text:
The Presidents of the United States, 1789-1914/James A. Garfield

, twentieth president of the United States, born in Orange, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, November 19, 1831; died in Elberon, N. J., September 19, 1881. His father, Abram Garfield, was a native of New York, but of Massachusetts ancestry, descended from Edward Garfield, an English Puritan, who in 1630 was one of the founders of Watertown. His mother, Eliza Ballou, was born in New Hampshire, of a Huguenot family that fled from France to New England after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, in 1685. Garfield, therefore, was from lineage well represented in the struggles for civil and religious liberty, both in the Old and in the New World. Abram Garfield, his father, moved to Ohio in 1830, and settled in what was then known as “The Wilderness,” now as the “Western Reserve,” which was occupied by Connecticut people. Abram Garfield made a prosperous beginning in his new home, but died, after a sudden illness, at the age of thirty-three, leaving a widow with four small children, of whom James was the youngest. In bringing up her family, unaided in a lonely cabin, and impressing on them a high standard of moral and intellectual worth, Mrs. Garfield displayed an almost heroic courage. It was a life of struggle and privation; but the poverty of her home differed from that of cities or settled communities — it was the poverty of the frontier, all shared it, and all were bound closely together in a common struggle, where there were no humiliating contrasts in neighboring wealth.

At three years of age James A. Garfield went to school in a log hut, learned to read, and began that habit of omnivorous reading which ended only with his life. At ten years of age he was accustomed to manual labor, helping out his mother's meager income by work at home or on the farms of the neighbors. Labor was play to the healthy boy; he did it cheerfully, almost with enthusiasm, for his mother was a staunch Campbellite, whose hymns and songs sent her children to their tasks with a feeling that the work was consecrated; but work in winter always yielded its claims to those of the district school, where he made good progress, and was conspicuous for his assiduity. By the time he was fourteen, young Garfield had a fair knowledge of arithmetic and grammar, and was particularly apt in the facts of American history, which he had eagerly gathered from the meager treatise that circulated in that remote section. Indeed, he read and re-read every book the scant

libraries of that part of the wilderness supplied, and many he learned by heart. Mr. Blaine attributes the dignity and earnestness of his style to his familiarity with the Bible and its literature, of which he was a constant student. His imagination was especially kindled by the tales of the sea; a love for adventure took strong possession of him. He so far yielded to it that in 1848 he went to Cleveland and proposed to ship as a sailor on board a lake schooner. But a glance showed him that the life was not the romance he had conceived. He turned promptly from the shore, but, loath to return home without adventure and without money, drove some months for a boat on the Ohio canal. Little is known of this experience, except that he secured promotion from the tow-path to the boat, and a story that he was strong enough and brave enough to hold his own against his companions, who were naturally a rough set.

Photograph by Pach Bros., N. Y.

During the winter of 1849-50 he attended the Geauga seminary at Chester, Ohio, about ten miles from his home. In the vacations he learned and practised the trade of a carpenter, helped at harvest, taught, did anything and everything to get money to pay for his schooling. After the first term, he asked and needed no aid from home; he had reached the point where he could support himself. At Chester he met Miss Lucretia Rudolph, his future wife. Attracted at first by her interest

in the same intellectual pursuits, he quickly discovered sympathy in other tastes, and a congeniality of disposition, which paved the way for the one great love of his life. He was himself attractive at this time, exhibited many signs of intellectual superiority, and was physically a splendid specimen of vigorous young manhood. He studied hard, worked hard, cheerfully ready for any emergency, even that of the prize-ring; for, finding it a necessity, he one day thrashed the bully of the school in a stand-up fight. His nature, always religious, was at this period profoundly stirred in that direction.

Garfield was converted under the instructions of a Campbellite preacher, was baptized and received into that denomination. They called themselves “The Disciples,” contemned all doctrines and forms, and sought to direct their lives by the Scriptures, simply interpreted as any plain man would read them. This sanction to independent thinking, given by religion itself, must have had great influence in creating that broad and catholic spirit in this young disciple which kept his earnest nature out of the ruts of moral and intellectual bigotry. From this moment his zeal to get the best education grew warmer; he began to take wider views, to look beyond the present into the future. As soon as he finished his studies in Chester he entered (1851) the Hiram eclectic institute (now Hiram college), at Hiram, Portage County, Ohio, the principal educational institution of his sect. He was not very quick of acquisition, but his perseverance was indomitable, and he soon had an excellent knowledge of Latin and a fair acquaintance with algebra, natural philosophy, and botany. He read Xenophon, Cæsar, and Virgil with appreciation; but his superiority was more easily recognized in the prayer-meetings and debating societies of the college, where he was assiduous and conspicuous. Living here was inexpensive, and he readily made his expenses by teaching in the English departments, and also gave instruction in the ancient languages.

After three years he was well prepared to enter the junior class of any eastern college, and had saved $350 out of his salary toward the expenses of such an undertaking. He hesitated between Yale, Brown, and Williams colleges, finally choosing Williams on the kindly promise of encouragement sent him by its president, Mark Hopkins. It was natural to expect he would choose Bethany college, in West Virginia, an institution largely controlled and patronized by the “Disciples of Christ.” Garfield himself seems to have thought some explanation necessary for his neglect to do so, and with particularity assigns as reasons that the course of instruction at Bethany was not so extended as in the old New England colleges; that

Bethany was too friendly in opinion to slavery; and — most significant of all the reasons he gave — that, as he had inherited by birth and association a strong bias toward the religious views there inculcated, he thought especially to examine other faiths. Entering Williams in the autumn of 1854, he was duly graduated with the highest honors in the class of 1856. His classmates unite with President Hopkins in testifying that in college he was warm-hearted, large-minded, and possessed of great earnestness of purpose and a singular poise of judgment. All speak, too, of his modest and unassuming manners. But, outside of these and other like qualities, such as industry, perseverance, courage, and conscientiousness, Garfield had exhibited up to this time no signs of the superiority that was to make him a conspicuous figure. But the effects of twenty-five years of most varied discipline, cheerfully accepted and faithfully used, begin now to show themselves, and to give to history one of its most striking examples of what education — the education of books and of circumstances — can accomplish. Garfield was not born, but made; and he made himself by persistent, strenuous, conscientious study and work. In the next six years he was a college president, a state senator, a major-general in the National army, and a representative-elect to the National congress.

American annals reveal no other promotion so rapid and so varied.

On his return to Ohio, in 1856, he resumed his place as a teacher of Latin and Greek at Hiram institute, and the next year (1857), being then only twenty-six years of age, he was made its president. He was a successful officer, and ambitious, as usual, beyond his allotted task. He discussed before his interested classes almost every subject of current interest in scholarship, science, religion, and art. The story spread, and his influence with it; he became an intellectual and moral force in the Western Reserve. It was greatest, however, over the young. They keenly felt the contagion of his manliness, his sympathy, his thirst for knowledge, and his veneration for the truth when it was found. As an educator, he was, and always would have been, eminently successful; he had the knowledge, the art to impart it, and the personal magnetism that impressed his love for it upon his pupils. His intellectual activity at this time was intense. The canons of his church permitted him to preach, and he used the permission. He also pursued the study of law, entering his name, in 1858, as a student in a law-office in Cleveland, but studying in Hiram. To one ignorant of the slow development that was characteristic of Garfield in all directions, it would seem incredible that he now for the first time began to show any noticeable interest in politics. He

seemed never to have even voted before the autumn of 1856. No one who knew the man could doubt that he would then cast it, as he did, for John C. Frémont, the first Republican candidate for the presidency. As moral questions entered more and more into politics, Garfield's interest grew apace, and he sought frequent occasions to discuss these questions in debate. In advocating the cause of freedom against slavery, he showed for the first time a skill in discussion, which afterward bore good fruit in the house of representatives. Without solicitation or thought on his part, in 1859 he was sent to represent the counties of Summit and Portage in the senate of Ohio. Again in this new field his versatility and industry are conspicuous. He made exhaustive investigations and reports on such widely different topics as geology, education, finance, and parliamentary law. Always looking to the future, and apprehensive that the impending contest might leave the halls of legislation and seek the arbitrament of war, he gave especial study to the militia system of the state, and the best methods of equipping and disciplining it.

The war came, and Garfield, who had been farmer, carpenter, student, teacher, lawyer, preacher, and legislator, was to show himself an excellent soldier. In August, 1861, Gov. William Dennison commissioned him lieutenant-colonel in the 42nd regiment of Ohio volunteers. The men

were his old pupils at Hiram college, whom he had persuaded to enlist. Promoted to the command of this regiment, he drilled it into military efficiency while waiting orders to the front, and in December, 1861, reported to Gen. Buell, in Louisville, Ky. Gen. Buell was so impressed by the soldierly condition of the regiment that he gave Col. Garfield a brigade, and assigned him the difficult task of driving the Confederate general Humphrey Marshall from eastern Kentucky. His confidence was such that he allowed the young soldier to lay his own plans, though on their success hung the fate of Kentucky. The undertaking itself was difficult. Gen. Marshall had 5,000 men, while Garfield had but half that number, and must march through a state where the majority of the people were hostile, to attack an enemy strongly intrenched in a mountainous country. Garfield, nothing daunted, concentrated his little force, and moved it with such rapidity, sometimes here and sometimes there, that Gen. Marshall, deceived by these feints, and still more by false reports, which were skilfully prepared for him, abandoned his position and many supplies at Paintville, and was caught in retreat by Garfield, who charged the full force of the enemy, and maintained a hand-to-hand fight with it for five hours. The enemy had 5,000 men and twelve cannon; Garfield had no artillery, and but 1,100 men. But he held his own until re-enforced

by Gens. Granger and Sheldon, when Marshall gave way, leaving Garfield the victor at Middle Creek, January 10, 1862, one of the most important of the minor battles of the war. Shortly afterward Zollicoffer was defeated and slain by Gen. Thomas at Mill Spring, and the Confederates lost the state of Kentucky. Coming after the reverses at Big Bethel, Bull Run, and the disastrous failures in Missouri, Gen. Garfield's triumph over the Confederate forces at Middle Creek had an encouraging effect on the entire north. Marshall was a graduate of West Point, and had every advantage in numbers and position, yet seems to have been out-generaled at every point. He was driven from two fortified positions, and finally completely routed — all within a period of less than a fortnight in the month of January, 1862. In recognition of these services, especially acknowledged by Gen. Buell in his General Order No. 40 (January 20, 1862), President Lincoln promptly made the young colonel a brigadier-general, dating his commission from the battle of Middle Creek.

During his campaign of the Big Sandy, while Garfield was engaged in breaking up some scattered Confederate encampments, his supplies gave out, and he was threatened with starvation. Going himself to the Ohio river, he seized a steamer, loaded it with provisions, and, on the refusal of any pilot to undertake the perilous voyage, because

of a freshet that had swelled the river, he stood at the helm for forty-eight hours and piloted the craft through the dangerous channel. In order to surprise Marshall, then intrenched in Cumberland Gap, Garfield marched his soldiers 100 miles in four days through a blinding snow-storm. Re turning to Louisville, he found that Gen. Buell was away, overtook him at Columbia, Tenn., and was assigned to the command of the 20th brigade. He reached Shiloh in time to take part in the second day's fight, was engaged in all the operations in front of Corinth, and in June, 1862, rebuilt the bridges on the Memphis and Charleston railroad, and exhibited noticeable engineering skill in repairing the fortifications of Huntsville. The unhealthfulness of the region told upon him, and on July 30, 1862, under leave of absence, he returned to Hiram, where he lay ill for two months. On September 25, 1862, he went to Washington, and was ordered on court-martial duty, and gained such reputation in this practice that, on November 25, he was assigned to the case of Gen. Fitz-John Porter. In February, 1863, he returned to duty under Gen. Rosecrans, then in command of the Army of the Cumberland. Rosecrans made him his chief-of-staff, with responsibilities beyond those usually given to this office. In this field, Garfield's influence on the campaign in Middle Tennessee was most important. One familiar incident shows

and justifies the great influence he wielded in its counsels.

Before the battle of Chickamauga (June 24, 1863) Gen. Rosecrans asked the written opinion of seventeen of his generals on the advisability of an immediate advance. All others opposed it, but Garfield advised it, and his arguments were so convincing, though pressed without passion or prejudice, that Rosecrans determined to seek an engagement. Gen. Garfield wrote out all the orders of that fateful day (September 19), excepting one — and that one was the blunder that lost the day. Garfield volunteered to take the news of the defeat on the right to Gen. George H. Thomas, who held the left of the line. It was a bold ride, under constant fire, but he reached Thomas and gave the information that saved the Army of the Cumberland. For this action he was made a major-general, September 19, 1863, promoted for gallantry on a field that was lost. With a military future so bright before him, Garfield, always unselfish, yielded his own ambition to Mr. Lincoln's urgent request, and on December 3, 1863, resigned his commission, and hastened to Washington to sit in congress, to which he had been chosen fifteen months before, as the successor to Joshua R. Giddings. In the mean time Thomas had received command of the Army of the Cumberland, had reorganized it, and had asked Garfield to take

command of a division. His inclination was to accept and continue the military career, which had superior attractions; but he yielded to the representations of the President and Secretary Stanton, that he would be more useful in the house of representatives.

Gen. Garfield was thirty-two years old when he entered congress. He found in the house, which was to be the theater of his lasting fame, many with whom his name was for the next twenty years intimately associated. Schuyler Colfax was its speaker, and Conkling, Blaine, Washburne, Stevens, Fenton, Schenck, Henry Winter Davis, William B. Allison, and William R. Morrison were among its members. His military reputation had preceded him, and secured for him a place in the committee on military affairs, then the most important in congress. His first speech (January 14, 1864), upon a motion to print extra copies of Gen. Rosecrans official report, was listened to with attention; and, indeed, whenever he spoke upon army matters this was the case. But the attention was given to the man for the information he possessed and imparted rather than to the orator; for in effective speech, as in every other matter in which Garfield succeeded, he came to excellence only by labor and practice. He was soon regarded as an authority on military matters, and his opinion was sought as an expert, experienced and careful.

To these questions he gave all necessary attention, but they did not exhaust his capacity. He began at this time, and ever afterward continued, a thorough study of constitutional and financial problems, and to aid him in these researches he labored to increase his familiarity with the German and French languages. In this, his first session, he had to stand almost alone in opposition to the bill that increased the bounty paid for enlistment. He advocated liberal bounties to the veterans that re-enlisted, but would use the draft to secure raw recruits. History vindicated his judgment. In the same session he spoke on the subject of seizure and confiscation of rebel property, and on free commerce between the states. On January 13, 1865, he discussed exhaustively the constitutional amendment to abolish slavery.

In the 39th congress (1865) he was changed, at his own request, from the committee on military affairs to the ways and means committee, which then included Messrs. Morrison, of Illinois, Brooks and Conkling, of New York, and Allison, of Iowa. His reason for choosing this new field was that, the war being ended, financial questions would have supreme importance, and he wished to have his part in their solution. In the 40th congress (1867) he was restored to his old committee on military affairs, and made its chairman. In March, 1866, he made his first speech on the question of the

public debt, foreshadowing, in the course of his remarks, that republican policy which resulted in the resumption of specie payment, January 1, 1879. From this moment until the treasury note was worth its face in gold, he never failed, on every proper occasion, in the house and out, to discuss every phase of the financial question, and to urge upon the National conscience the demands of financial honor. In May, 1868, he spoke again on the currency, dealing a staggering blow to the adherents of George H. Pendleton, who, under the stress of a money panic, were clamoring for the government to “make the money-market easier.” It may be said that he was at this, as at later times, the representative and champion of the sound-money men in congress, and first and last did more than anyone else, probably, in settling the issues of this momentous question. In 1877 and 1878 he was again active in stemming a fresh tide of financial fallacies. He treated the matter this time with elementary simplicity, and gave in detail reasons for a hard-money policy, based not so much upon opinion and theory as upon the teachings of history.

In the 41st congress a new committee — that on banking and currency — was created, and Garfield was very properly made its chairman. This gave him new opportunities to serve the cause in which he was heartily enlisted, and no one now seeks to

diminish the value of that service. The most noticed and most widely read of these discussions was a speech on the National finances, which he delivered in 1878, at Faneuil Hall, Boston. It was circulated as a campaign document by thousands, and served to win a victory in Massachusetts and to subdue for a while the frantic appeals from the west for more paper money. He served also on the select committee on the census (a tribute to his skill in statistics) and on the committee on rules, as an appreciation of his practical and thorough knowledge of parliamentary law. In the 42d and 43d congresses he was chairman of the committee on appropriations. In the 44th, 45th, and 46th congresses (the house being Democratic) he was assigned a place on the committee of ways and means. In reconstruction times, Garfield was earnest and aggressive in opposition to the theories advocated by President Johnson. He was a kind man, and not lacking in sympathy for those who, from mistaken motives, had attempted to sever their connection with the Federal Union; but he was not a sentimentalist, and had too earnest convictions not to insist that the results won by so much treasure and blood should be secured to the victors. An old soldier, he would not see Union victories neutralized by evasion of the constitution. On these topics no one was his superior in either branch of congress, and no opponent, however able,

encountered him here without regretting the contest.

In 1876, Gen. Garfield went to New Orleans, at President Grant's request, in company with Senators Sherman and Matthews and other Republicans, to watch the counting of the Louisiana vote. He made a special study of the West Feliciana parish case, and embodied his views in a brief but significant report. On his return, he made, in January, 1877, two notable speeches in the house on the duty of congress in a presidential election, and claimed that the vice-president had a constitutional right to count the electoral vote. He was opposed to an electoral commission; yet, when the commission was ordered, Gen. Garfield was chosen by acclamation to fill one of the two seats allotted to Republican representatives. His colleague was George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts. Garfield discussed before the commission the Florida and Louisiana returns, on February 9 and 16, 1877. Mr. Blaine left the house in 1877 for the senate, and this made Garfield the undisputed leader of the Republican party in the house. He was at this time its candidate for speaker.

The struggle began in the second session of the 45th congress (1879), when the Democratic majority sought to control the president through the appropriations, gave Garfield a fine opportunity to display his powers as a leader in opposition.

The Democratic members added to two general appropriation bills, in the shape of amendments, legislation intended to restrain the use of the army as a posse to keep the peace at elections, to repeal the law authorizing the employment of deputy U. S. marshals at the elections of members of congress, and to relieve jurors in the U. S. courts from the obligation of the test oath. The senate, which was Republican, refused to concur in these amendments, and so the session ended. An extra session was promptly called, which continued into midsummer. Contemporary criticism claims that, in this contest, Gen. Garfield reached, perhaps, the climax of his congressional career. A conservative man by nature, he revolted at such high-handed measures, and in his speech of March 29, 1879, characterized them as a “revolution in congress.” Against this insult to the spirit of the law he protested with unwonted vigor. Like Webster in 1832, he stood the defender of the constitution, and his splendid eloquence and resistless logic upheld the prerogatives of the executive, and denounced these attempts by the legislature to prevent or control elections, however, disguised, as an attack upon the constitution. He warned the house that its course would end in nullification, and protested that its principle was the “revived doctrine of state sovereignty.” (See speeches of April 26, June 10 and 11, and June 19 and 27,

1879.) The result of it was that the Democrats finally voted $44,600,000 of the $45,000,000 of appropriations or i ginally asked — a great party victory, to which Gen. Garfield largely contributed. His arguments had the more weight because not partisan, but supported by a clear analysis and statement of the relations between the different branches of the government. His last speech to the house was made on the appointment of special deputy marshals, April 23, 1880. At the same time he made a report of the tariff commission, which showed that he was still a sincere friend to protection. He was already United States senator-elect from the state of Ohio, chosen after a nomination of singular unanimity, January 13, 1880.

Where there is government by party, no leader can escape calumny; hence it assailed Garfield with great venom. In the presidential canvass of 1872, he, with other Republican representatives, was charged with having bought stock in the Crédit Mobilier, sold to them at less than its value to influence their action in legislation affecting the Union Pacific railroad. A congressional investigation, reporting February 13, 1875, seemed to establish these facts so far as Garfield was concerned. He knew nothing of any connection between the two companies, much less that the Crédit Mobilier controlled the railway. Garfield

denied that he ever owned the stock, and was vaguely contradicted by Oakes Ames, who had no evidence of his alleged sale of $1,000 worth of the stock to Garfield, except a memorandum in his diary, which did not agree with Ames's oral testimony that he paid Garfield $329 as dividend on the stock. Garfield admitted that he had received $300 in June, 1868, from Ames, but claimed that it was a loan, and that he paid it in the winter of 1869. It was nowhere claimed that Garfield ever received certificate, or receipt, or other dividends, to which, if the owner of the stock, he was entitled, or that he ever asked for them. The innocence of Gen. Garfield was generally recognized, and, after the circumstances became known, he was not weakened in his district.

Another investigation in the same congress (43d) gave calumny a second opportunity. This was the investigation into the conduct of the government of the District of Columbia. It revealed startling frauds in a De Golyer contract, and Garfield's name was found to be in some way connected with it. The facts, corroborated in an open letter by James M. Wilson, chairman of the committee, were: In May, 1872, Richard C. Parsons, a Cleveland attorney, then marshal of the supreme court in Washington, having the interests of the patents owned by De Golyer in charge, was called away. He brought all his material to Garfield, and

asked him to prepare the brief. The brief was to show the superiority of the pavement (the subject of patent) over forty other kinds, and did not otherwise concern the contract or have anything to do with its terms. The fraud, as is generally understood, was in the contract, not in the quality of the pavement. Garfield prepared the brief and delivered it to Parsons, but did not himself make the argument. Parsons sent Garfield subsequently $5,000, which was a part of the fee Parsons had received for his own services. As thoughtful people reviewed the case, there was no harsher criticism than that suggested by Gen. Garfield's own lofty standard of avoiding even the appearance of evil — that he had not shown his usual prudence in avoiding any connection, even the most honest, in any way, with any matter that could in any shape come in for congressional review. It was the unjust charges made in connection with these calumnies which sent the iron into his soul, and made wounds which he forgave but never forgot.

[ Fac-simile of last page of letter from J. A. Garfield to James H. Rhodes ]

In June, 1880, the Republican convention to nominate a successor to President Hayes was held in Chicago, and to it came Garfield, naturally, at the head of the Ohio delegation. He sympathized heartily with the wish of that delegation to secure the nomination for John Sherman, and labored loyally for that end. There could be no criticism

of his action, nor could there be any just criticism of his loyalty to his candidate, except (and that he never concealed) that he wished more to defeat the nomination of Grant than to secure that of Senator Sherman. He believed a third term such a calamity that patriotism required the sacrifice of all other considerations to prevent it. That view he shared with Mr. Blaine, also a candidate in this convention, whose instructions to his friends were, “Defeat a third term first, and then struggle for the prize of office afterwards. Success in the one case is vital; success in the other is of minor importance.” On the thirty-third ballot Grant had 306 votes, the remaining 400 being divided between Blaine, Edmunds, and Washburne. The hope of the Grant men or the Blaine men to secure the prize faltered, and in the thirty-fourth ballot Wisconsin broke the monotony by announcing thirty-six votes for James A. Garfield. This put the spark to fuel that had been unconsciously prepared for it by the events of the long struggle. In all the proceedings, peculiar fitness had put Garfield to the front as the counsellor and leader of the anti-Grant majority, and the exhibition of his splendid qualifications won increasing admiration and trust. His tact and readiness in casual debate, and the beauty and force of the more elaborate effort in which he nominated Sherman won the wavering convention. On the thirty-sixth ballot the delegates

broke their ranks and rushed to him. He received 399 votes, and then his nomination (June 8, 1880) was made unanimous.

Gen. Garfield left the convention before the result was announced, and accepted the nomination by letter. This was a thoughtful document, and acceptable to the Republican voters. Disregarding precedent, he spoke in his own behalf in Ohio, New York, and other states. He spoke sensibly and with great discretion, and his public appearance is thought to have increased his popularity. He was elected (November 2, 1880) over his competitor, Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock, by the votes of every northern state except New Jersey, Nevada, and California. His inaugural address, March 4, 1881, was satisfactory to the people generally, and his administration began with only one cloud in the sky. His cabinet was made up as follows: James G. Blaine, of Maine, secretary of state; William Windom, of Minnesota, secretary of the treasury; Wayne MacVeagh, of Pennsylvania, attorney-general; Thomas L. James, of New York, postmaster-general; Samuel J. Kirkwood, of Iowa, secretary of the interior; Robert T. Lincoln, of Illinois, secretary of war; William H. Hunt, of Louisiana, secretary of the navy. There was bitter dissension in the party in New York, and Garfield gave much consideration to his duty in the premises. He was willing to do anything

except yield the independence of the executive in his own constitutional sphere. He would give to the New York senators, Conkling and Platt, more than their share of offices; but they should not be allowed to interfere with or control the presidential right of nomination. He made nominations to the senate — as many, it is said, as twelve — in that interest, and then (March 23, 1881) sent in the name of William H. Robertson, a leader in the other faction, as collector of the port of New York. Senator Conkling protested, and then openly resisted his confirmation. Yielding to him in the interest of senatorial courtesy, his Republican colleagues, in caucus, May 2, 1881, agreed to let contested nominations lie over practically until the following December.

This was a substantial victory for Mr. Conkling; but it was promptly met by the president, who, a few days afterward (May 5), withdrew all the nominations that were pleasing to the New York senator. This brought the other senators to terms. Mr. Conkling, recognizing defeat, and Mr. Platt with him, resigned their offices, May 16, 1881. On May 18, Collector Robertson was confirmed. The early summer came, and peace and happiness and the growing strength and popularity of his administration cheered the heart of its chief. At a moment of special exaltation, on the morning of July 2, 1881, he was shot by a disappointed office-seeker.

The avowed object was to promote to the presidential chair Vice-President Arthur, who represented the Grant or “stalwart” wing of the party. The president was setting out on a trip to New England, anticipating especial pleasure in witnessing the commencement exercises of his alma mater at Williamstown. He was passing through the waiting room of the Baltimore and Potomac depot, at nine o'clock that morning, leaning on the arm of Mr. Blaine, when the assassin fired at him with a pistol. The first ball passed through his coat-sleeve; the second entered by the back, fractured a rib, and lodged deep in the body. The president was carried to the White House, where, under the highest medical skill, and with every comfort that money and devotion could bring, he lingered for more than ten weeks between life and death. The country and the world were moved by the dastardly deed; and the fortitude and cheerfulness with which the president bore his suffering added to the universal grief. Daily bulletins of his condition were published in every city in the United States and in all the European capitals. Many of the crowned heads of Europe sought by telegraphic inquiry more particular news, and repeated their wishes for his recovery.

A day of national supplication was set apart and sacredly observed and the prayers at first seemed answered. His physicians were hopeful,

and gave expression to their hope. His condition seemed to improve; but when midsummer came, the patient failed so perceptibly that a removal was hazarded. On September 6, 1881, he was taken to Elberon, N. J., by a special train. He bore the journey well, and for a while, under the inspiration of the invigorating sea-breezes, seemed to rally. But on September 15, 1881, symptoms of blood-poisoning appeared. He lingered till the 19th, when, after a few hours of unconsciousness, he died peacefully. A special train (September 21) carried the body to Washington, through a country draped with emblems of mourning, and through crowds of reverent spectators, to lie in state in the rotunda of the capitol two days, September 22 and 23. The final services held were never surpassed in solemnity and dignity, except on February 27, 1882, when, in the hall of representatives, at the request of both houses of congress, his friend, James G. Blaine, then secretary of state, delivered a memorial address, in the presence of the president and the heads of all the great departments of the government, so perfect that the criticism of two continents was unqualified praise. In a long train, crowded with the most illustrious of his country men, which in its passage, day or night, was never out of the silent watch of mourning citizens, who stood in city, field, and forest, to see it pass, Garfield's remains were borne to Cleveland and placed

(September 26, 1882) in a beautiful cemetery, which overlooks the waters of Lake Erie, where an imposing monument now marks his last resting-place.

HOME OF JAMES A. GARFIELD, MENTOR, OHIO

His tragic death assures to Garfield the attention of history. It will credit him with great services rendered in various fields, and with a character formed by a singular union of the best qualities — industry, perseverance, truthfulness, honesty, courage — all acting as faithful servants to a lofty and unselfish ambition. Without genius, which can rarely do more than produce extraordinary results in one direction, his powers were so many and well-trained that he produced excellent results in many. If history shall call Garfield great, it will be because the development of these powers was so complete and harmonious. It has no choice but to record that, by the wise use of them, he won distinction in many fields: a teacher so gifted that his students compare him with Arnold of Rugby; a soldier, rising by merit in rapid promotion to highest rank; a lawyer heard with profit and approbation in the supreme court; an eloquent orator, whose own ardent faith kindled his hearers, speaking after thorough preparation and with practised skill, but refusing always to win victory by forensic trick or device; a party leader, failing in pre-eminence only because his moral honesty would not let him always represent a party victory as a necessity of national well-being. In all these characters he was the friend of learning, and would probably ask no other epitaph than the tribute of a friend, who said that, “among the public men of his era, none had higher qualities of statesmanship and greater culture than James A. Garfield.”

Garfield's speeches are almost a compendium of the political history of the stirring era between 1864 and 1880. Among those worthy of special mention, on account of the importance of the subjects or the attractive and forcible presentation of them, are the following: On the Enrolling and calling out of the National Forces (January 25, 1864); on the Reconstruction of the Southern States (February, 1866 ) ; on Civil-Service Reform, in the congress of 1870 and other congresses; on the Currency and the Public Faith (April, 1874); on the Democratic Party and the South (August 4, 1876), of which a million copies were distributed as a campaign document; the speech in opposition to the Wood bill, which was framed to break down the protective tariff (June 4, 1878); the speeches on Revolution in Congress (March 4 and April 4, 1879); on Congressional Nullification (June 10, 1879); on Treason at the Polls (June 11, 1879); and on the Democratic Party and Public Opinion (October 11, 1879). Among his speeches in congress, less political in character, were that on the National Bureau of Education (June 8, 1866); a

series on Indian Affairs, covering a period of several years; one on the Medical and Surgical History of the Rebellion (March 2, 1869); two on the Census (April 6 and December 16, 1879); one on Civil-Service Reform; many addresses on the silver question; and one on National aid to education (February, 1872). He found time to make frequent orations and addresses before societies and gatherings outside of congress. His address on College Education, delivered before the literary societies of Hiram college (June 14, 1867), is an admirable plea for a liberal education, and on a subject in which the author was always deeply interested. On May 30, 1868, he delivered an address on the Union Soldiers, at the first memorial service held at Arlington, Va. A eulogy of Gen. Thomas, delivered before the Army of the Cumberland, November 25, 1870, is one of the happiest of his oratorical efforts. On the reception by the house of the statues of John Winthrop and Samuel Adams, he spoke with a great wealth of historical allusion, and all his memorial addresses, especially those on his predecessor in congress, Joshua R. Giddings, Lincoln, and Profs. Morse and Henry, are worthy of study. But in all this series nothing will live longer than the simple words with which, from the balcony of the New York custom-house, he calmed the mob frenzied at the news of Lincoln's death: “Fellow-citizens: Clouds and darkness

are around him; His pavilion is dark waters and thick clouds; justice and judgment are the establishment of his throne; mercy and truth shall go before his face! Fellow-citizens! God reigns, and the Government at Washington lives.”

After the death of President Garfield, a popular subscription for his widow and children realized over $360,000. The income of this fund is to be paid to Mrs. Garfield during her life, after which the principal is to be divided among the children four sons and a daughter. More than forty of Garfield's speeches in congress have been published in pamphlet-form, as has also his oration on the life of Gen. George H. Thomas. A volume of brief selections, entitled “Garfield's Words,” was compiled by William R. Balch (Boston, 1881). His works have been edited by Burke A. Hinsdale (2 vols., Boston, 1882). The most complete life of President Garfield is that by James R. Gilmore (New York, 1880).

A monument to President Garfield, designed by John Q. A. Ward, was erected in Washington, D. C., by the Society of the Army of the Cumber land, and dedicated on May 12, 1887. It consists of a bronze statue of Garfield, 10½ feet high, standing on a circular pedestal 18 feet in height, with buttresses, on which are three reclining figures, representing a student, a warrior, and a statesman. The U. S. government gave the site

and the granite pedestal, besides contributing to the cost of the statues, and furnishing cannon to be used in their casting. The unusual attitude of the arms is explained by the fact that Gen. Garfield was left-handed.

His wife,, born in Hiram, Portage County, Ohio, April 19, 1832, was the daughter of a farmer named Mr. Zeb Rudolph. She first met her husband when both were students at Hiram, and was married November 11, 1858, in Hudson, Ohio, soon after his accession to the presidency of the college. Seven children were born to them, of whom five are living. The eldest son, Harry Augustus, is president of Williams college, Mass., and James Rudolph, a younger brother, was secretary of the interior in the Roosevelt cabinet.


text: Page:Niles' Weekly Register, v37.djvu/457

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/569

 Rh Wellington, J. R., Esq., 24, Heath Terrace, Leamington. Wheatley, Henry B., Esq., F.S.A., 2, Oppidans Road, Primrose Hill, N.W. White, George, Esq., Court House, Epsom. White, His Excellency The Right Hon. Sir William A., C.B., H.B.M. Ambassador and Plenipotentiary, etc., etc., Extraordinary, Constantinople. Williams, Sydney, Esq, 14, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, W.C. Williams, A. M., Esq., 2, Weybosset Street, Providence, R.I., U.S.A. Williamson, Rev. Charles A., care of Mrs. Stephenson, Paradise Villas, Longwood, Huddersfield. Wilson, Alfred, Esq. Wilson, William, Esq., 42, Glasford Street, Glasgow. Woman’s Anthropological Society, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; Mrs. F. P. Spofford, Treasurer, care of Mrs. M. P. Seaman, 1,424, Eleventh Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Wood, R. H., Esq., F.S.A., F.R.G.S., Penrhos House, Rugby. Woodall, Edward, Esq., Wingthorpe, Oswestry. Worcester Free Public Library, Mass., U.S.A., per Messrs. Trübner and Co. Wratislaw, Rev. A. H., 90, Manor Road, Stoke Newington, N. Wright, W. Aldis, Esq., M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge. Wurtzburg, J. H., Esq., Clavering House, 2, De Greys Road, Leeds.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/568

562 Stephens, Professor Dr. George, F.S.A., Copenhagen. Stephens, Rev. W. R. W., M.A., Woolbeding Rectory, Midhurst, Sussex. Stephenson, C. H., Esq., 22, Sefton Street, Southport, Lancs. Stock, Elliot, Esq., Fern Lodge, Millfield Lane, Highgate Rise. Stockholm, Royal Library of, per Messrs. Longmans and Co. Stoddard, Dr. E. V., M.D., Rochester, New York, U.S.A. Stokes, Whitley, Esq., 15, Grenville Place, S.W. Stuart, J., Esq. Stuart, Mrs. Alexander, 19, Regent Terrace, Edinburgh. Sutley, Miss Helen, West Street, Wiveliscombe, Somerset. Swainson, Rev. Charles, The Rectory, Old Charlton. Swynnerton, Rev. Charles, Chaplain, Lahore, Punjab, India. Sydney Free Public Library, per Messrs. Trübner and Co.

Tabor, Charles, Esq., 11, Victoria Road, Forest Gate, Essex. Taylor, George, Esq., care of Commissioners of Custom, Canton. Taylor Institution, Oxford, per Messrs. Parker and Co., 6, Southampton St., Strand. Taylor, Miss Helen, Avignon, France. Temple, Captain R. Carnac, The Palace, Mandalay, Upper Burmah (Local Secretary). Terry, F. C. Birkbeck, Esq., The Paddocks, Palgrave, Diss, Norfolk. Thompson, Professor D’Arcy W., Dundee. Tolhurst, John, Esq., F.S.A., Glenbrook, Beckenham, Kent (Auditor). Torquay Natural History Society, care of Wm. Pengelly, Esq. (Hon. Sec.) Traherne, George M., Esq., Coedriglan, Cai'diff. Travancore, His Highness the Mahárájáh of, Huzier, Cutcherry, Trevandrum. Tremlett, J., Esq., Hillands, Dedham, Essex. Turnbull, A. H., Esq., Mount Henley, Sydenham Hill, S.E. Tylor, Dr. Edward B,, F.R.S., The Museum House, Oxford (Vice-President).

Udal, J. S., Esq., Attorney-General, Fiji Islands.

Veitch, Professor J., LL.D., Glasgow University. Vernon, The Hon. Mrs. Warren, 34, Grosvenor Place, S.W. Verulam, The Right Hon. the Earl of, Gorhambury, St. Alban’s.

Wadia, Miss Pattibai, Kumbala Hill, Bombay. Walhouse, M. J., Esq., 28, Hamilton Terrace, St. John’s Wood, N.W. Walker, Dr. Robert, Budleigh Salterton, Devon, per E. W. Watson, Esq., 22, Highbury New Park, N. Walpole, Horace, Esq,, India Office, Whitehall. Walton, Charles, Esq., Ardenhurst, Culverden, Tunbridge Wells. Watkinson Library, Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A. Watt, Dr. George, C.I.E., Revenue and Agricultural Department, Simla. India.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/567

Rh Pocklington-Coltman, Mrs., Hagnaby Priory, Spilsby, Lines. Ponsonby, Hon. Gerald, 54, Green Street, Grosvenor Square, W. Porter, Miss B., 16, Russell Square, W.C. Potts, W. J., Esq., 529, Cooper Street, Camden, New Jersey, U.S.A. Power, D’Arcy, Esq., M.A., M.B., 26, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. Powis, The Earl of, 45, Berkeley Square, W. Price, F. G. Hilton, Esq., 29, Weymouth Street, Portland Place, W. Pryor, F. R., Esq. Pullen, Charles L., Esq., Memphis, Tenn., U.S.A. Pusey, S. E. Bouverie, Esq., 21, Grosvenor Street, W. Pye, William A., Esq., 21, Daleham Gardens, Hampstead, N.W.

Read, David, Esq., Wickham Market, Suffolk. Reade, John, Esq., 157, Laval Avenue, Montreal, Canada. Reeves, A. M., Esq., Richmond, Indiana, U.S.A., per Mr. E. G. Allen. Rhys, Professor John, 87, Banbury Road, Oxford. Riestonigee, C., Esq., Ghazipùr, India. Risley, H. H., Esq., care of Messrs. H. S. King and Co., Pall Mall. Rivett-Carnac, J. H., Esq., C.I.E., F.S.A., M.R.A.S., F.G.S., Ghazipùr, India. Robinson, John, Esq., 6, Choppington Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne. Rowley, Walter, Esq., Alder Hill, Meanwood, Leeds. Russell, Mrs. J. H., Canterbury House, Oxford.

Sanborn, John W., Esq., Lockport, New York, U.S.A. Sanctis, Mrs. M. de, 138, Sinclair Road, W. Saunders, J. Ebenezer, Esq., F.S.A., F.L.S., 9, Finsbury Circus, E.C. Saussaye, Professor P. D. C., 343, Keizersgracht, Amsterdam. Savage, Rev. E. B., St. Thomas’ Vicarage, Douglas, Isle of Man. Sawyer, Frederick E., Esq., F.S.A., 31, Buckingham Place, Brighton. Sayce, Prof. A. H., Queen’s College, Oxford. Schreck, Mrs. E., An der Pleisse 8, Leipzig. Scott, J. G., Esq., per R. F. Scott, Esq., St. John’s College, Cambridge. Sébillot, Monsieur Paul, 4, Rue de l’Odéon, Paris. Sen, Dr. Rhamdas, Berhampore, Bengal. Sheppard, W. F., Esq., M.A., LL.M., 2, Temple Gardens, Temple, E.C. Skilbeck, J. H., Esq., 1, Portland Mansions, Baker Street, W. Skrine, H. D., Esq., Claverton Manor, Bath. Slack, John B., Esq., 31, Queen Victoria Street, E.C. Sourindro, Mohun Tagore Raja, 47, Pathuria Ghata, Raj Bati, Calcutta. Southam, J. Clement, Esq., Elmhurst, Shrewsbury. Spielman, J., Esq., 3, Westbourne Grove, Hyde Park, W. St. Helen’s Corporation Free Library, Alfred Lancaster, Esq., Librarian, Town Hall, St. Helen’s. St. John, R. F. St. Andrew, Esq., Duncliffe, The Common, Ealing. Steel, F. A., Esq., Gujranwala, Punjab.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/566

560 Middlesbrough Free Library, per R. L. Kirby, Esq., Treas., Linthorpe, Middlesbrough. Mitchell Library, 60, Ingram Street, Glasgow, care of F. T. Barrett, Esq., Librarian. Moncrieff, R. Hope, Esq., Savile Club, 107, Piccadilly, W. Mond, Mrs. Frida, The Poplars, 20, Avenue Road, N.W. Moore, Howard W., Esq., Stanley Street, Liverpool. Moore, C. H., Esq., Clinton, Ills., U.S.A. Morris, Rev. R., LL.D., Lordship Lodge, Wood Green, N. Morrison, Theodore, Esq., 5, Lambolle Road, Eton Avenue, N.W. Mottram, J., Esq., Bank Street, Norwich. Munich Royal Library, per Messrs. Asher and Co. Murdoch, J. B., Esq. Murray- Aynsley, Mrs. J. C., Great Brampton, near Hereford. Naaké, John T., Esq., The Library, British Museum, W.C. Natesa Sastri, Pandit Qssurpeta, Bangalore, Mysore. Nesfield, John P., Esq., Inspector of Schools, Lucknow, Oudh, India. Newberry Library, Chicago, per Mr. B. F. Stevens, 4, Trafalgar Square. Newcastle Literary and Philosophical Society, Newcastle-on-Tyne. Nichols, Robert Cradock, Esq., F.S.A., 5, Sussex Place, Hyde Park. Nicholson, Mrs., East House, Norham, Berwick-upon-Tweed. Nottingham Free Public Library, care of J. Potter Briscoe, Esq. Nutt, Alfred, Esq., 270, Strand, W.C.

Oakley, W., Esq., Newhall, Derbyshire. Oldham, Surgeon-General, Dhurmsala, Punjab. Olya, Mons., 11, Rue St. Sulpice, Paris. O’Neill, John, Esq., Trafalgar House, Selling, Faversham. Ordish, T. F., Esq., F.S.A., Hilby Cottage, Ellison Road, Barnes, S.W. Owen, Hugh, Esq., 12, Porteus Road, Paddington, W. Owen, Rev. Elias, Efenechtyd Rectory, Ruthin, N. Wales. Owen, Mrs. Mary A., St. Joseph, Missouri, U.S.A.

Paice, William, Esq., 20, Blandford Road, Bedford Park, Chiswick. Paris, M. Gaston, Membre de l’Institut, 110, Rue de Bac, Paris. Peabody Institute, Baltimore, U.S., per Mr. E. G. Allen. Peacock, Edward, Esq., F.S.A., Bottesford Manor, Brigg, Lincolnshire. Pedroso, Professor Z. Consiglieri, Travessa de Lazaro Leitao, 2—1º Lisbon. Perry, T. S., Esq., care of MM. Perier frères & Cie., 59, Rue de Provence, Paris. Philadelphia, The Library Company of, U.S.A., per Mr. E. G. Allen. Pineau, Mons. Léon, 60, Boulevard Béranger, Tours, France. Pitt-Rivers, General, Rushmore, Salisbury. Ploix, Mons. Charles, 1, Quai Malaquais, Paris. Plymouth Institution and Devon and Cornwall Nat. Hist. Society (S. Cater, Esq.)


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/565

Rh Lambing, Rev. A. A., Withinsberg, Pa., U.S.A. Lang, A., Esq., M.A., 1, Marloes Road, Kensington (President). Larkin, Rev. E. P., Gatton Tower, Reigate. Layton, C. Miller, Esq., Shortlands, Folkestone. Leaf, Walter, Esq., 6, Sussex Place, Regent’s Park, N.W. Leathes, F. de M., Esq., 17, Tavistock Place, W.C. Leland, C. G., Esq., care of Baring Bros., 8, Bishopsgate Street Within, E.C. Letts, Charles, Esq., 1, Orange Street, Red Lion Square, W.C. Lewis, J. P., Esq., Ceylon Civil Service, Matara, Southern Province, Ceylon. Library of the Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree, etc., for England, Wales, and the Colonies, 33, Golden Square, W. Library of the Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree, etc., 433, Third Street, Washington, District of Columbia, U.S.A., care of A. Pike, Esq. Lichfield, Very Rev. The Dean of, Deanery, Lichfield. Lindsay, Lady, 41, Hans Place, W. Lockhart, J. H. Stewart, Esq., Registrar-General and Member of the Legislative Council, Hong Kong (Local Secretary for China). London Institution, Finsbury Circus, E.C. London Library, St. James’s Square, S.W. Löwy, Rev. A., 100, Sutherland Avenue, Maida Vale, W. Lubbock, Sir John, Bart., M.P., F.R.S., High Elms, Beckenham, Kent (Vice-President).

Macanliffe, His Honour Judge, Sialkot, Punjab, India. MacBain, Alex., Esq., M.A., Rainings School, Inverness. McCarthy, Justin Huntly, Esq., M.P., 20, Cheyne Gardens, Chelsea, S.W. McCorkell, Gilmour, Esq., C.S., 97, Ladbroke Road, W. McCormick, Rev. F. H. I., Whitehaven, Cumberland. MacCulloch, Sir Edgar, F.S.A., Guernsey. Mackinlay, Dr., 6, Great Western Terrace, Kelvinside, Glasgow. Mackinnon, Surgeon-General, 28, Evelyn Gardens, South Kensington, S.W. Maclagan, R. Craig, Esq., 5, Coates Crescent, Edinburgh. Macmillan, Alexander, Esq., F.S.A., Bedford Street, Covent Garden, W.C. MacNeil, Capt. Alex., 3, Whitehall Gardens, S.W. MacRitchie, David, Esq., 4, Archibald Place, Edinburgh. Man, E. H., Esq., care of A. T. Man, Esq., 2, Palace Road, Surbiton. Manchester Free Library, King Street, Manchester. Manucha, Kanoo Mai, Rai Bahadur of Fyzerabad, Oudh, India. Marston, E., Esq., St. Dunstan’s House, Fetter Lane, E.C. Martinengo-Cesaresco, The Countess, Palazzo Martinengo, Salo, Lago di Garda, Italia. Matthews, Miss Elizabeth, The Hollies, Swaffham, Norfolk. Mendham, Miss Edith, Caynham Villa, Richmond Road, Clifton. Mercantile Library, Philadelphia, U.S.A., per Mr. E. G. Allen. Michel, Mons. C., 2, Rue de Nassau, Gand, Belgium. Micklethwaite, J. T., Esq., F.S.A., 15, Dean's Yard, Westminster.


text:
Author:William Walter Phelps

Works

 * “James A. Garfield” in The Presidents of the United States, 1789-1914, 1914.
 * “James A. Garfield” in The Presidents of the United States, 1789-1914, 1914.

title: Author:William Walter Phelps


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/564

558 Hetherington, J. M., Esq., 4, Lansdown Road, Netting Hill, W. Hewitt, J. F.. Esq., Devoke Lodge, Walton-on-Thames. Higginson, T. W., Esq., 25, Buckingham Street, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. Hitchman, John, Esq., Oak Villa, Acocks Green, near Birmingham. Hodgkin, John, Esq., 12, Dynover Road, Richmond, S.W. Hodgson, B. H., Esq., K.L.H., F.L.S., etc., The Grange, Alderley, Wootton-under-Edge. Hodgson, E. D., Esq., Dartford House, Montpellier Place, Brighton. Hollingsworth, Miss M., care of Messrs. Morris and Co., Pau, France. Hope, J. Radford, Esq., J.P., Rosthern, Redhill, Surrey. Howard, David, Esq., Rectory Manor, Walthamstow, E. Hull Subscription Library, Hull. Hurlbut, Theodore D., Esq., 104, Hicks Street, Brooklyn, U.S.A. (care of Baring Bros.). Hutt, A. Granger, Esq., F.S.A., 8, Oxford Road, Kilburn, N.W.

Jackson, E., Esq., 10, Palace Road, Surbiton. Jackson, Rev. Francis W., Bolton Percy, Tadcaster. Jacobs, Joseph, Esq., 4, Hazelmere Road, Kilburn, N.W. Johnston, Francis John, Esq., Lamas, Chislehurst. Jones, His Honour Judge D. Brynmôr, The Lawn, Woodchester, Gloucestershire. Jones, William, Esq., Abberly Hall, Stourport. Jones, Charles C., Esq., 811, Broad Street, Augusta, Georgia, U.S.A. Joyce, J. Heath, Esq., Freshford, South Hill, Bromley, Kent.

Katona, Professor Dr. L., Fünfkirchen, Hungary. Kelly, William, Esq., F.S.A., Ivy Lodge, Alexandra Road, Stoneygate, Leicester. Ker, Charles, Esq., 1, Windsor Terrace, Glasgow, N.B. Kermack, John, Esq., University Club, Edinburgh. Key, Miss Janet, Leiston, Suffolk. Key, Thomas, Esq., Leiston, Suffolk. Kho, Taw Sein, Esq., Government Translator, Rangoon, British Burmah. Kinahan, G. H., Esq., M.R.I.A., Woodlands, Fairview, Dublin (Local Secretary). Kincaid, Colonel W., per Messrs. A. Fletcher, No. 2, St. Helen’s Place, E.C. King, Major J. S., 13th Bombay Infantry, Quetta, Beluchistan, per Messrs. H. S. King and Co. King, L. White, Esq., C.S., 52, Lansdowne Road, Dublin. Kirby, W. F., Esq., 5, Burlington Gardens, Chiswick. Klincksieck, Herr, Paris, per Messrs. Longmans and Co., Paternoster Row, E.C. Koehler, Herr K. F., 26, Universitatsstrasse, Leipzig (two copies). Köhler, Dr. Reinhold, Gross herzogliche Bibliothek, Weimar. Kuch Behar, His Highness the Mahárájáh of, Alipur, Calcutta, India. Lach-Szyrma, Rev. W. S., M.A., St. Peter’s Vicarage, Newlyn, Penzance.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/563

Rh Ghose, M., Esq., 4, Theatre Road, Calcutta, India. Gibbs, Henry H., Esq., St. Dunstan’s, Regent’s Park, N.W. Gladstone, J. H., Esq., 17, Pembridge Square, W. Gladstone, The Right Hon. W. E., M.P., Hawarden, Cheshire. Glasgow University Library, per Messrs. Maclehose, 61, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow. Glasgow Archæological Society, per Messrs. Maclehose, 61, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow. Godden, Miss Gertrude M., Ridgefield, Wimbledon. Gollancz, J., Esq., Christ’s College, Cambridge. Gomme, G. L., Esq., F.S.A., 1, Beverley Villas, Barnes Common, S.W. (Director). Goonetilleke, W., Esq., Kandy, Ceylon. Gosselin, Hellier, Esq., Blakesware, Ware, Herts. Göttingen, The University Library, per Messrs. Asher and Co. Green, Miss Marian, Girls’ High School, Blackburn. Green, Frank, Esq., Argyll House, St. James’s Road, Croydon. Greig, A., Esq., 36, Belmont Gardens, Hillhead, Glasgow. Gregor, Rev. Walter, Pitsligo, Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire (Local Secretary). Grierson, Geo. A., Esq., care of Messrs. Grindlay and Co., Calcutta. Gutch, Mrs., Holgate Lodge, York. Guyot, Monsieur Yves, Député, 95, Rue de Seine, Paris. Gwynne, James E. A., Esq., F.S.A., 97, Harley Street, W.

Haddon, Professor A. C., M.A., M.R.I.A., F.L.S., 13, Palmerston Road, Rathmines, Dublin. Haig, James Richard, Esq., Union Club, Trafalgar Square. Hamilton, A. H., Esq., Fort Wayne, Indiana, U.S.A. Hamilton, N. E., Esq., Savile Club, 107, Piccadilly, W. Hannah, Robert, Esq., 82, Addison Road, Kensington, W. Hardy, G. F., Esq., 5, Whitehall, S.W. Harley, Rev. T., F.R.A.S., 15, St. John’s Villas, East Dulwich, S.E. Harris, J. Chandler, Esq., Atlanta, Ga., U.S.A. Harris, Miss Emily, 9, Queen’s Square, Bloomsbury, W.C. Harris, W. C., Esq., Main Street, Pembroke. Harrison, W., Esq., The Horsehills, Wolverhampton. Hart, Professor J. M., Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. Hartland, E. Sidney, Esq., F.S.A.. Barnwood Court, Gloucester. Hartland, J. C., Esq., care of Messrs. Hunt and Co., Post-office Box 11, Yokohama, Japan. Harvard College Library, per Messrs. Trübner and Co., Ludgate Hill, E.C. Heape, Charles, Esq., Glebe House, Rochdale. Hemenway, Mrs. Mary, 40, Mt. Vernon Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A. Herbertson, John T., Esq., Port Dundas, Glasgow. Hervey, D. F. A., Esq., The Residency, Malacca, per Messrs. Henry King and Co.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/562

556 Cox, Miss Roalfe, Claverton, Streatham Hill, S.W. Crane, T. F., Esq., Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. Crombie, James E., Esq., Balgownie Lodge, Aberdeen. Crombie, John W., Esq., M.A., Balgownie Lodge, Aberdeen. Crooke, William, Esq., Bengal Civil Service, Awagarh, viâ Jalesar, N.W.P., India. Crosthwaite, J. F., Esq., Cumberland Union Banking Company, Keswick. Crowdy, Wallace K., Esq., Pall Mall Gazette Office. Curtis, James, Esq., 9, Old Jewry Chambers, E.C.

Daly, Lieut. Hugh, Lashio, Northern Shan States, through Mandalay, Burmah. Davidson, Thomas, Esq., 339, High Street, Edinburgh. Davis, Lieut.-Col. John, Byrons, Farnborough. Defries, Wolf, Esq., B.A., 4, Cleveland Gardens, W. Detroit Public Library, Detroit, Mich., U.S.A. Diack, A. H., Esq., Rajanpur, Punjab, India. Duncan, J. Dalrymple, Esq., 211, Hope Street, Glasgow. Durrett, R. T., Esq., Louisville, Ky., U.S.A.

Egle, W. H., Esq., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Library, Harrisburg, Pa., U.S.A. Empson, Charles W., Esq., 3, Cleveland Gardens, Hyde Park, W. Emslie, J. P., Esq., 47, Gray’s Inn Road, W.C. Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore City, U.S.A., per Mr. E. G. Allen. Evans, H. B., Esq., Park View, Fairfax Road, Teddington. Evans, John, Esq., LL.D., F.R.S., P.S.A., Nash Mills, Kernel Hempstead, Herts.

Fahie, J. J., Esq., Shiraz, Persia, and Junior Travellers’ Club, 8, St. James’s Square, W. (Local Secretary). Feilberg, Rev. H. F. Darum, Bramminge Street, Denmark. Ffennell, Miss Margaret, 172, The Grove, Hammersmith. Fitzgerald, David, Esq., 3, Porten Road, Hammersmith, W. Fletcher, Miss A. C., Temple Hotel, Washington, D,C., U.S.A. Fleury, Profr. Jean, 33, Rue des Officiers, St. Petersburg, Russia. Forlong, Major-Gen. J. G. R,, 11, Douglas Crescent, Edinburgh. Foster, J. J., Esq., 114, New Bond Street, W. (Hon. Secretary). Franks, Augustus W., Esq., M.A., F.R.S., F.S.A., British Museum. Frazer, J. G., Esq., M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge. Freer, Wm. J., Esq., Stoneygate, near Leicester. Freshfield, Edwin, Esq., F.S.A., 5, Bank Buildings, E.C. Friend, Rev. Hilderic Fry, Rev. F. C., B.D., The Schools, Berkhampstead.

Gaster, Rev. Dr., 34, Warwick Road, Maida Hill, N.W. George, Charles W., Esq., 51, Hampton Road, Clifton, Bristol.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/561

Rh Bliss, F. E., Esq., Dock House, Billiter Street, E.G. Bolitho, T. R., Esq., Penalverne, Penzance, Cornwall. Bonaparte, Prince Roland, 22, Cours la Reine, Paris, Boston Athenæum, The, Boston, U.S.A., per Trübner and Co., Ludgate Hill, E.C. Boston Public Library, U.S.A., per Trübner and Co., Ludgate Hill, E.C. Bourdillon, F. W., Esq., Rother Lea, Midhurst, Sussex. Bowditch, Charles P., Esq., 28, State Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A. Bowen, H. Courthope, Esq., M.A., 3, York Street, Portman Square, W. Brabrook, Edward W., Esq., F.S.A., 177, High Street, Lewisham, S.E. Brewster, J. P., Esq., 86, Troupe Street, Rochester, N.Y., U.S.A. Bridson, J. R., Esq., Bryerswood, Windermere. Brinton, Dr. D. G., 2041, Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A. Britten, James, Esq., F.L.S., 18, West Square, Southwark, S.E. Brooke, Rev. Stopford A., 1, Manchester Square, W. Brown, Henry Thomas, Esq., Chester. Brown, J. A. Harvie, Esq., Dunipace, Larbert, N.B. Brown, Dr. Robert, F.L.S., Fersley, Rydal Road, Streatham, S.W. Browne, John, Esq., Chertsey House, Park Hill Rise, Croydon. Brushfield, Dr. T. N., The Cliff, Budleigh-Salterton, Devonshire. Bruyère, M. Loys, 9, Rue Murillo, Paris. Bullock, Rev. J. F. W., B.A., Radwinter Rectory, Saffron Walden. Burne, Miss, Pyebirch, Eccleshall, Staffordshire. Butterworth, Joshua W., Esq., 45, Russell Road, Kensington, W.

Caddick, E., Esq., Wellington Road, Edgbaston. Cannizzaro, Signer T., Via dei Verdi, Messina, Sicily. Charencey, Comte de, 24, Rue de la Chaise, Paris. Charnock, R. S., Esq., 30, Millman Street, Bedford Row, W.C. Chicago Public Library, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. Chitnavis, Rao Gangadhurrao M., Nagpur, Central Provinces, India. Chorlton, Thomas, Esq., 32, Brasenose Street, Manchester. Cincinnati Public Library, per Mr. B. F. Stevens, 4, Trafalgar Square, W.C. Clark, H. Martyn, Esq., M.B., etc., Lauriston House, Amrilear, Punjab, India. Clark University, Worcester, Mass., U.S.A. Clarke, Hyde, Esq., D.C.L., 32, St. George’s Square, S.W. Cleveland, Daniel, Esq., Post-office Box 551, San Diego, California, U.S.A. Clodd, Edward, Esq., 19, Carleton Road, Tufnell Park, N. (Hon. Treasurer). Codrington, Rev. R. H., D.D., The Vicarage, Wadhurst, Sussex. College of New Jersey, Princetown, N.J., U.S.A. (J. O. Murray, Librarian). Comparetti, Professor Domenico, Via del Maglio, Firenze, Italia. Congress, The Library of, Washington, U.S.A., per Mr. E. G. Allen. Cook, James W., Esq., Wentworth House, Hollybush Hill, Snaresbrook, Essex. Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A., per Mr. E. G. Allen. Cosquin, Mons. Emanuel, Vitry-le-François, Marne, France.


text: Index:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu

title: Index:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/560

554

MEMBERS. (December 1890.)

Abercromby, Hon. J., 21, Chapel Street, Belgrave Square, S.W. Adshead, George H., Esq., Fern Villas, 94, Bolton Road, Pendleton. Allsopp, Hon. A. Percy, Hindlip Hall, near Worcester. Alvarez, Dr. Antonio Machado y, O’Donnell, 22, Sevilla, Madrid. Amsterdam, the University Library of, Singel 421, Amsterdam. Anderson, J. A., Esq., 46, Warwick Gardens, Kensington, W. André, J. Lewis, Esq., Lascelles, Horsham. Andrews, J. B., Esq., Villa Pigauti, Mentone. Antiquaries, The Society of, Burlington House, W. Apperson, George L., Esq., 11, Park Road, Wimbledon (Auditor). Arnold, E. V., 10, Brynteg Terrace, Bangor. Asher, Samuel G., Esq., 6, Randolph Crescent, Maida Vale, N.W. Astor Library, New York, per B. F. Stevens, Esq., 4, Trafalgar Square, W.C. Aydon, Edward I., Esq., 19, Belgrave Terrace, Newcastle-on-Tyne.

Babcock, W. H., Esq., 513, Seventh Street, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Bain, T. G., Esq., 1, Haymarket. Backhouse, James, Esq., West Bank, York. Backhouse, Jonathan E., Esq., Bank, Darlington. Barclay, Miss Isabella, 15, Florence Terrace, Falmouth. Barnett, J. Davies, Esq., Grand Trunk Railway, Stratford, Ontario, Canada. Barwell, Thos., Esq., The Woodlands, Kirby Muxloe, near Leicester. Basset, Mons. René, L’Agha, 49, Rue Michelet, Algiers. Beard, Joshua Torell, Esq., Royston House, Upper Richmond Road, Putney, S.W. Beauchamp, The Earl, F.S.A., 13, Belgrave Square, S.W. (Vice-President). Bell, Edward, Esq., Botcherly, Carlisle. Bent, J. T., Esq., 13, Great Cumberland Place, W. Berlin Royal Library, per Asher and Co., 13, Bedford Street, Covent Garden. Bernés, Professor Henri, 37, Rue de Bellain, Douai, Nord, France. Besant, Walter, Esq., 1, Adam Street, Adelphi, W.C. Bethell, William, Esq., Rise Park, Hull. Birks, Rev. E. B., Trinity College, Cambridge. Birmingham Library, care of C. E. Scarse, Esq., Librarian, Union Street, Birmingham. Birmingham Free Library, care of J. D. Mullins, Esq., Chief Librarian, Ratcliffe Place, Birmingham. Black, William George, Esq., F.S.A. Scot., 1, Alfred Terrace, Billhead, Glasgow (Local Secretary). Blaine, D. P., Esq., 129, Cromwell Road, S.W. Blémont, Mons. Emile, 16, Rue d’Offremont, Paris. Blind. Dr. Karl, 3, Winchester Road, South Hampstead, N.W.


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/1

a few years ago every known fact about light, electricity, and magnetism was in agreement with the theory of a stationary medium or ether, pervading all space, but offering no resistance to the motion of ponderable matter. This theory of a stagnant ether led to the belief that the absolute velocity of the earth through this medium could be determined by optical and electrical measurements. Thus it was predicted that the time required for a beam of light to pass over a given distance, from a fixed point to a mirror and back, should be different in a path lying in the direction of the earth's motion, and in a path lying at right angles to this line of motion. This prediction was tested in the crucial experiment of Michelson and Morley, who found, in spite of the extreme precision of their method, not the slightest difference in the different paths.

It was also predicted from the ether theory that a charged condenser suspended by a wire would be subject to a torsional effect due to the earth's motion. But the absence of this effect was proved experimentally by Trouton and Noble.

The skill with which these experiments were designed and executed permits no serious doubt as to the accuracy of their results, and we are therefore forced to adopt certain new views of far-reaching importance.

It is true that the results of Michelson and Morley might be simply explained by assuming that the velocity of light depends upon the velocity of its source. Perhaps this assumption has formerly been dismissed without sufficient reason, but recent experimental evidence to which we shall revert seems to prove it untenable.

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/1


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/2

712 This possibility being excluded, the only satisfactory explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment which has been offered is due to Lorentz, who assumed that all bodies in motion are shortened in the line of their motion by an amount which is a simple function of the velocity. This shortening would produce a compensation just sufficient to offset the predicted positive effect in the Michelson-Morley experiment, and would also account for the result obtained by Trouton and Noble. It would not, however, prevent the determination of absolute motion by other analogous experiments which have not yet been tried.

Einstein has gone one step farther. Because of the experiments that we have cited, and because of the failure of every other attempt that has ever been made to determine absolute velocity through space, he concludes that further similar attempts will also fail. In fact he states as a law of nature that absolute uniform translatory motion can be neither measured nor detected.

The second fundamental generalization made by Einstein he calls "the law of the constancy of light velocity." It states that the velocity of light in free space appears the same to all observers, regardless of the motion of the source of light or of the observer.

These two laws taken together constitute the principle of relativity. They generalize a number of experimental facts and are inconsistent with none. In so far as these generalizations go beyond existing facts they require further verification. To such verification, however, we may look forward with reasonable confidence, for Einstein has deduced from the principle of relativity, together with the electromagnetic theory, a number of striking consequences which are remarkably self-consistent. Moreover the system of mechanics which he obtains is identical with the non-Newtonian Mechanics developed from entirely different premises by one of the present authors. Finally, one of the most important equations of this non -Newtonian mechanics has within the past year been quantitatively verified by the experiments of Bucherer on the mass of a β particle, to which we shall refer later.

Therefore, in as far as present knowledge goes, we may consider the principle of relativity established on a pretty firm basis of experimental fact. Therefore, accepting this principle, we shall accept the

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/2


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/3

Rh to which it leads, however extraordinary they may be, provided that they are not inconsistent with one another nor with known experimental facts.

The consequences which one of us has obtained from a simple assumption as to the mass of a beam of light, and the fundamental conservation laws of mass, energy, and momentum, Einstein has derived from the principle of relativity and the electromagnetic theory. We propose in this paper to show that these consequences may also be obtained merely from the conservation laws and the principle of relativity, without any reference to electromagnetics.

In dealing with such fundamental questions as we meet here it seems especially desirable to avoid as far as possible all technicalities. We have endeavored to find for each of the following theorems the simplest and most obvious proof, and have used no mathematics beyond the elements of algebra and geometry.

The following development will be based solely upon the conservation laws and the two postulates of the principle of relativity.

The first of these postulates is, that there can be no method of detecting absolute translatory motion through space, or through any kind of ether which may be assumed to pervade space. The only motion which has physical significance is the motion of one system relative to another. Hence two similar bodies having relative motion in parallel paths form a perfectly symmetrical arrangement. If we are justified in considering the first at rest and the second in motion, we are equally justified in considering the second at rest and the first in motion.

The second postulate is that the velocity of light as measured by any observer is independent of relative motion between the observer and the source of light. This idea, that the velocity of light will seem the same to two different observers, even though one may be moving towards and the other away from the source of light, constitutes the really remarkable feature of the principle of relativity, and forces us to the strange conclusions which we are about to deduce.

Let us consider two systems moving past one another with a constant relative velocity, provided with plane mirrors aa and bb parallel to one another and to the line of motion (Figure 1). An observer, A, on the first system sends a beam of light across to the opposite mirror,

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/3


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/559

VOL. I.


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/4

714 which is reflected back to the starting point. He measures the time taken by the light in transit.

A, assuming that his system is at rest (and the other in motion), considers that the light passes over the path opo, but he believes that if a similar experiment is conducted by an observer, B, in the moving system, the light must pass over the longer path mnm'  in order to return to the starting point; for the point m moves to the position m'  while the light is passing. He therefore predicts that the time required for the return of the reflected beam will be longer than in his own experiment. A, however, having established communication with B, learns that the time measured is the same as in his own experiment.

The only explanation which A can offer for this surprising state of affairs is that the clock used by B for his measurement does not keep time with his own, but runs at a rate which is to the rate of his own clock as the lengths of the paths opo to mnm' .

B, however, is equally justified in considering his system at rest and A's in motion, and by identical reasoning has come to the conclusion that A's clock is not keeping time. Thus to each observer it seems that the other's clock is running too slowly.

This divergence of opinion evidently depends not so much on the fact that the two systems are in relative motion, but on the fact that each observer arbitrarily assumes that his own system is at rest. If, however, they both decide to call A's system at rest, then both will agree that in the two experiments the light passes over the paths opo

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/4


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/5

Rh and mnm' respectively, and that B's clock runs more slowly than A's. In general, whatever point may be arbitrarily chosen as a point of rest, it will be concluded that any clock in motion relative to this point runs too slowly.

Consider Figure 1 again, assuming system a at rest. We have shown that it is necessary to assume that B's clock runs more slowly than A's in the ratio of the lengths of the path opo to the path mnm' ; in other words, the second of B's clock is longer than the second of A's in the ratio mnm'  to opo. This ratio between the two paths will evidently depend on the relative velocity of the two systems v, and on the velocity of light c.

Obviously from the figure,

$$(op)^{2}=(ln)^{2}=(mn)^{2}-(ml)^{2}$$.

Dividing by (mn)²,

$$\frac{(op)^{2}}{(mn)^{2}}=1-\frac{(ml)^{2}}{(mn)^{2}}$$.

But the distance ml is to the distance mn as v is to c.

Hence

$$\frac{mn}{op}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}$$.

Denoting the important ratio by the letter β, we see that in general a second measured by a moving clock bears to a second measured by a stationary clock the ratio $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}$$.

Whatever assumption the observers A and B may make as to their motion, it is obvious that their measurements of length, at least in a direction perpendicular to their line of relative motion, will lead to no disagreement. For evidently, if each observer with a measuring rod determines the distance from his system to the other, the two determinations must agree. Otherwise' the condition of symmetry required by the principle of relativity would not be fulfilled.

But let us now consider distances parallel to the line of relative motion.

A system (Figure 2) has a source of light at m and a reflecting mirror at n. If we consider the whole system to be at absolute rest, it is evident that a light signal sent from m to the mirror, and reflected back,

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/5


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/6

716 passes over the path mnm. If, however, the entire system is considered to be in absolute motion with a velocity v, the light must pass over a different path mn'm'  where nn'  is the distance through which the mirror moves before the light reaches it, and mm'  is the distance traversed by the source before the light returns to it.

Obviously then,

$$\frac{nn'}{mn'}=\frac{v}{c}$$,

and

$$\frac{mm'}{mn'm'}=\frac{v}{c}$$.

Also from the figure,

Combining, we have

$$\frac{mn'm'}{mnm}=\frac{1}{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}=\frac{1}{1-\beta^{2}}$$.

Hence if we call the system in motion, instead of at rest, the calculated path of the light is greater in the ratio $$\frac{1}{1-\beta^{2}}$$.

Now the velocity of light must seem the same to the observer, whether he is at rest or in motion. His measurements of velocity depend upon his units of length and time. We have already seen that a second on a moving clock is lengthened in the ratio $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}$$, and therefore if the path of the beam of light were also greater in this same ratio, we should expect that the moving observer would find no discrepancy in his determination of the velocity of light. From the point of view of a person considered at rest, however, we have just seen that the path is increased by the larger ratio $$\frac{1}{1-\beta^{2}}$$. In order to account for this larger difference, we must assume that the unit of length in the moving system has been shortened in the ratio $$\frac{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}{1}$$.

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/6


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/7

Rh We thus see that a meter-stick, which, when held perpendicular to its line of motion, has the same length as a meter-stick at rest, will be shortened when turned parallel to the line of motion in the ratio $$\frac{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}{1}$$, and indeed any moving body must be shortened in the direction of its motion in the same ratio. Certain of Einstein's other deductions from the principle of relativity will not be needed in the development of this paper, but may be directly obtained by the methods here employed. For example, the principle of relativity leads to certain curious conclusions as to the comparative readings of clocks in a system assumed to be in motion.

Consider two systems in relative motion. An observer on system a places two carefully compared clocks, unit distance apart, in the line of motion, and has the time on each clock read when a given point on the other system passes it. An observer on system b performs a similar experiment. The difference between the readings of the two clocks in one system must be the same as the difference in the other system, for by the principle of relativity the relative velocity v of the systems must appear the same to an observer in either. However, the observer A, considering himself at rest, and familiar with the change in the units of length and time in the moving system which we have already deduced, expects that the velocity determined by B will be greater than that which he himself observes in the ratio $$\frac{1}{1-\beta^{2}}$$, since he has concluded that B's unit of time is longer, and his unit of length in this direction is shorter, each by a factor involving $$\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}$$. The only possible way in which A can explain this discrepancy is to assume that the clocks which B claims to have set together are not so in reality. In other words he has to conclude that clocks, which in a moving system appear to be set together, really read differently at any instant (in stationary time), and that a given clock is "slower" than one immediately to the rear of it by an amount proportional to the distance. From what has preceded it can be readily shown that if in a moving system two clocks are situated, one in front of the other by a distance l, in units of this system, the difference in setting will be $$\frac{lv}{c^{2}}$$. From this point Einstein's equations concerning the addition of velocities also follow directly.

Let us emphasize once more, that these changes in the units of time and length, as well as the changes in the units of mass, force, and energy which we are about to discuss, possess in a certain sense a purely factitious significance; although, as we shall show, this is equally true of other universally accepted physical conceptions. We are only justified in speaking of a body in motion when we have in mind some definite though arbitrarily chosen point as a point of rest. The distortion of a moving body is not a physical change in the body itself, but is a scientific fiction.

When Lorentz first advanced the idea that an electron, or in fact any moving body, is shortened in the line of its motion, he pictured a real

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/7


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/8

718 distortion of the body in consequence of a real motion through a stationary ether, and his theory has aroused considerable discussion as to the nature of the forces which would be necessary to produce such a deformation. The point of view first advanced by Einstein, which we have here adopted, is radically different. Absolute motion has no significance. Imagine an electron and a number of observers moving in different directions with respect to it. To each observer, naïvely considering himself to be at rest, the electron will appear shortened in a different direction and by a different amount; but the physical condition of the electron obviously does not depend upon the state of mind of the observers.

Although these changes in the units of space and time appear in a certain sense psychological, we adopt them rather than abandon completely the fundamental conceptions of space, time, and velocity, upon which the science of physics now rests. At present there appears no other alternative.

Having obtained these relations for the units of space and time, we may turn to some of the other important quantities used in mechanics.

Let us again consider two systems, a and b, in relative motion with the velocity v. An experimenter A on the first system constructs a ball of some rigid elastic material, with a volume of one cubic centimeter, and sets it in motion, with a velocity of one centimeter per second, towards the system b (in a direction perpendicular to the line of relative motion of the two systems). On the other system, an experimenter B constructs of the same material a similar ball with a volume of one cubic centimeter in his units, and imparts to it, also in his units, a velocity of one centimeter per second towards a. The experiment is so planned that the balls will collide and rebound over their original paths. Since the two systems are entirely symmetrical, it is evident by the principle of relativity, that the (algebraic) change in velocity of the first ball, as measured by A, is the same as the change in velocity of the other ball, as measured by B. This being the case, the observer A, considering himself at rest, concludes that the real change in velocity of the ball b is different from that of his own, for he remembers that while the unit of length is the same in this transverse direction in both systems, the unit of time is longer in the moving system.

Velocity is measured in centimeters per second, and since the second is longer in the moving system, while the centimeter in the direction

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/8


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/9

Rh which we are considering is the same in both systems, the observer A, always using the units of his own system, concludes that the change in velocity of the ball b is smaller in the ratio $$\frac{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}{1}$$ than the change in velocity of the ball a. The change in velocity of each ball multiplied by its mass gives its change in momentum. Now, from the law of conservation of momentum, A assumes that each ball experiences the same change in momentum, and therefore since he has already decided that the ball b has experienced a smaller change of velocity in the ratio $$\frac{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}{1}$$, he must conclude that the mass of the ball in system b is greater than that of his own in the ratio $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}$$.

In general, therefore, we must assume that the mass of a body increases with its velocity. We must bear in mind, however, as in all other cases, that the motion is determined with respect to some point arbitrarily chosen as a point of rest.

If m is the mass of a body in motion, and m0 its mass at rest, we have

The only opportunity of testing experimentally the change of a body's mass with its velocity has been afforded by the experiments on the mass of a moving electron, or β particle. The actual measurements were indeed not of the mass of the electron, but of the ratio of charge to mass $$\left(\frac{e}{m}\right)$$. It has, however, been universally considered that the charge e is constant. In other words, that the force acting upon the electron in a uniform electrostatic field is independent of its velocity relative to the field. Hence the observed change in $$\frac{e}{m}$$ is attributed solely to the change in mass. It might be well to subject this view to a more careful analysis than has hitherto been done. At present, however, we will adopt it without further scrutiny.

The original experiments of Kaufmann showed only a qualitative

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/9


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/10

720 agreement with equation I. Recently, however, Bucherer, by a method of exceptional ingenuity, has made further determinations of the mass of electrons moving with varying velocities, and his results are in remarkable accord with this equation obtained from the principle of relativity.

This very satisfactory corroboration of the fundamental equation of non-Newtonian mechanics must in future be regarded as a very important part of the experimental material which justifies the principle of relativity. By a slight extrapolation we may find with accuracy from the results of Bucherer that limiting velocity at which the mass becomes infinite, in other words, a numerical value of c which in no way depends upon the properties of light. Indeed, merely from the first postulate of relativity and these experiments of Bucherer we may deduce the second postulate and all the further conclusions obtained in this paper. This fact can hardly be emphasized too strongly.

Leaving now the subject of mass, let us consider whether the unit of force depends upon our choice of a point of rest. An observer in a given system allows such a force to act upon unit mass as to give it an acceleration of one $$\frac{\mathrm{cm}}{\mathrm{sec}^{2}}$$, and calls this force the dyne. If now we assume that the system is in motion, with a velocity v, in a direction perpendicular to the line of application of the force, we conclude that the acceleration is really less than unity, since in a moving system the second is longer in the ratio $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}$$, and the centimeter in this transverse direction is the same as at rest. On the other hand, the mass is increased owing to the motion of the system by the factor $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}$$. Since the time enters to the second power, the product of mass and acceleration is smaller by the ratio $$\frac{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}{1}$$ than it would be if the system were at rest. And we conclude, therefore, that the unit of force, or the dyne, in a direction transverse to the line of motion is smaller in a moving system than in one at rest by this same ratio.

In order now to obtain a value for the force in a longitudinal direction in the moving system, let us consider (Figure 3) a rigid lever abc whose arms are equal and perpendicular, and equal forces applied at a and c, in directions parallel to bc and ba. The system is thus in equilibrium.

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/10


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/11

Rh Now let us assume that the whole system is in motion with velocity v in the direction bc. Obviously, merely by making such an assumption we cannot cause the lever to turn, nevertheless we must now regard the length bc as shortened in the ratio $$\frac{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}{1}$$ while ab has the same length as at rest. We must therefore conclude that to maintain equilibrium the force at a must be less than the force at c in the same ratio. We thus see that in a moving system unit force in the longitudinal direction is smaller than unit transverse force in the ratio $$\frac{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}{1}$$, and therefore, by the preceding paragraph, smaller than unit force at rest in the ratio $$\frac{1-\beta^{2}}{1}$$. It is interesting to point out, as Bumstead has already done, that the repulsion between two like electrons, as calculated from the electromagnetic theory, is diminished in the ratio $$\frac{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}{1}$$ if they are moving perpendicular to the line joining them, and in the ratio $$\frac{1-\beta^{2}}{1}$$ if moving parallel to the line joining them.

From the standpoint of the principle of relativity, one of the most interesting quantities in mechanics is the so-called kinetic energy, which is the increase in energy attributed to a body when it is set in motion with respect to an arbitrarily chosen point of rest. Knowing the change of the mass with velocity as given by equation I, the general equation for kinetic energy, E'  may readily be shown to be

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/11


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/12

722 From equations I and II we may derive one of the most interesting consequences of the principle of relativity. If E is the total energy (including internal energy) of a body in motion, and E0 is its energy at rest, the kinetic energy E'  is equal to E—E0, and equation II may be written,

Moreover, we may write equation I in the form,

and dividing III by IV

In other words, when a body is in motion its energy and mass are both increased, and the increase in energy is equal to the increase in mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. From the fundamental conservation laws we know that when a body is set in motion and thus gains mass and energy, these must come from the environment. So also when a moving body is brought to rest, it must give up mass as well as energy to the environment. The mass thus acquired by the environment is independent of the particular form which the energy may assume, and we are thus forced to the important conclusion that when a system acquires energy in any form it acquires mass in proportion, the ratio of the energy to the mass being equal to the square of the velocity of light. We might go further and assume that if a system should lose all its energy it would lose all its mass. If we admit this plausible although unproved assumption, then we may regard the mass of every body as a measure of its total energy according to the equation,

For a body at rest,

$$m_{0}=\frac{E_{0}}{c^{2}}$$.

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/12


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/13

Rh Combining this equation with III gives

We thus see that energy changes with the velocity in the same way that mass does, and that the so-called kinetic energy is a "second order effect" of the same character as the change of length and the change of mass. The only reason that this effect is easily measured and has become a familiar conception in mechanics, while the others are obtainable only by the most precise measurements, is that we are in the habit of measuring quantities of energy which are extremely minute in comparison with the total energy of the systems investigated.

We have shown how observers stationed on systems in motion relative to one another have been able to preserve their fundamental principles of mechanics only by adopting certain novel conclusions. These conclusions are self-consistent; in the one case where they have been tested they are in accord with experiment; and they enable us to save all the fundamental physical concepts which have been found useful in the past. We have, however, considered primarily only systems which are initially in uniform relative motion. Whether our conclusions can be retained when we consider processes in which the relative motion is being established, in other words, processes in which acceleration takes place, it is not our present purpose to determine.

The ideas here presented appear somewhat artificial in character, and we cannot but suspect that this is due to the arbitrary way in which we have assumed this point or that point to be at rest, while at the same time we have asserted that a condition of rest in the absolute sense possesses no significance.

If our ideas possess a certain degree of artificiality, this is also true of others which have long since been adopted into mechanics. The apparent change in rate of a moving clock, and the apparent change in length and mass of a moving body, are completely analogous to that apparent change in energy of a body in motion, which we have long been accustomed to call its kinetic energy. We may with equal reason speak of the kinetic mass found by Kaufmann and Bucherer, or the kinetic length assumed by Lorentz. We say that the heat evolved when a moving body is brought to rest comes from the kinetic energy which it possessed. We thus preserve the law of conservation of energy. It is in order to maintain such fundamental conservation

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/13


text:
Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/14

724 laws, and to reconcile them with the Principle of Relativity, which rests on the experiments of Michelson and Morley, and of Bucherer, that we have adopted the principles of non-Newtonian Mechanics.

These principles, bizarre as they may appear, offer the only method of preserving the science of mechanics substantially in its present form. If later, when more complex systems are considered, and especially when we deal with acceleration, these views prove untenable, it will then be necessary to revolutionize the whole of mechanics.

, May 11, 1909.

title: Page:LewisTolmanMechanics.djvu/14


text:
User:Nono64

fr:utilisateur:Nono64

title: User:Nono64


text:
Page:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu/171

Rh where, the English were kept in a guardhouse, men and women having to sleep as well as eat in one room. A baronet and a groom, a fashionable young lady and a cook, were thus companions for many weeks before they were drafted off into prisons. A secret police report, indeed, describes the English of the Section du Roule as lying, men and women, on straw, straw itself being scarce, and as lacking even water to drink. The Comtesse de Bohm, too, saw forty Englishwomen brought to Plessis, cooped at night in a room so small that their beds touched, and spending the day on the stairs, utterly impassive and torpid. Perry was at first sent to Madelonnettes, where the keeper was a humane man, and on a relaxation of rigour was transferred to the Luxembourg. Many English without means might, he says, have obtained release, but preferred remaining prisoners. Teachers, grooms, and domestic servants must obviously have been deprived of their livelihood by the exodus of the rich. Perry believed himself to be in imminent peril when, on the trial of the Dantonists, Hérault de Séchelles proposed calling him as a witness to the innocency of his negotiations with English Whigs; but the defence, as we know, was suppressed, and Perry after fifteen months' detention was released. He bore no grudge against his gaolers,—he wrote in his "Appeal," dated "the felons' side of Newgate, March 25th, 1795,"—


text:
Page:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu/172

152 many innocent natives and foreigners had inevitably to suffer, and Frenchmen, lamenting that Englishmen had had to sustain so long a captivity, did everything in their power to make them forget their past sufferings. Released from Newgate on a change of ministry, he subsequently edited the Statesman, had cross suits for libel with Lewis Goldsmith, the jury giving him a farthing damages, and died in 1823, on the eve of discharge by the Insolvent Debtors' Court. A contemporary sketch of him, apparently copied from a newspaper, is the sole authority I have been able to find for the fable of Paine (and Perry also) having escaped the guillotine by the cell door swinging open and being chalked on the inner side. Henry Stevens, described like Perry as a man of letters, was imprisoned at the Abbaye, the Carmelites, and the Luxembourg from October 1793 to the end of January 1795. He also was a friend of Paine, and had written a book, which I have been unable to find, entitled "Les Crimes des Bois d'Angleterre." He called on Lord Malmesbury at Paris in 1796. General Kilmaine should not be passed over, though he had in thirty years become to all intents and purposes a Frenchman. His real name was Charles Jennings, and he was born at Dublin in 1751, but was apparently related to the Jennings


text:
Page:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu/173

Rh family of Kilmaine, Mayo. When eleven years old he accompanied his father to France, was brought up a soldier, and made a good cavalry officer. He served under Lafayette in America, and afterwards in Senegal. He was enraptured with the Revolution, and distinguished himself at Jemappes. In June 1793 he was at the head of the vanguard in Flanders, and was anxious for a command in chief, but the Convention commissaries, while acknowledging that he was brave and dashing, deemed it imprudent to give him a higher post. "He is a foreigner; he is Irish; republicanism does not easily penetrate such skulls." Dubois-Dubay, however, recommended him for the command in Vendée, as the only general on whose ability and energy he could rely. But instead of promotion came eighteen months' imprisonment for falling back before the enemy, his wife Susan being also incarcerated till July 1795. Kilmaine afterwards served in Italy, commanded the "armée de l'Angleterre," which should have invaded us in 1798, and died in 1800, having not long previously been divorced. His rapacity was notorious.

Denis de Vitré, an Englishman by birth, Canadian on the paternal and English on the maternal side, was a prisoner for at least some hours, though I have not found the conclusion of his history. His father was the Denis de Vitré who was believed to have piloted the English fleet up the St. Lawrence


text:
User:Wdwd

de:Benutzer:Wdwd

title: User:Wdwd