The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Illustrations
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Part I: Family Life and Early Background
• Chapter 1: An American Family
• Chapter 2: Origins
• Chapter 3: Youth and Experience
• Chapter 4: Initiation Into Politics
• Chapter 5: The Early Years, 1894–1900
• Chapter 6: Entering the Business World
• Chapter 7: The Early Years, 1901–1916
• Part II: James P. Goodrich the Consummate Politician
• Chapter 8: The Political Years
• Chapter 9: The 1916 Campaign
• Chapter 10: Years As Governor, 1917–1921
• Chapter 11: The Middle Years, 1916–1923
• Chapter 12: The Great Russian Famine, 1921–1923
• Chapter 13: Emissary to Russia
• Chapter 14: Return to Russia, 1925
• Part III: Businessmen With the Midas Touch
• Chapter 15: The 1920s
• Chapter 16: The 1930s
• Chapter 17: Companies! Companies! Companies!
• Chapter 18: Ayrshire Collieries Corporation
• Chapter 19: The Ecologist
• Chapter 20: The Later Years, 1940–1960
• Chapter 21: The Later Years, 1960–1973
• Part IV: Pierre F. Goodrich Crusader and Philosopher
• Chapter 22: Associations and Causes
• Chapter 23: Wabash College
• Chapter 24: The Mont Pelerin Society
• Chapter 25: A Scholar’s Life
• Chapter 26: Education In a Free Society
• Chapter 27: Moral, Political, and Metaphysical Beliefs
• Chapter 28: Why Liberty?
• Chapter 29: Liberty Fund, Inc.
• Part V: The Goodriches Assayed
• Chapter 30: Who Was Pierre F. Goodrich?
• Chapter 31: Defining Influences
• Chapter 32: Why Did They Work So Hard? Work, Ideas, Citizenship, and Virtue
• Chapter 33: Epilogue
• Appendixes

II

James P. Goodrich

The Consummate Politician

Chapter 8

The Political Years

It was the most exciting day in Randolph County’s history. It was bigger than the day the Civil War Monument was dedicated in July 1892 or the day that the former president Benjamin Harrison addressed thousands from the courthouse lawn in 1888. It would be even more important than Republican presidential candidate William Howard Taft’s tour of Winchester in 1908 or former President Herbert Hoover’s visit to the Goodriches in 1939. The crowd was enormous—at least ten thousand people clustered around the train depot. Bands stirred up the people for two hours. Campaign posters and handbills were tacked to anything that did not move and some things that did. Boys were perched in trees and on telephone poles along the train tracks, straining their eyes to be the first to glimpse the smoke pouring from the Special. It was a political rally, but not just any political rally. It was October 11, 1900, the day Teddy Roosevelt came to town.1

It seemed that every Republican within a hundred miles was present, including United States Senator Charles W. Fairbanks, United States Congressman George W. Cromer, and the Republican candidate for governor, Winfield T. Durbin. The welcoming committee, composed of the Indiana Supreme Court justice Leander Monks (from Winchester), John W. Macy, Sr., and others, waited patiently. Then the Special was sighted, and within no more than a minute, the train stopped at the platform and the great man himself appeared. “As big as life,” one of the committee men said later, “and twice as natural!” The welcoming committee, gaining composure, suddenly sang out: “Welcome to our city, Governor Roosevelt.”2

“De-e-eelighted!” roared Teddy, and Randolph County’s greatest day had officially begun.

The governor of New York, who would become the nation’s twenty-sixth president within the year by virtue of a combination of talent and fate, was escorted to the courthouse square. After several enthusiastic introductions of dignitaries, the irrepressible Teddy Roosevelt rose from the platform to address the multitude. The governor first thanked the county for its devoted support of the Union cause in the Civil War. He then made reference to a matter of more topical importance—the 1900 national election. With only three weeks left until voting day, Teddy blasted the opposition for thirty minutes, deprecating the claims and accusations of the Democratic presidential candidate, William Jennings Bryan. It was said that Teddy became so enraged that he “beat to pieces” his new Stetson hat on the platform railing as he delivered his oration.3

Although Governor Roosevelt departed shortly after his vitriolic speech, the day’s events had barely begun: There was a parade lasting more than two hours in which military regiments and others marched before the speakers’ stand; Rafe Murray and George Bright led their “Deerfield Rough Riders” up “San Juan Hill” (actually, in pancake-flat Winchester, it was a small incline known as Kettle Hill); bands that had come from as far as fifty miles away played patriotic music; glee clubs sang; and spectacular floats, representing patriotic, temperance, and labor union themes, were pulled by horses throughout the town. The largest delegation, from nearby Portland, Indiana, had brought twelve hundred marchers. The day’s celebratory events ended when a Randolph County native, Congressman James Watson, delivered an eloquent speech to a packed house. At midnight, the “Old 44” cannon on the courthouse square was fired and the Artillery Company bugler sounded “taps.”4

As was typical, James P. Goodrich, now the Republican chairman of the Eighth Congressional District, was so busy organizing the whole affair that he took little part in the official activities of the day. Staying in the background was a habit of his. Nonetheless, his work for the Republican Party did not go unnoticed by such men as Senator Fairbanks and even the great Teddy Roosevelt himself. James Goodrich’s rise in the party had begun about four years earlier, when William W. Canada, a Winchester attorney, resigned his position as Randolph County Republican chairman to accept a position in Washington, D.C. Immediately John Macy put James Goodrich’s name forward as Canada’s successor. Despite objections by local senior Republicans that James Goodrich was too young, Goodrich was elected chairman by a unanimous vote of the committee in 1897. He was only thirty-three years old.5

Goodrich was reelected in 1898. Soon afterward, he headed the statewide campaign of Union B. Hunt, a Winchester lawyer who sought the position of Indiana’s secretary of state. Hunt was nominated by the Republican Party and was elected in November. Political debutant Goodrich quickly learned the game of patronage and was consulted regarding numerous unfilled federal and state positions. In early 1898, Goodrich was encouraged by United States Congressman George Cromer to seek the chairmanship of the Eighth Congressional District. Despite a plot to derail his bid, Goodrich prevailed by traveling throughout the district to meet with nearly every voting delegate. He received more than 90 percent of the delegate vote and assumed the chairmanship of Indiana’s Eighth Congressional District at the age of thirty-six.6

After James Goodrich’s election as Eighth District chairman in 1898, his political work increased substantially. John Macy agreed to take over much of James’s law practice so that the loss of income would not be substantial. As Eighth District chairman, Goodrich became intimately involved with state politics; he was wooed by the state’s two powerful Republican United States senators—Charles W. Fairbanks, who would become vice-president to Theodore Roosevelt in 1905, and Albert J. Beveridge, Goodrich’s former classmate at DePauw University. Fairbanks and Beveridge courted his support because their own political futures depended largely on the ability of the state, district, and county chairmen to deliver a Republican legislature: Until 1912, when Article XVII of the Constitution was ratified, United States senators were not elected directly by popular vote, but were selected by the state’s legislature. Goodrich worked tirelessly in the campaign of 1900 to obtain a Republican victory in the Eighth District. The hard work paid off. A Republican landslide occurred: William McKinley was elected president over William Jennings Bryan (only to be assassinated in September 1901 and succeeded by Theodore Roosevelt); Winfield T. Durbin was elected governor, and a Republican majority was maintained in the state’s General Assembly.7

In late July 1901, Fairbanks approached Goodrich with the idea that Goodrich should seek the chairmanship of the Republican state committee. Fairbanks was a political power not only within Indiana, but nationally as well. He had been offered the vice-presidential nomination by McKinley in 1900 and had refused it, but he accepted it when Roosevelt offered it to him again in the 1904 election. Goodrich returned to Winchester and consulted with Macy about Fairbanks’s desire to see him as state party chairman. Macy encouraged his nephew to accept the post. To show his support, Macy offered to divide the earnings of their law practice while James was working on party activities.8 Goodrich met with Fairbanks the following day. He agreed to take the position on condition that no contributions would be accepted by the party from corporations that had direct dealings with the state. Fairbanks acceded to the request. On the following day, August 1, a meeting was held in Indianapolis with the state committee members and Goodrich was elected unanimously.9

In his autobiography, James Goodrich appraised his political responsibilities in Indiana over the next twenty years: “I might say without egotism here that from that time on down until 1921, the general policy of the Republican party so far as the organization was concerned was directed by me.”10 Within thirty days of his election as the state’s Republican Party chief, Goodrich was offered a retainer of five thousand dollars a year to represent the J. P. Morgan interests in Indiana. The true intent of the company, Goodrich realized, was “to employ the Chairman of the State Committee and not a country lawyer from over at Winchester.” The new party chief declined the offer, thwarting the first of many corporate intents to use his new powerful position.11

In 1902, Goodrich was again elected state chairman by the Republican Party. Almost all higher state officeholders went Republican: Daniel E. Storms of Stockwell won election as secretary of state, Charles W. Miller of Goshen was elected attorney general, and David E. Sherrick of Noblesville was elected auditor.

In 1904, James Watson chaired the Republican State Convention. James Goodrich was again elected state Republican chairman, despite an attempt by Albert Beveridge to defeat him. During most of their political lives, Goodrich and Beveridge had a guarded relationship. Beveridge, a man of great abilities, served in the United States Senate from 1889 to 1911. He is still considered one of the greatest orators in the history of the Senate, in the company of Daniel Webster of New Hampshire and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. He was also a writer of some repute, especially in the area of biography, having written the life histories of Abraham Lincoln and the former United States Supreme Court justice John Marshall. For his biography of Marshall, Beveridge received the Pulitzer Prize in 1920. Goodrich held Indiana’s young senator in some esteem:

Goodrich had a difficult time stroking the egos of Fairbanks, Beveridge, and Watson while maintaining party unity. He wrote of the task: “There was a great deal of jealousy among the men prominent in Indiana politics during the period I was State Chairman. Fairbanks, Beveridge, [and] Watson all had their eyes on the presidency, each was jealous of the other and it was somewhat of a job for the organization to steer a course that would give the least possible offense to any one of the three and yet be fair to all.”13

It was shortly after the 1904 election that an embarrassing situation occurred for the Indiana Republican Party. A number of state Republican officeholders, most notably Daniel Storms, who was secretary of state after Hunt, and David Sherrick, state auditor, were accused of embezzling state funds. While neither Goodrich nor the Republican governor, Harold Hanley, was implicated in the misappropriations, it was during their watch that Storms, Sherrick, and the others were elected. The result of the fiasco was mixed: Storms and Sherrick were forced to resign, but a depository law was passed by the legislature that required the state to adopt modern auditing practices.14

In December 1905, James Watson was elected majority whip in Congress under the powerful Speaker of the House Joseph Cannon.15 Despite his rise in Congress, Watson still dreamed of running for governor of Indiana. James Goodrich was again elected state party chairman in 1906 and 1908. At that time, Indiana law limited a governor to one term. In 1907, toward the end of Governor Hanley’s term, Hanley became very interested in anointing a successor. Goodrich recalled that Hanley sought him out to run for governor for two reasons: first, Hanley believed that the Winchester lawyer and businessman was qualified, and, second, and perhaps more important, Hanley knew that if Goodrich ran, James Watson would not. When Goodrich refused to be a candidate, the expected happened: Watson threw his hat into the political ring, seeking the top state post as a stepping-stone to the presidency. Watson received the Republican nomination on April 2, 1908.16 Goodrich, who had persuaded Watson not to run for governor in 1904, again strongly discouraged his close friend from running in 1908. Goodrich’s reason was that Watson had shot himself in the foot by flip-flopping on the all-important issue of temperance. Goodrich recalled that Watson was not committed to either position and played each against the other. “The trouble was that while [Watson] would whoop it up for the dry cause when with the Epworth Leaguers [members of a temperance society] and Anti-Saloon League, when he got with the boys at Terre Haute, Evansville, Lake County and other places he would put in his time drinking beer with the boys and assuring them he would be all right in case he was elected. The result was that neither side trusted him.”17

Watson’s equivocation on the temperance issue was his downfall. In the November 1908 election, he lost to the Democratic candidate, attorney Thomas Marshall of Columbia City, by a meager eight thousand votes. Marshall, who would become vice-president in 1913 under Woodrow Wilson, was essentially handed the governor’s seat by Watson’s blunder. Interestingly, the 1908 governor’s race caused Goodrich and his wife Cora to start thinking about their own political future. After the 1908 state Republican convention, James Goodrich recorded in his diary that Cora was quite smitten by the political maneuvering she had witnessed. “What caused me to record this I do not remember,” he wrote to Pierre. “[I]n fact, I was astonished when I found it there [in my diary], at the conclusion of the record of the day’s [Convention] fight: ‘From the expression upon her face, I believe that Mrs. Goodrich wants to be “Mrs. Governor” some day.’”18

At the 1908 Republican National Convention, held in Chicago from June 16 to June 19, Goodrich was a delegate from Indiana serving on the Committee on Credentials.19 William Howard Taft of Ohio was nominated for president by the Republicans, and he easily defeated the Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan, in the November general election. In anticipation of the 1910 presidential election off year, Goodrich begged to be relieved of his duties as state Republican chairman to return full time to his legal practice and business interests. Fairbanks, Watson, and even Beveridge asked him to continue, but he declined. Deferring to his wishes, the three politicians in January 1910 honored Goodrich at a farewell dinner at the Claypool Hotel in Indianapolis.20

During the next several years, Goodrich had to bail Watson out of one scrape after another. In 1908, Watson had given up his seat in Congress to run for governor and had lost. Once William Howard Taft took office as president, he offered the defeated gubernatorial candidate the position of either ambassador to Cuba or governor of Puerto Rico.21 Watson wanted to return to politics, however, and he hoped to make some quick money by working as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C., before seeking political office again in Indiana. Watson turned down Taft’s offers, which paid only ten thousand dollars a year, in favor of the more lucrative prospect of lobbying his former colleagues in Congress.22

No sooner had Watson returned to Washington as a lobbyist in 1909 than he became embroiled in a scam for which he was nearly prosecuted. Two states—California and Louisiana—were fighting for the right to host the Panama Exposition (promoting the construction of the Panama Canal). Watson had taken five thousand dollars as a retainer from a California delegation to promote the exhibition’s being held there. Soon afterward, the California delegation learned that Watson had also taken ten thousand dollars from a New Orleans delegation that believed that he was promoting their city as the site. Goodrich received a telegram from the former United States senator James A. Hemenway of Indiana, who had opened a law office with Watson, begging Goodrich to come to Washington to the aid of their mutual friend. Once there, Goodrich relates, it “took everything that [Vice-President] Fairbanks, Joe Cannon [Speaker of the House of Representatives], Hemenway, McKinley of Illinois and myself could do to prevent publicity and prosecution.” According to Goodrich, “Watson finally refunded the money to California and the matter was quieted down.”23

In an equally serious controversy in 1913, Watson was alleged to have received during his 1908 run for governor personal funds that were purportedly raised for his campaign by a lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers. The investigation of the Mulhall Affair, named for the lobbyist, resulted in weeks of hearings before both the United States Senate and the House.24 Again, Goodrich had to make statements in defense of his friend, given that he was state Republican chairman when the alleged “slush fund” money had been raised. Time and again, Goodrich came to Watson’s defense, especially in financial matters.25 Watson was simply too caught up in politics to take the time necessary to make money without involving himself in scandals.26

It is clear that Goodrich’s involvement in Republican politics did not extinguish his business desires. Although he would not allow himself to be employed as a paid lobbyist while he was state chairman, he apparently saw nothing wrong with taking on other business that came to him as a result of his political position. In 1908, Albert Barnes Anderson, federal judge of the Southern District of Indiana, appointed Goodrich receiver of the Chicago, Cincinnati and Louisville Railroad (CC&L). Goodrich was still serving as state Republican Party chief at the time. Many of the New England bondholders of the railroad were none too impressed that the chairman of the state Republican Party, who had no experience running a railroad, had been appointed to such an important position. It was well known that appointments to receiverships were political plums generally reserved for the party in power.

Despite the criticisms, Goodrich pressed ahead. The position required him to spend considerable time in Chicago, where he had an office from 1908 to 1912. “I never worked harder in my life than I did in the four years when I was actively running the railroad,” Goodrich recalled.27 Over the next four years, Goodrich was able to turn the operations of the railroad around to the point that it was handling traffic at 90 percent of the gross income for operating expenses. Soon afterward, he opened negotiations to sell the CC&L to the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad (C&O). The merger was finally consummated in 1912, with the bondholders of the C&O taking on the debts of the CC&L. When the bonds of the CC&L were finally sold, the first bondholders (now the C&O bondholders) received the payment of par value for their stock plus interest while the second bondholders received eighty cents on the dollar.28

The bondholders of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad were so pleased with the early results of Goodrich’s work that they offered him another opportunity to expand his family’s interests in public utilities. These bondholders also owned the Jeffersonville Water Company and the Washington Water and Gas Company in Indiana. In 1908, both companies were in receivership. Goodrich could purchase the Washington Water and Gas Company if he would pay the price of the receivership certificates. He was also offered the opportunity to purchase the Jeffersonville Water Company if he would pay fifty cents on the dollar for the bonds. Goodrich accepted both offers. Goodrich purchased the Washington Water and Gas Company and filed a certificate of incorporation with the secretary of state’s office on June 30, 1908. The new company was named the Washington Water, Light and Power Company. Goodrich remained president of the company until 1919, when he stepped down and Jesse “Jett” Moorman, a business associate from Winchester, became head of the utility. At that same time, Pierre took his father’s position on the board. In 1913, the Washington Water, Light and Power Company purchased the Citizens Light and Fuel Company, thus expanding its area of service in Daviess County, Indiana.29

In January 1910, after resigning as state Republican chairman, Goodrich entered into a law partnership in Indianapolis with John Robbins and Henry Starr, both of whom were from Richmond, Indiana. In January 1913, Leander J. Monks resigned from the Indiana Supreme Court after serving for eighteen years and joined the firm, which came to be called Monks, Robbins, Starr and Goodrich. Its offices were located on the ninth floor of the Pythian Building in Indianapolis. Goodrich served as general counsel for the insurance department of the Knights of Pythias and performed other legal work. Goodrich practiced with the three attorneys until 1914, when he quit the practice of law to devote himself full time to his extensive business interests: banking, farming, mining, oil refining, railroads, public utilities, grain elevators, and bond houses.30

In 1912, as a result of his success in operating the Chicago, Cincinnati and Louisville Railroad while it was in receivership, Goodrich was appointed by a federal judge Renster, a Democrat, receiver of the Noelke-Richards Iron Works. Noelke-Richards had plants in both Indianapolis and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The company had contracts to provide structural steel extending from Portland, Maine, to Seattle, Washington. Many of the creditors wanted to see Noelke-Richards go into bankruptcy. One of the company’s largest creditors was Bethlehem Steel Corporation of Pennsylvania. Goodrich met with the president of Bethlehem Steel, Charles Schwab. Schwab wanted bankruptcy, not an operating receivership. When Goodrich told Schwab that he thought that Noelke-Richards could pay fifty cents on the dollar if it were allowed to operate under a receivership arrangement, Schwab told Goodrich that the company would be fortunate to pay half that much. This prompted Goodrich to negotiate a deal with Schwab to accept twenty-five cents on the dollar. Only a year later, at the end of 1913, Goodrich disposed of all the assets of the company, paying creditors 87.5 cents on the dollar. Goodrich recalled, “Judge Renster did me the honor when the matter was closed up by stating publicly in open court that it was the most satisfactory trust that he had ever experienced either as a lawyer or judge.”31

Although James Goodrich had resigned from the chairmanship of the Indiana Republican Party in 1910, his political involvement continued. At the 1912 Republican National Convention in Chicago, he became a key player in an attempt to select a presidential nominee who could defeat the Democratic presidential candidate, Woodrow Wilson. In 1912, Goodrich had been appointed to the Republican National Committee as the Indiana delegate, succeeding Harry S. New of Indianapolis. New would become a United States senator in 1916 and postmaster general for President Warren G. Harding in 1923. Beginning in 1912, Goodrich was also selected to serve on the Republican National Executive Committee.

The Indiana Republican Party was in disarray at this time, and it looked to Goodrich for leadership. In an unprecedented situation, a former president, Theodore Roosevelt, was challenging the incumbent president, William Howard Taft, for the Republican nomination. Both desperately wanted to capture Indiana’s delegates at the national convention. Goodrich told Roosevelt that he would support Taft, because Taft was the incumbent. Goodrich knew, however, that the state strongly favored Roosevelt. When the vote was tallied at Indiana’s Eighth Congressional District Convention, Roosevelt won by a mere two votes. Taft personally asked Goodrich to contest the election, but Goodrich refused; instead, he made a motion that the selection of the Roosevelt delegates be unanimous, and that motion was carried. At the Indiana state convention in March, however, the Taft forces came out on top with a majority of 105.32

The fight between Taft and Roosevelt continued at the national convention in Chicago in June. James Watson, Charles Fairbanks, and Harry New served there as delegates-at-large from Indiana. Goodrich was a delegate by virtue of being a national committeeman. At that time, state party primaries did not precede the national convention. Therefore, at the convention, the selection of the party’s nominee for president was the primary task of the delegates. At the 1912 convention, however, the Republican National Committee, made up almost entirely of loyal Taft supporters, allowed Roosevelt only 19 out of 254 contested seats. The anomaly was that Roosevelt, in the minds of the American public, was by far the more popular figure of the two. Roosevelt let it be known in advance that he would not be bound by the convention results. It soon became evident to Goodrich that the fight between Taft and Roosevelt had become so acrimonious that the bloodbath would greatly decrease the chances of the eventual nominee’s defeating the Democrat presidential nominee, Woodrow Wilson. On June 22, Goodrich met with Roosevelt in the Florentine Room of the Congress Hotel and confronted the former president. Goodrich knew that Roosevelt would never step aside to allow Taft to be the nominee, but he believed that Roosevelt might accept the Missouri governor Herbert S. Hadley, a close friend of Roosevelt’s, as a compromise candidate. Goodrich was willing to nominate Hadley if Roosevelt conceded to the dealmaking. After waiting for two hours for Roosevelt to discuss the proposal with his top advisers, Goodrich was summoned into the former president’s suite: “I went to Roosevelt’s room on his invitation. He was alone. He told me the result of the conference. He said, ‘There can be no question but that I am the choice of the Republican party today. If Taft steals this nomination from me, the fight has only begun.’”33

Roosevelt overestimated his support among the delegates, who were bound to Taft. Taft prevailed as the Republican nominee after Roosevelt and his throng ultimately walked out of the convention. The irrepressible “Teddy,” however, was true to his word. He proceeded to form the Progressive Party (better known as the Bull Moose Party, because Roosevelt said that he was as fit as a bull moose when questions about his health were raised), and he fought Taft till the end. Just as Goodrich and the political pundits had predicted, the resulting bitter campaign between Roosevelt and Taft split the traditional Republican vote. This resulted in Wilson’s winning by a large electoral margin in the November election. Taft came in a distant third.34

At that point, Goodrich turned his political attention to his home state, where the Democratic Party had also prevailed by electing two successive governors (Thomas P. Marshall in 1908 and Samuel M. Ralston in 1912) and two United States senators (Benjamin F. Shively and John W. Kern). In an attempt to restore the state Republican Party machinery to its previous dominance, Goodrich sought out a young, bright lawyer from Sullivan, Indiana, to serve as party chairman. His name was Will Hays. The two men had first become acquainted in 1902, when Hays had become Sullivan County Republican chairman. Goodrich was greatly impressed with Hays’s energy, his Presbyterian values, and his ability to “dramatize things.” He wrote years later that Hays was “the best publicity man that ever lived.”35

By 1906, Goodrich had appointed Hays head of the Republican Party State Speakers Bureau, responsible for organizing more than one hundred speakers in ninety-two counties and thirteen congressional districts.36 In 1912, Hays received the appointment of vice-chairman of the state Republican Central Committee. In 1914, he was finally elected, with Goodrich’s assistance, state Republican Party chairman. At age thirty-five, he was two years younger than Goodrich had been when Goodrich had assumed the position in 1901. Hays’s selection as state party chief was significant to Goodrich’s own personal political ambitions. It served as the first stepping-stone toward reuniting the Indiana Republican Party and paved the way for Goodrich’s run for the governor’s seat in 1916.

Chapter 9

The 1916 Campaign

As the new chairman of the Indiana Republican Party, William Harrison Hays had a tremendous challenge before him. In the election of 1912, the Republican Party had come in a distant third behind the Democrats and the Progressives (the Bull Moose Party) in Indiana as well as nationally. Only twice since 1860 had the Republican Party failed to place its candidate in the White House. Hays’s approach was to return traditional Republican voters to the GOP fold by inviting Progressive Party members from throughout the state to participate in Republican meetings. He also flooded state newspapers with columns and editorials on major issues, cleverly promoting the Republican point of view. He worked closely with James Goodrich and Harry S. New, a former Republican Party national chairman and United States Senate candidate in 1916, to meet with large numbers of precinct committee members in nearly every county in Indiana.1

Hays’s diligence and brilliance paid big dividends for Goodrich’s political aspirations. In the autumn of 1915, James Watson had approached James Goodrich to inquire whether his longtime friend was serious about running for governor in 1916. Watson encouraged Goodrich to seek the office. Watson let it be known that if Goodrich did not run he would. If Goodrich did run, Watson would challenge the incumbent United States senator from Indiana, Democrat John W. Kern, who was up for reelection. Watson began pressing his former schoolmate for an early decision.2

Never one to react to someone else’s timing, James Goodrich first decided to test the political waters to see what interest a candidacy might generate throughout the state. He had political friends from South Bend to Evansville mention his name as a prospective candidate. Goodrich initially had serious qualms about running for governor. “I had always had a pretty high regard for the office, and was inclined to think of it in terms of [Oliver P.] Morton, [Henry S.] Lane, and men of that type, and I had no exaggerated notions about my own ability to fill that office,” he wrote.3 When the response throughout the state was highly favorable, however, he reached the conclusion that “there was nothing for me to do but to make the race.”4

Goodrich pursued the state’s top governmental position with intense energy and work. The first thing Goodrich did was to write a personal check for $40,000 and give it to his campaign manager, John McCardla. Goodrich admonished McCardla not to accept any contributions from any other individuals or groups. Goodrich believed that by bankrolling his own campaign he could avoid obligations to political contributors.5

Despite his twenty years of devoted service to the Indiana Republican Party and his hefty campaign war chest, Goodrich’s nomination was by no means certain. He would have to defeat two formidable candidates in the first state Republican primary: Warren McCray, a wealthy farmer from Kentland and the Tenth Congressional District, and Quincy Myers, a former judge of the Indiana Supreme Court, from Logansport. Goodrich acknowledged that he was no speechmaker, but he did not allow this weakness to hinder his pursuit of the office. He opened his campaign by delivering an announcement address in Greencastle, Indiana, the home of his alma mater, DePauw University, on December 29, 1915.6 While McCray relied heavily on advertising in newspapers, Goodrich took his campaign directly to the people in cities, towns, and rural areas across the state. He wrote approximately twenty-five thousand precinct chairmen whom he had met during the five political campaigns in which he had headed the state Republican Party; furthermore, Goodrich traveled and campaigned in every precinct in the state except four counties in McCray’s own Tenth Congressional District. Goodrich’s approach worked. He took the primary on March 7, 1916, in a landslide, winning the popular vote in eighty-seven out of the state’s ninety-two counties.7

With Goodrich in the governor’s race, Watson was determined to dethrone Kern, who was finishing his first term as the junior senator from Indiana. Watson, considered a favorite for the senate seat, unexpectedly lost to Harry New by a few thousand votes in the Republican primary. Strangely, Goodrich claimed that it was well known that Watson had aligned himself with McCray in the primary. It was an odd alliance, given that it was Watson who had encouraged Goodrich to run for the Republican nomination in the first place. Goodrich was convinced that had Watson made the race on his own, he could have defeated Harry New by fifty thousand votes.8

Shocked by his defeat, Watson alleged voter fraud and urged Governor Samuel Ralston, a Democrat, to appoint a special grand jury to investigate the primary election results in Marion County. No sooner had this occurred than a fortuitous event happened that affected Watson’s political future: Indiana’s senior United States senator, Benjamin F. Shively, unexpectedly died of a heart attack on March 14. Shively’s death occurred just a week after the primary election but before the state Republican convention. Thus, the Republican Party had the task of nominating two senatorial candidates, not just one, at the state convention in May.

Goodrich met with Will Hays the day after Shively’s death. He let Hays know that, should he desire Shively’s senate seat, he would support him over Watson. The next day, March 16, Hays sent to Goodrich, who was in New York on a business trip, a telegram to inform him that he wanted to remain chairman of the Indiana Republican Party. Shively’s death and Hays’s decision renewed Watson’s senatorial hopes. Watson dropped the allegations of voter fraud and lobbied his Republican colleagues for the chance to become a United States senator after all. Watson and New were formally nominated as the Republican Party’s senate candidates at the state convention.9

At the national level, Charles Evans Hughes received the Republican Party’s presidential nomination at the Chicago convention on June 8. He won over Indiana’s Charles Fairbanks. Hughes, a former governor of New York, resigned as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court to accept his party’s candidacy. James Goodrich would become quite familiar with Hughes when Goodrich served with the American Relief Administration in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. Hughes then held the position of United States secretary of state. The 1916 election in Indiana drew national attention. Both major parties’ vice-presidential candidates were from Indiana (Fairbanks on the Republican ticket with Hughes, and Thomas Marshall on the Democrat ticket with Woodrow Wilson). The Prohibition Party candidate for president, J. Frank Hanly, was also from Indiana.

With the Republican Party nomination for governor sewed up, Goodrich still had to defeat the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, John Adair, to reach the statehouse. Adair hailed from Portland, Indiana, the county seat of Jay County, just twenty miles north of Winchester. He had served in Congress for the previous ten years. One of the criticisms of Adair’s gubernatorial candidacy, brought by Republican critics such as Will Hays, was that Adair had lived in Washington, D.C., for so long that he no longer was familiar with the pressing issues in Indiana.10

James Goodrich had his own criticisms to overcome, however, because of a perceived conflict between his business interests and his political pursuits. Goodrich was president of Washington Heat, Power and Light Company in Daviess County, Indiana; Union Heat, Light and Power Company of Union City, Indiana; and Peoples Loan and Trust Company in Winchester. He also served as a director of Jeffersonville Heat and Water Company, Citizens Heat, Light and Power Company, and several other public utilities in east-central Indiana. Opponents of Goodrich’s candidacy argued that he aspired to the governor’s seat so that he could increase his public utility holdings and wealth even more. A Republican announcement in the Winchester Herald a week before the election attempted to summarize and deflect the argument:

In an adroit political maneuver, Goodrich intentionally limited his campaign to the prominent state issues of the day: revision of the tax laws, abolition or consolidation of state positions and departments, workmen’s compensation, and centralization of power in the governor’s office.12 He also supported a measure that went against his own interests as an investor in two coal companies. Goodrich favored the “shot-firers” bill (a safety provision for the mining of coal) and the adoption of workmen’s compensation. This pleasantly surprised many labor leaders and aroused the ire of corporate officers. Because of Goodrich’s position on these issues, John Hewitt, then president of the Indiana Coal Operators Association, wrote a scathing letter to association members stating that Goodrich was not a man to be trusted. Goodrich secured a copy of the letter from Hewitt’s son and used it to his political advantage. He released copies of it to various labor organizations throughout the state, thus obtaining the support of many voters who traditionally would have opposed a wealthy Republican candidate.13

Goodrich proceeded to turn another potential liability into an asset in his bid for the governorship. Early in the campaign, Adair learned that Goodrich had paid only thirteen dollars in personal income taxes the year before (1915). Adair complained that Goodrich was hypocritical to suggest that the tax laws should be changed when Goodrich had paid so little. Goodrich admitted that he had paid only thirteen dollars in personal taxes, but he argued that was why he supported legislation that would levy a tax on intangible property such as stocks, bonds, interest income—the source of his wealth. Under the existing system, it was primarily tangible property, real and personal, that bore the burden of taxation.14 In an even more sophisticated deflection of Adair’s criticism, Goodrich attempted to make Adair appear to be the wealthier of the two candidates, when clearly the Democrat was not. In a speech to a group of railway workers in Logansport, Goodrich stated:

James Goodrich claimed that Adair never raised the tax issue again after this pronouncement.16 But Goodrich continued to hit the inequitable taxation issue hard wherever he campaigned, as he did when he spoke before the LaGrange County Corn Growers Association on October 7, 1916, and before three thousand supporters in Anderson on November 3.17

A survey of Goodrich’s campaign record makes evident that he was not an inflexible purist on the issues, but a very practical politician. He was far more interested in obtaining results if the means were acceptable to him. For example, he claimed that he had never taken a drink of alcohol and had repeatedly supported local remonstrances against liquor establishments. Yet time and again throughout the campaign, Goodrich entered taverns and saloons to court votes, much to the chagrin of his temperance supporters.18 Interestingly, however, Goodrich avoided, when at all possible, commenting on two of the most controversial issues of the day: prohibition and the vote for women.

Adair did not stick strictly to state issues, but raised the biggest question on the minds of most Hoosiers: Should the United States enter the European war against Germany? “In his major speech of the campaign, Adair told his Fort Wayne audience that because the President [Wilson] had avoided war the German-Americans were not faced with the necessity of fighting their Fatherland.”19 Adair’s appeal to the German-American vote was not sufficient to offset a Democratic campaign that was seriously underfunded and woefully unorganized. In fact, Adair’s alignment with President Wilson apparently hurt him, since many German districts in the state were incensed by Wilson’s unwillingness to take a strong stance against Germany’s aggression.20 These occurrences, combined with Goodrich’s highly effective campaign strategy, resulted in a victory for the Republican candidate, but not by a large margin. On November 7, 1916, Goodrich captured the governor’s seat by garnering 337,831 votes, 14,609 more than Adair received. Goodrich led the Republican ticket, while New and Watson also won their senate seats by about 9,000 votes over their Democratic opponents. Moreover, the Republican Party in Indiana also carried both houses of the General Assembly and nine of thirteen congressional seats. In the presidential race, Hughes also carried the state, defeating Wilson by a plurality of 8,779 votes. Nationally, however, Wilson narrowly defeated Hughes in one of the closest presidential elections in the twentieth century, capturing just twenty-three more electoral college votes than Hughes.21

James Goodrich remained in Winchester on November 6 and voted the following day. Pierre had returned from Massachusetts, where he was then a student at Harvard Law School, to be with his father on election day. On November 7, James and Cora left for Indianapolis to be present in the state capital for the election results. With victory achieved, on Saturday, November 11, James and Cora returned to Winchester on the Knickerbocker Express to be greeted at the train station by hundreds of well-wishers. A one-hundred-car caravan escorted the Goodriches around the town square and to their home on East South Street. There, the governor-elect, his wife, and his mother addressed the joyous crowd that had gathered around the home in freezing temperatures.22

Just a few days before Goodrich took office, another local gathering was held to honor the governor-to-be. On December 29, Goodrich’s men’s Sunday school class presented him with a chalice honoring him for his many years of service and wishing him well in his new position of leadership. It was a warm send-off that James Goodrich would greatly savor. As the new governor would quickly learn, colleagues and friends in the statehouse were not nearly so numerous or supportive.

Chapter 10

Years as Governor, 1917–1921

No sooner had he been elected governor in November 1916 than James Goodrich “was besieged upon every hand by persons who wished to receive appointments in [his] administration.”1 He put off filling most positions until after the General Assembly had met in the winter and early spring of 1917. Soon afterward, however, Goodrich made appointments that filled two of the most important offices in his administration: Fred Sims, state Republican chairman after Goodrich, was appointed chairman of the Board of Tax Commissioners; and Ernest Lewis, a reporter who had covered Goodrich’s campaign for the Indianapolis Star, was selected as chairman of the Public Service Commission. In almost all departments, Goodrich advocated a nonpartisan makeup of employees. He believed that many members of the previous administration—that of Democrat Samuel Ralston—had done a competent job, and he saw no need to replace them.2

At noon on January 8, James Goodrich was administered the oath of office by Moses B. Lairy, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Indiana. The new governor’s inaugural address immediately followed, and it reflected his no-nonsense approach to governing. He stated that the number-one goal of his four-year term would be “efficiency and economy” in the administration of the state’s duties. He proceeded to prove it by the brevity of his remarks: Goodrich’s entire inaugural address was not five minutes long.5 Moreover, in order to devote all of his energies to his new position, Goodrich had announced that he would not host an inaugural ball.6

On the afternoon of his inauguration, Goodrich did allow himself a longer time to address the General Assembly, a full thirty-six minutes. He outlined the plans of his administration: abolishing the oil inspection department, the state’s statistician department, and several minor departments; creating a highway commission, a conservation commission, and banking and insurance commissions; amending the workmen’s compensation laws and providing for absentee balloting; and making several offices, such as those of state geologist and superintendent of schools, appointive rather than elective. One of his most pressing concerns was to overhaul the unjust tax system, making it more equitable between real property owners and owners of nontangible property.7

While both parties generally favored the recommendations, some Democrats were afraid that all of the consolidations might result in giving the state’s top executive too much appointive power. These few Democrats had reason to be concerned. During his gubernatorial campaign speeches, Goodrich had repeatedly shouted the slogan, “You give me the power and I’ll be responsible for the results.”8 Goodrich recalled that Democratic-leaning newspapers were even more “venomous” in attacking his policies, referring to him as a “would-be Czar with a desire to centralize in the hands of the Governor complete control of the state’s affairs.”9

There was no official governor’s residence in Indianapolis when Goodrich took office. Therefore, James and Cora arranged somewhat makeshift accommodations. During their four years in the state’s capital, they lived in three different Indianapolis locations: 1828 North Meridian Street (1917); 2710 Sutherland Avenue (1918–19), and the Claypool Hotel (1920–21).10 Despite James’s hectic schedule, there was hardly a Sunday that he missed traveling back to Winchester, a distance of some eighty miles, to teach his men’s Sunday school class at the Presbyterian Church. He either took the Saturday evening train back to Winchester, during which time he would work on his lesson, or drove from Indianapolis on the poor roads between the capital and his hometown.

During the first session of the General Assembly, a prohibition bill had been passed and Goodrich had signed it. An excise tax on corporations promoted by Goodrich, however, was defeated in the senate by “men of small mind and narrow vision,” Goodrich claimed.11 Similarly, Democrats defeated Goodrich’s plan to abolish the oil inspector’s position, a position that employed sixty-seven inspectors around the state in what Goodrich considered totally useless government jobs. Since it was the Democratic members of the senate who defeated the bill, Goodrich did not hesitate to force the existing chief oil inspector to resign. Goodrich alleged that he had evidence of repeated graft by the chief oil inspector and threatened to see him prosecuted if he did not leave “voluntarily.” The governor replaced him with Carl Mote, a Randolph County native who had served as Goodrich’s press secretary during his gubernatorial campaign. Mote subsequently fired the remaining oil inspectors—all Democrats—and replaced them with Republicans.12

While the Democratic attacks against his legislative agenda were anticipated, Republican opposition was not. The newly elected governor never enjoyed a honeymoon period with the legislature. Instead, he encountered repeated and open opposition, mostly from members of his own party. This included criticism by his own lieutenant governor, Edward Bush, a Republican.13 “Goodrich could not, however, deny that he was himself responsible for having selected Bush, a dry, to run for lieutenant governor instead of John Lewis of Seymour, a wet. ‘As it turned out,’ recalled Goodrich, ‘I would have been better off with John Lewis drunk than Ed Bush sober.’”14

Goodrich wrote about difficulty he encountered in getting the General Assembly to approve his proposals: “It was a strange situation in which I found myself. The men who had been associated with party politics ever since 1900 complimented me during the campaign on the promises made and almost invariably said that it was ‘good stuff.’ But after my inauguration, they began to express grave doubts as to the wisdom and political expedience of so many new and unusual things.”15

James Goodrich took office just three months before the United States declared war against Germany. The European conflict indelibly marked his four years in the statehouse, as he would from that time thereafter be referred to as the “war governor.” Goodrich had been opposed to the United States’ entering the war, describing himself as initially “pro-German.”16 Indeed, the nation itself and Hoosiers in particular had been greatly divided regarding which side the United States should fight on if it did enter the conflict.17 By the end of March 1917, however, Goodrich had concluded that the United States’ entry on the side of the Allied powers was the moral thing to do. He proclaimed publicly that America “can not with honor stay out any longer.”18

On the evening of April 2, President Wilson delivered his war message to Congress. Knowing that a declaration of war was imminent, Goodrich held a conference on April 5 in Indianapolis with leading farmers, grain dealers, canners, and county agents from throughout the state. An increase in food production was the foremost topic. On the following day, April 6, Congress passed the War Declaration Act and Wilson signed it. Immediately, Goodrich’s office in the statehouse was besieged by eager young men who offered themselves for service in any capacity that was needed. By June, registration of available men was 100.6 percent of the census estimate for the state prepared by the United States Department of War. By July 1918, 88,500 men from Indiana had volunteered to serve in the army and navy, on the basis of percentage of population, more than from any other state.19 By the war’s conclusion, Indiana had supplied more than 130,000 troops, of which 3,354 Indiana soldiers and 15 nurses had been killed or had died of diseases, chiefly influenza and pneumonia.20 Hoosiers of all backgrounds supported the war effort. For instance, James A. Allison, owner of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, declared in the spring of 1917 that there would be no more Indianapolis 500 races until the war was over; he further turned over his manufacturing companies to the army to be used to produce munitions.21

Hoosiers with more modest resources also contributed significantly to the war effort. At the request of Governor Goodrich and Indiana’s mayors, Hoosiers planted 500,000 home gardens in 1917 to produce necessary vegetables and crops. Senators Harry New and James Watson sent fifty thousand packages of seeds to Hoosiers, who spaded up every available backyard and vacant lot to produce food for the “boys overseas.” The next year, 640,000 gardens were planted.22 Goodrich also signed and promoted several “Liberty Loan Proclamations” whereby he challenged Hoosiers to lend money to the government to support the war effort.23 Perhaps most important, Goodrich established a State Council of Defense Committee to organize and direct the resources of the state for national use. On May 17, 1917, Goodrich placed his good friend, Will Hays, the state Republican Party chairman, in charge of the council. It proved to be one of the most successful statewide organizations of its kind in the country.24 Within months, Indiana led every other state in terms of production, conservation, volunteers, and service abroad. The state was so successful that Newton D. Baker, secretary of war in the Woodrow Wilson administration, requested that other state councils go to Indiana and study the Hoosier council’s methods.25

Despite the large percentage of people of German ancestry in the state and nation, American citizens of German blood were ridiculed, discriminated against, and even lynched.26 In Indianapolis, most street names that were German or even German sounding were anglicized. By the winter of 1919, the state legislature, with the encouragement of the Indiana State Teachers Association, banned the teaching of German in all Indiana grade and high schools.27 James Goodrich contested the legislation, but to no effect. As governor, he was limited to issuing a proclamation outlawing any conduct directed against any citizen because of his or her ancestry.28

In the face of general criticism of Hoosiers of German ancestry, Goodrich made one of his most difficult but most successful appointments. On March 17, 1917, Goodrich named German-born Richard Lieber secretary of the Forestry Board. Lieber was later appointed director of the Indiana State Parks Committee and chairman of the Department of Conservation. Additionally, just four days after the United States declared war against Germany, Goodrich extended to Lieber the position of military secretary to the governor.29 In addition to being a native of Germany, Lieber had three brothers who were colonels in the German army. James Goodrich bestowed upon Lieber the rank of colonel. Lieber went on to become the father of Indiana’s state parks system, serving three successive governors and helping to establish and preserve some of Indiana’s most scenic and historic land: Brown County State Park (1930), Clifty Falls State Park in Jefferson County (1920), Indiana Dunes in Porter County (1925), and Mounds State Park in Madison County (1930).30

Richard Lieber was a favorite of Cora Goodrich. For example, Lieber was the only man whom Cora would allow to smoke and drink alcohol in her home. Her fondness for the colonel is evident in the fact that she brought back from a trip to Cuba a box of cigars for him and always kept fresh cigars for whenever he visited the Goodriches’ Winchester home. Like James Goodrich, Lieber was an accomplished man with diverse interests. His greatest passion was conservation. In 1908, after attending a conservation conference at the White House called by President Theodore Roosevelt, Lieber became enamored of the preservation of natural resources. He returned to Indiana, and his official conservation efforts continued in the state for the next twenty-five years. After he resigned in July 1933 as chairman of the State Conservation Commission, he served on national ecology committees. The deep friendship between the Goodriches and Lieber and his wife Emma continued long after Goodrich left the governor’s office. After James’s and Cora’s deaths, Lieber advised Pierre in the early 1940s on conservation measures in association with the Ayrshire Collieries Corporation.31

Despite the numerous state issues that the new governor had to contend with, it was the European war that most concerned James Goodrich in the spring of 1917. He agonized over how best to support the boys overseas. Finally, knowing that the nation was experiencing an emergency, Goodrich made an appeal to all county commissioners, township trustees, school boards, merchants, and mayors to suspend building contracts until the war was over. In the meantime, however, the Wilson administration had advocated “business as usual.” Goodrich called the president to explain that he was “satisfied that the country could not carry on its business as usual [policy] and wage a war at the same time.”32

Goodrich added that the matter did not extend to construction contracts alone, but to the production of energy as well. Goodrich attempted to get the coal companies to commit to a fixed price for coal; demand had increased as much as 30 percent since the war had begun, and there was a fairly broad sentiment by coal operators, according to Goodrich, that this was a prime opportunity to maximize coal profits. Goodrich was in an embarrassing situation himself because he had, at the time, a large interest in two coal companies. He met with the coal operators of Indiana on June 15, 1917, asking them to make sacrifices. On July 9, he met in Bloomington, Indiana, with William Jennings Bryan, the former Democratic presidential candidate. He sought Bryan’s support to encourage President Wilson to fix a fair price for coal. Dissatisfied with his long-distance communications with the president, on July 16 Goodrich traveled to Washington, D.C. He first testified before the Interstate Commerce Commission and then held a private meeting with Wilson. He urged the president “to use his influence with the Congress . . . to pass a law regulating and reducing the price of coal.”33

On his return to Indiana at the end of July, Goodrich put all his efforts into governing the state and assisting the State Council of Defense in its efforts to raise resources for the war. Goodrich maintained a grueling schedule, and after he had been in office less than eight months, his health began to deteriorate. In August 1917, he contracted typhoid fever after visiting a northern Indiana prison.34 His condition was severely worsened when he contracted pneumonia. For several weeks, the governor was bedridden at Methodist-Episcopal Hospital in Indianapolis, at times bordering on death.35 He finally recovered after returning to Winchester in October and then spending a month in convalescence in Florida along the Gulf of Mexico.36

Back in the statehouse on November 26, Goodrich pursued his official duties. For the next several months, the state’s coal shortage occupied much of his time. On January 22, 1918, he again traveled to Washington, D.C., this time testifying before the Senate. There, Indiana’s governor claimed that the coal crisis was really a transportation crisis caused by the shortage of railroad cars and engines.37

Unfortunately, Goodrich’s attention to the state’s problems kept being diverted by personal crises. Three weeks earlier, on December 29, 1917, James’s mother, Elizabeth Edger Goodrich, died of heart failure in Winchester after a very brief illness. A little more than a year before her death, in October 1916, Mrs. Goodrich donated twenty acres of land to Winchester. In consideration of the gift, the town was to maintain the land as a park in the name of Mrs. Goodrich’s deceased husband, John B. Goodrich, and to impose a levy that generated at least nine hundred dollars annually for that purpose. The gift was bequeathed on the condition that alcohol would not be sold on the parkland and that no activities would be allowed on Sundays with the exception of religious, charitable, or educational entertainments.38

After his mother’s death, the governor’s own misfortunes continued as well. Almost exactly one year after his bout with typhoid, James Goodrich was in an automobile accident in Indianapolis. On the evening of August 28, 1918, Goodrich attended a dinner party, hosted by Dr. Amelia Keller, for a number of medical officers who were going abroad. Shortly after he left the party in his car, he was struck by a streetcar and critically injured. At the time of the mishap, Pierre was a second lieutenant stationed at the quartermaster depot in Jeffersonville, Indiana. He came immediately to Indianapolis to be with his father at St. Vincent’s Hospital. The governor had fractures of the hip, skull, ribs, and collarbone and experienced internal bleeding. Although Goodrich made a relatively quick recovery, his left leg was placed in a cast for several weeks. He had to walk with the aid of a cane for the rest of his life.39

The large victory of the Republican Party in Indiana in the 1916 election had given Will Hays a certain mystique in Republican circles throughout the country. Hays had achieved phenomenal success in returning Progressive Party supporters (Bull Moosers) to the Grand Old Party. For instance, whereas 162,000 Hoosiers had voted for the Bull Moose presidential candidate, Theodore Roosevelt, in the 1912 election, fewer than 4,000 voted for the Progressive Party candidate in 1916. Similarly, the Republican Party had garnered 190,000 more votes for presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes in 1916 than it had for William Howard Taft in 1912. “Immediately there were calls for Hays to consult with national leaders to determine how the Indiana magic could be worked nationally.”40

Goodrich recognized that Hays had an excellent chance of gaining the national chairmanship of the Republican Party when the position became available at the end of 1917. Hays’s name had been mentioned for the position ever since the 1916 election. Goodrich personally lobbied every influential Republican he knew to support Hays’s candidacy.41 In November he traveled to New York and met with Theodore Roosevelt. According to Goodrich, Roosevelt agreed to support Hays. The former president started contacting “men by long distance all over the country, men who would respond to any request he made.”42 Over the years, Goodrich and Roosevelt had established a political and personal friendship. For instance, when Goodrich had met with President Wilson the preceding July in Washington, D.C., he traveled on to New York City at Roosevelt’s invitation. There, Goodrich met with the former president at the Harvard Club. At that time, Roosevelt discussed with Goodrich his plans to raise a military division and lead it into France. In a highly controversial and public decision, President Wilson rebuffed Roosevelt’s offer.43

With regard to Hays’s candidacy for chairmanship of the national Republican Party, Goodrich also lobbied Albert Beveridge. Beveridge had rejoined the Republican Party in June 1916 after having left it in 1911 to become a highly prominent leader of the Bull Moose Party. Beveridge was asked by Goodrich to solicit Roosevelt and others on behalf of Hays. Once Roosevelt’s support was obtained, the former president lobbied other influential Republicans across the country. Roosevelt’s efforts were not totally selfless. He had plans to seek the 1920 Republican presidential nomination. He knew that if he helped Hays, Hays could be counted on to return the favor.

The strong lobbying effort paid off. On February 13, 1918, Hays was elected to the top national Republican position. Hays, just thirty-eight, was the youngest Republican National Committee chairman up to that time. Hays resigned his position as chairman of the Indiana Council on Defense on February 21, and Goodrich was forced to name a successor. Concerned that the subsequent appointment not be seen as solely partisan, Goodrich appointed a top Democrat, Michael Foley.44

Within weeks, Goodrich had to contend with one of the most controversial issues ever to be debated and acted upon in the United States—prohibition. At midnight on March 30, 1918, the sale, transportation, and consumption of alcoholic beverages in Indiana were prohibited by state legislation. Immediately, 3,500 Indiana taverns and saloons were closed, 547 of them in Indianapolis alone. By January 1919, the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, outlawing the sale and consumption of alcohol nationally, had been ratified. Fifteen years later, in 1933, the amendment was repealed, replaced by the Twenty-first Amendment.

Before his automobile accident, James Goodrich had been pressed by his brother Percy to ask Will Hays to be the keynote speaker at the National Hay Association’s annual convention in Chicago. Percy Goodrich was president of the national agricultural organization. Former Republican presidents William Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt had served as keynote speakers in previous years. Therefore, Percy believed that it was not too much to think that the new chairman of the national Republican Party might accept their invitation. Besides, Percy knew of the close friendship between his brother and Hays. He obviously believed that if James were to offer the invitation, the likelihood of a favorable response would be increased. In response to James Goodrich’s solicitation, Hays turned the tables. He wrote that the governor himself should address the large convention, since it would be “an opportunity to get into intimate personal touch with all of them.”45 Hays went on to encourage Goodrich to speak nationally and become known beyond Indiana’s borders. Hays wrote:

Hays’s suggestion stemmed from his desire to groom Goodrich for national office, but Indiana’s governor, if he was aware of Hays’s ulterior motive, did not take the bait. He responded to Hays:

Soon afterward, Goodrich’s term in office was disrupted by his automobile accident in August. Still another health crisis loomed, this one national—the great influenza epidemic of October 1918. Goodrich recalled that the disease “swept the country like wildfire,” killing many. On October 10, the governor issued a statewide prohibition against all public meetings, educational, political, and religious.48

The election of November 1918 preoccupied him next. The previous May, Goodrich had presided over the Republican state convention as the temporary chairman.49 In late October, still recovering from his automobile accident, Goodrich appealed to the voters in Indiana to support the Republican Party. He declared that it had been only Republican leaders who had made a “demand for an unconditional surrender and against peace [with Germany] through compromise and negotiation.”50 The appeal was well received. At the general election two weeks later, Republicans swept offices at the state and federal levels in an unprecedented fashion: eighty-nine out of one hundred Republicans were elected to the Indiana House, thirty-three out of fifty Republicans were elected in the Senate, and Republicans garnered all thirteen of Indiana’s United States congressional seats. On November 15, Goodrich called a special two-day meeting of all newly elected Republican members of the legislature. His purpose was to lay before them the proposals he would be submitting to the General Assembly in January 1919. At Goodrich’s invitation, United States senators Harry New and James Watson, along with Will Hays, met with the Republican majority in Indianapolis.51

On January 6, 1919, just before the General Assembly was to meet, news came that Theodore Roosevelt had died at the relatively young age of sixty. That sad fact “upset all the plans Will Hays and I had for nominating Roosevelt for the presidency [in 1920],” Goodrich recalled.52 Just four days later, on January 10, Goodrich addressed the General Assembly. He appealed to the legislature to support his platform, which, he believed, had been overwhelmingly endorsed by the voters, as the large Republican victory in November indicated. By January 14, the General Assembly had ratified the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution (Prohibition), which had been an accomplished fact in Indiana since the previous March. The General Assembly also passed a joint resolution on one of the other great national issues to be debated in this country’s history—woman suffrage. Although Goodrich admitted he was opposed to it, he signed the legislation, apparently submitting to legislative and public pressure.53

Through a hard fight, Goodrich next created a state highway commission. This placed control of the construction and maintenance of highways in the hands of the state. More than thirty-five hundred miles of roadway were taken over by the commission. Local contractors had been strongly opposed to the legislation.54 Moreover, during the waning days of the 1919 legislative session, Goodrich succeeded in getting passed a “shot-firers” bill, which compelled coal operators to hire experienced men to “shoot down” the coal as opposed to making miners do it themselves. Legislation was also approved that reduced the number of oil inspectors from sixty-seven to five, resulting in a net savings to the state, according to Goodrich, of $300,000 per annum. Finally, on March 10, the day before the legislative session ended, a tax bill was passed, although it did not contain all the reforms that the governor had offered.55

With the 1919 legislative session behind him, Goodrich could once again focus on the state’s efforts to support America’s war efforts overseas. As the war was winding down, Goodrich established a Reconstruction Committee to explore how best to manage the return of more than 130,000 Hoosier veterans. An early action of the committee was to send a letter to every employer of an enlisted soldier. The letter inquired whether the soldier’s previous job would be available upon his return; approximately 98 percent of the employers responded affirmatively.56

The end of World War I marked one of the highlights of James Goodrich’s administration. When the armistice was announced on November 11, 1918, Indianapolis was ablaze with fireworks. Anything that could make noise was employed to mark the occasion. The evening of November 11 found thousands crowded around Monument Circle in downtown Indianapolis singing “The Star-Spangled Banner,” “Nearer My God to Thee,” and other popular patriotic and religious songs.

The delays in transporting some two million men stateside from Europe were many.57 The following spring, on April 28, Goodrich traveled to New York City to welcome the first contingent of Indiana soldiers home. Ten days later, on May 7, 1919, a crowd estimated at 175,000 filled the sidewalks of downtown Indianapolis. Twenty thousand returned soldiers and others participated in the parade marching under a large Victory Arch and before Governor and Mrs. Goodrich in the stands.58 Goodrich later proclaimed September 22 as “Heroes Day” when the martyred were commemorated with a ceremony at Monument Circle.59

Just two weeks before, on September 4, President Woodrow Wilson had visited Indianapolis to seek support for his proposed League of Nations. Goodrich made it well known that he opposed the League, but he entertained the president while Wilson was in Indianapolis and introduced him at a packed rally at the state fairgrounds.60 In October, Goodrich had to contend with a serious coal strike in Lake County. On October 5, he declared martial law and ordered state troops to quell the labor uprisings.61 He met with John L. Lewis, the newly elected leader of the United Mine Workers of America. Negotiations between the two men failed because of their disagreement regarding guarantees to provide coal for state institutions and public utilities. The strike, which eventually became nationwide and continued through the months of November and December, resulted in price gouging. Goodrich met with governors from seven other coal-producing states in an attempt to resolve the problem, but the whole situation only grew more “chaotic.”62

In the fall and winter of 1919, Goodrich made two noteworthy speeches in New York state. Goodrich’s willingness to address gatherings so far from Indiana raises the question of whether he had, at that time, national political aspirations. On September 22, he addressed the National Security League in Albany, New York, and on December 21, he spoke in Brooklyn, New York, before the New England Society. To both, his advice was much the same: America should focus its attention on problems at home and not become involved in international entanglements. The addresses were in obvious response to President Wilson’s promotion of the entrance of the United States into the League of Nations.63 In Washington, D.C., at that time, James Watson was carrying water for the Republican Party against Senate ratification of both the League of Nations and the Versailles Treaty. Watson had been appointed to serve as floor whip by the minority leader, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, to manage the defeat of both measures.64

By the end of December, Goodrich had decided to call a special session of the General Assembly for the purpose of ratifying the constitutional amendment extending suffrage to women. Clearly, views on women’s rights at the time were archaic, and Goodrich’s own were hardly enlightened ones. He wrote years later: “I was never very strongly for [woman suffrage]; I did not believe it would accomplish a small percentage of the good claimed by the supporters of the movement. I maintained that it would increase the expense; that women when once engaged in politics would not in any way raise the morals of a campaign; women would adopt themselves to a political situation just the same as men.”65

The special session on the Nineteenth Amendment was held on January 17, 1920. Despite Goodrich’s lack of enthusiasm for the measure, it was ratified in the Indiana Senate by a vote of forty-three to three and in the House by a unanimous vote of ninety-three.

Soon afterward, a financial crisis confronted the state. State Auditor Otto K. Klaus reported in March that appropriations for state institutions would be exhausted within ninety days unless the General Assembly authorized money for the deficit. The war had placed an inordinate drain on the financial resources of these institutions. Ironically, the state had ample monies in the general fund, but these monies could not be transferred to pay for institutional debts without the General Assembly’s approval. Therefore, Goodrich called a special session, beginning July 12, 1920, to deal with the financial emergency.66

One of the final activities that Goodrich became involved in as governor involved a twenty-eight-acre memorial site that was constructed on a five-block area north of downtown Indianapolis. In 1919, the state legislature authorized $15 million (to be raised both publicly and privately) for the erection of the World War Memorial Plaza. The construction of the plaza first meant the razing or moving of some forty-five buildings. Goodrich was one of fifteen trustees appointed to oversee the raising of private money and the design of the plaza. The plaza ultimately included Memorial Hall; a fountain; Obelisk Square; and the statues of former presidents Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Harrison, and a former vice-president from Indiana, Schuyler Colfax. The state’s decision to construct the plaza ultimately led to the relocation of the permanent national headquarters of the American Legion in Indianapolis. This seemed quite appropriate, since an earlier brotherhood of veterans, the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR), had had its birthplace in Indianapolis shortly after the Civil War.67

On December 30, 1919, Will Hays, James Watson, James Goodrich, and James Hemenway, the latter a former United States senator from Indiana, met at the Hotel Severin in Indianapolis for lunch. The meeting had been arranged by Hays to encourage Goodrich to submit his name on Indiana’s primary ballot for president in the 1920 national election. More than a year earlier, Hays, Watson, Goodrich, and United States senator Harry New of Indiana had made a private pact that none of them would seek a change in political office without first consulting the others.68 With former President Theodore Roosevelt deceased, there was no clear front-runner for president. Hays was convinced that Goodrich stood a good chance of gaining the 1920 Republican nomination. On April 25, 1919, the Indianapolis mayor, Charles W. Jewett, who was in New York City to welcome home Hoosier veterans in the Rainbow Division, announced that Goodrich would be the choice for the nomination for president from Indiana’s delegation.69 Several other political insiders encouraged Goodrich to run for president at the Republican National Convention in Chicago in June 1920. Moreover, on January 27, 1920, in Washington, D.C., Senators New and Watson held a meeting with members of Indiana’s congressional delegation in an attempt to get them to commit to a Goodrich presidency.70

James Goodrich certainly had the credentials to be a legitimate presidential candidate. He was a highly successful and wealthy lawyer and businessman. Moreover, he had been deeply involved in Republican politics for twenty-five years, being everything from the local county chairman to a senior and respected member of the National Republican Committee. He personally knew most top-level Republican leaders throughout the country. Moreover, Goodrich had the right connections. He could clearly count on Hays’s influential support as national chairman of the Republican Party. Furthermore, Harry New and James Watson, now highly influential United States senators in their own right, promoted a Goodrich run. In fact, Watson was chairman of the Committee on Resolutions; Senator Henry Cabot Lodge was chairman of the Republican convention. Watson had pledged his total support for a Goodrich presidential run. He announced that in deference to his childhood chum he would not seek the one office he had cherished all his life.71 With the illness of Woodrow Wilson and the general dissatisfaction with Wilson’s post–World War I policies, the Republican presidential nominee stood an excellent chance of gaining the White House.72

James Goodrich, however, never threw his hat into the presidential ring. On January 27, 1920, he publicly announced that he would not be a candidate for president.73 When he would not consider taking a run at the top post, there were attempts to make him a vice-presidential candidate. In fact, Theodore Roosevelt had asked Goodrich to be his running mate when Goodrich met with the former president in November 1917.74 When Roosevelt died, General Leonard Wood, former governor of the Philippines and a conservative nationalist, commanded most of Roosevelt’s following. Wood had also built up a huge campaign chest of nearly $2 million. General Wood let it be known that he desired a Wood-Goodrich ticket. In fact, when Goodrich went to New York on April 28 to welcome home the first contingent of returning Indiana soldiers, a number of leading newspapers, including the New York Times and the New York Tribune, were proposing Wood and Goodrich for the ticket.75

The selection of Goodrich would have upheld the Indiana tradition of being the nation’s number-one supplier of vice-presidents. As previously noted, Hoosiers Charles Fairbanks and Thomas Marshall had served as vice-presidents to Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, respectively. As early as July 1917, Goodrich was considered vice-presidential material:

At the time, Indiana was an important center for geopolitical reasons. This did not go unrecognized by those seeking the White House, such as Roosevelt, Wood, and another New York politician, United States senator James W. Wadsworth.77

Despite Goodrich’s successes as governor, the call to higher office fell on deaf ears. Goodrich had already decided by the spring of 1920 that he was through with politics. He wrote to Harry New in April: “I have no desire or ambition to do anything but finish my administration as best I can and then go back to my business. I am done with politics for ever and a day.”78 And in November, with only two months to go as governor, he wrote another close friend: “I will be the happiest man in Indiana when the tenth day of January [1921] comes and I can once more be free. Never again will I even think of rendering any service to the people in an official capacity.”79 Even if Goodrich had wished to stay in the governor’s office, the position was closed to him. Under Indiana’s constitution at the time, a governor was limited to one term.

At the 1920 Republican National Convention in Chicago, none of the candidates, among whom were General Leonard Wood, Illinois governor Frank O. Lowden, and Senator Hiram Johnson of California (Goodrich’s pick), could muster enough support to gain the nomination for president in early balloting. James Watson was offered the nomination on the sixth ballot. In a moment he almost certainly regretted for the rest of his life, he turned down the chance. His wife, whom he telephoned back in Rushville, Indiana, about the offer, told him she had absolutely no desire to be first lady.80 Finally, on the tenth ballot, the convention nominated a former newspaper man and mediocre United States senator from Ohio, Warren G. Harding. The governor of Massachusetts, Calvin Coolidge, was slated as Harding’s running mate. Will Hays managed the national Republican team of Harding and Coolidge in a masterly fashion, but it was a lackluster ticket. The country was so opposed to the Democratic Party, however, that the pair easily defeated the Democratic ticket of James M. Cox and Franklin D. Roosevelt, winning by a margin of two to one.81

Goodrich returned to Indiana from the convention with the feeling of relief that the remaining few months of his gubernatorial term would soon be over. His frustrations with the job stemmed partly from the failure of his own Republican Party to support him in many of the reforms he had hoped to bring to state government. Perhaps Goodrich’s biggest disappointment was opposition by lobbyists and the General Assembly to his attempt to make the tax code more equitable. Goodrich believed that property owners were still bearing a disproportionate burden of state taxation. The tax package passed in 1919 addressed this inequity only partially.82 It was not until the 1930s that James Goodrich was praised for his attempts to revamp Indiana’s tax code. In 1931, the Indianapolis News won a Pulitzer Prize for advocating tax reforms, most of which Goodrich had pushed for during his years as governor. Finally, the Democratic governor Paul V. McNutt, during his four years in office (1933–37), succeeded in getting passed the tax reforms that James Goodrich had proposed some fifteen years before.83

Another apparent reason for Goodrich’s disappointment with the job had been his health problems. The fact that he spent several months during his tenure recovering from both typhoid and a nearly fatal automobile accident certainly did not bring back any fond memories for him. Finally, Goodrich’s approach to governing was seen by many to be high-handed. For example, he was attacked as the “Hoosier Caesar” by the editor of the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette at the 1920 Democratic state convention.84 Goodrich knew that governing entails more consensus-building than does the arena of business, where decisions from the top are expected to be followed, yet he seemed to have difficulty making the transition from business executive to coalition-builder.

Despite these frustrations with the job, James Goodrich achieved a formidable record as Indiana’s twenty-eighth governor. He had established the State Highway Commission, the Department of Banking, and the Department of Conservation.85 Under the latter, many of Indiana’s existing state parks were created. James Goodrich had also directed through the state’s General Assembly legislation reorganizing the Public Service Commission, extending prohibition, improving workmen’s compensation, consolidating or eliminating several positions, consolidating most state publications into one annual yearbook, and providing for absentee voting. Moreover, his revamping of the tax law in 1919 incorporated the “Indiana Plan,” which controlled public expenditures and is estimated to have saved state taxpayers more than $100 million. Most important, during Goodrich’s tenure as governor, women won the right to vote, even though Goodrich was, at most, a lukewarm proponent of woman suffrage.86 On top of all of this, Goodrich had initiated the state’s Civil Defense Council, which was essential in the support of the European war effort, and had signed charters establishing two important state institutions of higher education: Indiana State Normal School—Eastern Division (later Ball State University) in 1918 and Evansville College (later Evansville University) in 1919. James Goodrich was known for being the first Indiana governor to introduce modern business principles and methods into state government. He was the epitome of the modern executive.87

Goodrich’s commitment as governor was admired by many. Thirty-five years after Goodrich’s tenure in office, Will Hays wrote in his memoirs: “The reader may already have gathered that Governor James P. Goodrich was one of my political ideals. He was a man of complete unselfishness and devotion to the service of our people.”88 Although James Goodrich would never again be a candidate for elective office, his accomplishments were far from over. Some of his most successful work in the business world and contributions in the public sphere were still to come.

Chapter 11

The Middle Years, 1916–1923

In september 1916, in the thick of James Goodrich’s gubernatorial campaign, Pierre matriculated at Harvard Law School. There, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he was exposed to some of the best minds in American jurisprudence: the great scholar Roscoe Pound, who taught Pierre torts (noncontractual liabilities); Austin Wakeman Scott, a renowned professor of trusts, who taught him legal procedure; and Felix Frankfurter, who taught him public utility law. Frankfurter later became one of the most prominent United States Supreme Court justices of the twentieth century.1

At that time, Harvard required every student to participate in a sport. Although he did not possess the physical dexterity demanded by sports such as tennis, basketball, and golf, Pierre found rowing to be an activity in which he could excel.2 At Harvard, Pierre was extremely studious. His cousin Florence Goodrich Dunn, who was then a student at nearby Wellesley College, remembers Pierre as a “grisly grind,” seldom willing to take a break from his studies even for social outings.3 After only a year at Harvard, however, Pierre was forced to take a reprieve from his books at the behest of a summoner he could not refuse—the draft board. In the summer of 1917, he received notice that he would be a soldier in the United States Army, and later he learned that he would be commissioned to serve in the army’s Quartermaster Corps. Pierre was one of 1,345 men and women from Randolph County who served during World War I.4 While Pierre never served abroad, because of his defective eye, his cousin John Goodrich fought in France.5

While Pierre was at Harvard and in the military (1916–20), his father occupied the governorship of Indiana. By January 1919, Pierre was back at Harvard, having received an honorable discharge from the army. To meet the needs of returning soldiers, Roscoe Pound, by then dean of the law school, had devised a special course for the semester that began in February 1919. The course continued through the summer, fitting in with the regular courses that began that fall.6

At a ceremony in June 1919, Pierre and Tom Veech, who were both students at Harvard, and another close friend of theirs, Ralph Bales, who was a law student at the University of Michigan, returned to Winchester to be admitted into the local bar. The event was recorded locally:

In the summer of 1919, an event even more significant to Pierre occurred—he met Dorothy Dugan, who would become his first wife. Pierre was introduced to her by his cousin Florence Goodrich, who was then teaching French at Central High School in Fort Wayne, Indiana.8 Pierre and Florence had grown up only a block from each other in Winchester and were more like brother and sister than first cousins. Florence’s maternal grandparents were the Neffs, who lived in Decatur, Indiana. As a young girl, Florence would visit her grandparents for long periods. There, she became close to two girls, Winnifer Ellingham and Dorothy Dugan. Florence, Winnifer, and Dorothy had much in common: Their families were all stalwart members of the Presbyterian Church and were deeply involved in politics and business in Decatur and Winchester.9

Dorothy’s parents were Charles A. Dugan and the former Fanny B. Dorwin. Charles Dugan, like James Goodrich, was a banker by profession. He served as president of Decatur’s oldest bank, First State Bank, from 1922 until his death in 1935.10 Dugan had formerly been superintendent of the City Schools of Decatur and a professor of mathematics at Carlinville College in Illinois.11 The Dugan house on Monroe Street was a place of great joy, since the Dugans were known in the community for entertaining.12 When the house was completed in 1902, the local newspaper reported that it was probably the most costly home in the city.13 The Dugans also had a private library of approximately nine hundred books, reflecting the intellectual interests of its occupants. The house is now the home of the Adams County Historical Society.

Both the Goodriches and the Dugans valued education highly and sent their children to prestigious eastern schools. Dorothy had graduated from Vassar College in 1918; two of her sisters, Frances and Helen, also graduated from Vassar. Florence Goodrich had graduated from Wellesley College in the spring of 1919.14 Dorothy Dugan was an attractive young woman who especially enjoyed social gatherings and sports. She was known for her high spirit, stubbornness, and strong opinions. After graduating from Decatur High School in 1914, she received her bachelor of arts degree from Vassar. She then returned to teach at her hometown high school during the 1919–20 school year.15

Pierre and Dorothy had many things in common, especially a love of learning and books. Little is known of their courtship, but their wedding announcement was prominently placed in the Indianapolis News.16 Pierre was the Harvard Law–educated son of the governor of Indiana. Dorothy Dugan was the Vassar-educated daughter of one of the most prominent families in northeastern Indiana.

The two were married on Saturday afternoon, July 17, 1920. The wedding was a private affair, taking place in the large foyer of the Dugans’ home in Decatur. Carl McCamish, Pierre’s boyhood friend, served as best man. Dorothy’s sister Helen served as bridesmaid.17 After their wedding, Pierre and his bride went on a two-month honeymoon to the West coast. They camped in Yosemite Valley for two weeks and then took an ocean trip to the Canadian coast.18

Beginning in September 1920, they moved into their temporary home on East Street in Winchester. The back of their property abutted Salt Creek, the small stream that meanders through Winchester. On the east side of the creek directly behind Pierre and Dorothy’s house stood the imposing governor’s mansion of James and Cora Goodrich. Within the immediate neighborhood lived all four of Pierre’s uncles and their wives. By all accounts, Pierre and Dorothy lived a happy and quiet life in Winchester. Their only child, Frances “Nancy” Dorwin, was born in October 1921, in Dorothy’s parents’ home in Decatur.19 Back in Winchester, Pierre was able to reestablish childhood friendships and begin life as a small-town lawyer.

In January 1921, James Goodrich returned to Winchester to resume his duties as president of the Peoples Loan and Trust Company and pursue his many business interests. The previous September, Pierre had begun practicing law with his cousin John Macy, Jr. They maintained an office in Winchester above the old Randolph County Bank, in the same place that their fathers, James Goodrich and John Macy, Sr., had practiced law together for fifteen years around the turn of the century. John Macy, Jr., a man of substantial intellect, had graduated from Wabash College Phi Beta Kappa in 1908. He attended Columbia University Law School in New York City for one year before returning to Winchester.20

In Winchester, Pierre and Dorothy played in a local bridge club. Their closest friends included George and Evelyn Jaqua, John and Matilda Jaqua, Francis and Mary Simpson, Alice and Sarah Miller, and Marie Moorman. Pierre and Dorothy also went on long walks on Sunday afternoons.21 Just three blocks due north of their house was the town’s new library, which Pierre’s father, mother, and grandmother had helped to establish. Pierre and Dorothy attended the First Presbyterian Church, which was located only two blocks away from their home.

The members of the Goodrich family were and continue to this day to be pillars of the Presbyterian Church. Pierre’s grandmother, Elizabeth Goodrich, was a founding board member in 1882. Pierre’s uncle Percy served as superintendent of the Sunday school for a number of years, and his father, James Goodrich, served as an elder of the church for more than twenty-five years and, beginning in 1910, taught a men’s Sunday school class that met until the former governor’s death.22 Pierre’s mother, Cora, also active in the Presbyterian Church, founded the Madonna Class in 1914. Women who were members met both for regular Sunday school and socially at the Goodrich mansion, just a block from the church. Pierre taught an all-boys Sunday school class from 1920 until approximately 1922.

At that time, each of the churches of Winchester had a baseball team. Local contests served as one of the main forms of entertainment.23 Pierre once explained the reason he stopped attending church regularly. He and others on the Presbyterian team had gone to the congregation’s minister, the Reverend Gustav A. Papperman. They sought approval for the church baseball team to play in a Sunday afternoon league. Mr. Papperman refused the young men’s request on the grounds that the day was the Sabbath. Pierre thought the decision totally ridiculous and illogical. He did not think much of the viewpoint that adhered to such a rigid observance. After that, Pierre lost interest in organized religion and did not attend church regularly. He did, however, remain on his hometown church’s membership roll for the rest of his life, but he often called himself a “backslid Presbyterian.”24

By 1923, Pierre had tired of small-town practice in Winchester. He had larger ambitions, especially in the area of corporate law, than he thought his hometown could accommodate. Therefore, against his parents’ wishes, he and Dorothy moved to Indianapolis, where they lived on the affluent north side of the city.25 Pierre had tried to persuade his law partner, John Macy, Jr., to move to Indianapolis also so that they could establish a law practice together. Macy, however, had no desire to leave Winchester. Macy continued to practice law in Winchester until 1939, when he was elected Randolph Circuit Court judge, an office his father had also held. Macy was reelected to the position for the next twenty-eight years and retired in 1966 at the age of eighty.26

James and Cora were disappointed to see their only child, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter leave Winchester shortly after the couple had returned from four years in the governor’s office.27 Pierre’s decision to move to Indianapolis in 1923 was an astute one, however, at least professionally. It became pivotal in his becoming one of Indiana’s leading corporate lawyers.

Chapter 12

The Great Russian Famine, 1921–1923

In the midst of returning to his many business interests after serving as governor, James Goodrich experienced an interesting diversion. In mid August 1921, James and Cora were on vacation in New York State. They were staying at the upscale Hotel McAlpin in New York City when Goodrich received a letter from Will Hays. Hays was now United States postmaster general in President Warren G. Harding’s administration. Hays asked whether Goodrich would be interested in undertaking a special assignment to the Soviet Union. The purpose would be to investigate the terrible famine that plagued Russia’s central region.1 Goodrich was immediately excited about the prospect, especially since the invitation originated from Herbert Hoover, then secretary of the United States Department of Commerce and chairman of the American Relief Administration (ARA).

While awaiting further word about the possible mission, the Goodriches continued their vacation, arriving in Albany, New York, on August 24. There, Goodrich found waiting for him a telegram from Hoover that read simply: “Would be glad if you could conveniently come to Washington to discuss Russian situation.”2 Goodrich immediately abandoned his vacation and left for Washington, D.C. It would be the start of what the former governor later recalled as the most remarkable adventure of his life.3 As Goodrich records in his manuscript about his various trips to the Soviet Union:

Arriving in Washington, D.C., on August 25, Goodrich met with Hoover and army colonel William N. Haskell. Haskell, a native of New Jersey, served as director of the Russian unit of the ARA. He had previously acted as a technical adviser to the Polish government in Warsaw and had supervised ARA operations in Romania and Armenia. He was considered an expert in food relief. Before the meeting, Goodrich knew little about the famine except that millions of Russians were near death from starvation. By the end of his meeting with Hoover and Haskell, however, it was decided that the former governor would leave as soon as possible “with an open mind to investigate the entire famine situation, learn the truth about Russia and return as soon as the preliminary investigation was completed.”5

Goodrich knew of Hoover by reputation, but he had never met the commerce secretary before the meeting of August 25. Goodrich’s name had been brought to the future president’s attention by Hays during a cabinet meeting. Hoover’s written response to Hays’s recommendation was positive: “I believe it would be of substantial benefit for this country to have a man of such experience as Governor Goodrich to obtain a real knowledge of what the real difficulties of this foolish economic system are.”6 From the tenor of the letter, it is obvious that Hoover was not familiar with Goodrich at the time Hays made the suggestion. This might seem odd, given Goodrich’s long-term national Republican Party ties. Considering Hoover’s background, however, it is understandable. Hoover was a political party neophyte. He had not even announced himself as a Republican until February 1920.7 Therefore, Goodrich’s upcoming trips to the Soviet Union not only gave the former governor an opportunity to participate in an extraordinary undertaking, but also resulted in the establishment of a close friendship between Hoover and Goodrich.

The facts confronting Hoover, Goodrich, Haskell, and the ARA relief effort were as follows: In the summer of 1921, millions of peasants in central Russia were suffering from what would become the worst famine in modern Russian history. Immediate foreign relief was critical if the famine situation was to be stemmed before the country entered into the long winter of 1921–22. An internal Soviet evaluation team estimated that the Russian government would be able to provide no more than 20 percent of the food that would be needed in the worst-off provinces—Samara and Saratov—in central Russia.8 Goodrich’s mission was to examine the accuracy of the internal Soviet evaluation team. He was then to report back to Hoover, Congress, and, ultimately, the American people in hopes of obtaining relief.

To some degree, Hoover was a self-appointed overseer of the project, but he clearly had the qualifications for the momentous task. He had headed the ARA, a private relief agency based in New York City, since 1918. Hoover had previously directed food-relief efforts for victims of the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1900 and for victims in Belgium (1915–19) through the United States Committee for Relief in Belgium. From 1917 to 1919, Hoover had served as the United States food administrator. In 1921, Hoover held the position of United States secretary of commerce.9

In retrospect, Hoover’s selection of James Goodrich to lead the ARA fact-finding mission was unorthodox but excellent. Although Goodrich had very little foreign policy knowledge and no firsthand experience of the Soviet Union, he did have a working understanding of some of the causes of the economic and political upheavals going on in the country: the roles of banking, railroads, commodities, infrastructure, utilities, and government, generally. It was, however, perhaps Goodrich’s earliest experiences as a farmer and his knowledge of human nature that were most useful to him in analyzing the immediate crisis. As Benjamin Rhodes observes in his book on Goodrich’s ARA trips: “At the age of fifty-seven, having achieved financial security and having attained all he desired in politics, Goodrich was at peace with himself and politically obligated to no one, Hoover included. He took literally Hoover’s request that he approach the subject with an open mind. And as a result of his observations he was soon to begin a campaign to enlighten the American mind, but not quite in the direction anticipated by Hoover.”10

After his meeting in Washington, D.C., with Hoover and Haskell, Goodrich returned to Winchester and got his affairs in order as quickly as possible so that he could begin his arduous journey. On September 15, 1921, Goodrich left New York City on the ship Kroonland to make the first of four trips to the Soviet Union. The transatlantic crossing took two weeks, and Goodrich made valuable use of his time. Armed with voluminous records from the British Parliamentary Commission, which had monitored the famine for several months, Goodrich studied about Russia as much as he could: its government, the revolution of 1917, the counterrevolution, and the causes of the famine.11 Goodrich well understood ahead of time, however, that his mission was to be strictly humanitarian in nature. When Hoover had negotiated with the Russian authorities to allow the ARA to enter the Soviet Union, Bolshevik leaders demanded that no ARA officials could become involved in political matters. The Bolsheviks feared that anticommunist propaganda, which was known to be widespread in the United States, would be attempted in Russia itself.

Goodrich arrived in England on September 30. He first visited Plymouth and then traveled to London to meet with ARA officials and to tour the British capital’s historic buildings, including Westminster Abbey. Cora remained with her husband until she left for Paris to allow James to begin his work. On October 3, he left for Moscow, traveling across the English Channel and then by train through France, Germany, and Lithuania to the Russian frontier. Along the way, Goodrich read that one British source estimated that as many as thirty-five million Russians were starving.12 He believed that to be an exaggerated figure, yet conditions in the Volga region, three hundred miles southwest of Moscow, were even worse than the reports he had received had indicated. In the heart of the Volga region, where drought had destroyed the crops, Goodrich observed that no dogs could be found. He was told on the train to Moscow that in the village of Saratov all the dogs had been butchered for sausage. When colts were foaled, the peasants killed and ate them immediately; the same was true of newborn calves and piglets.13 Peasants in the Samara region were eating grass, leaves, bark, and clay in an attempt to stave off starvation.14

On the way to Moscow, Goodrich and his small party, which included an interpreter and a courier, came across a small group of émigrés who described some of the horrific scenes Goodrich was yet to encounter. Because the Bolshevik government was reluctant to admit how bad things really were, physicians had been forced to certify peasant deaths as caused not by starvation, but by an epidemic of typhus and cholera. One of the refugee women told Goodrich how desperate the times had become: “Last year and the year before they [government workers] took our grain. They did not even leave our men enough to sow. If we tried to keep what we needed for our children or our next crop they threatened to kill our men if we did not give up all. So our people were discouraged and each year they planted less. This year when the sun burnt up everything, starvation and death came and we had to leave or die.”15

Western Soviet Union in Early 1920s (map by Heidi Perov Perry)

Goodrich was so moved by the refugees’ story that he gave them five American dollars and some chocolate bars for the children. The mother of the children said that the youngest two had never tasted candy. When Goodrich finally arrived in Moscow on the evening of October 5, no one was there to greet him at the train station, because the telegram announcing his arrival had never been received.16 When he finally arrived at the ARA headquarters on his own, he found a palace, “a veritable museum of art,” that was one of only three buildings in the entire city that were heated by steam. The room he was assigned had paintings that he estimated were worth no less than half a million dollars, including portraits and landscapes from some of the great masters: Rubens, Van Dyke, Raphael, Mignard, Bonheur, and other notables. Leon Trotsky’s wife had intervened to see that the palace was not destroyed during the Revolution, although the government had taken it from the original owner. The former owner was allowed to remain as the caretaker of the art collection.17

Goodrich spent two days in Moscow preparing for the demanding trip to the Volga region. During this time, he received a cholera vaccination, attended an opera, and visited an unofficial market. The sale of furs was not permitted, yet both men and women who had obviously seen better times paraded in the makeshift market area with their expensive fur coats, waiting to be propositioned for a quick sale. Measured in American money, Goodrich recalled that the items seemed ridiculously cheap.18 As he wrote in his diary, on that day he also exchanged “90 good American Dollars for 8,920,000 worthless Russian Rubles.”19 He also paid a taxi driver 5,000 rubles to give him a tour of Moscow. “To me it was only six cents but to him it seemed to mean almost a fortune,” he recorded.20

On Saturday, October 8, Goodrich was packing in anticipation of the train’s leaving at 6:00 p.m. At noon, however, he was advised that the government had decided that the train should leave at 1:30 p.m. Racing to the station, he boarded the train along with his traveling companion, Dr. Frank Golder, chairman of the history department of Stanford University. Golder proved to be an invaluable resource and friend to Goodrich. He was a native of Odessa, Russia, who held a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Golder’s fluency in Russian and practical traveling skills were put to good use by Goodrich. The Stanford professor was on leave from the university, serving as a special investigator for the ARA. Goodrich’s own title was lead special investigator.

The train’s early departure caused Goodrich’s interpreter, his courier, and all his belongings to be left behind. “As the train pulled out of Moscow I did not find the prospect a pleasing one,” Goodrich recalled. “Here I was going into a famine and disease stricken country, without an interpreter, dependent on what food I could forage along the way.”21

Goodrich and Golder managed to fend for themselves. They bought food and supplies from peasants at the various train stops. Even though it was only early October, the weather was already like that in December in the northern United States: Snow covered the ground, and the ditches were filled with ice.

Goodrich had managed to take along a sleeping bag and two army blankets. Both he and Golder did not rise from sleep until late on Sunday, October 9. On the trip, Goodrich was able to make several observations about the lifestyle of the peasants: The cattle and land were held by the villagers communally, and schools were considered taboo, except for private institutions where the rich, under the old regime, provided their children with an education. Moreover, Goodrich was intrigued at the physical prominence of Greek Orthodox churches. Their golden domes and steeples appeared everywhere, it seemed.

He and Golder struck up a conversation with some young Communist sympathizers who criticized capitalism and the church. Goodrich countered that the Soviet government had itself adopted some capitalistic practices, such as authorizing rents and wages and allowing the opening of retail stores for profit. The “Reds,” as Goodrich called them, admitted that certain capitalistic concessions had been made. But capitalistic governments themselves, they declared, often made concessions to socialism, too.

After the heated discussion, Goodrich and Golder bundled up in their blankets and sang all the patriotic songs they could recall: “America,” “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and “Glory, Glory, Hallelujah.” Goodrich wrote in his diary how he thought of the notable contrast between “our blessed country” and the Russia of Lenin. Before going to sleep, Goodrich “prayed God to give us men and women with a vision big enough to measure up to the task of saving our country from the awful blight that has fallen on Russia.”23

Eyewitness to Suffering

The following day, October 10, Goodrich and Golder woke to find that they had entered a “land of snow.” They had also arrived in the famine district. Goodrich wrote, “the squalor and the suffering are indescribable.”24 It was important for him and Golder to keep away from the throngs of refugees who crowded the platforms of the train stations, for they “would have given the sufferers all our rubles and [we would have had] nothing left to continue our way.”25

Goodrich and Golder arrived at Samara on the evening of October 10. They saw on the outskirts of the city thousands of new graves of refugees who had died on their way out of the region and been buried along the dirt road in improvised potters’ fields. Samara was a city of about 175,000 inhabitants and the grain capital of the Volga region. The flourishing grain business had been ruined, however, by the government’s confiscation of the grain mills. One such grain mill in Samara had produced fifteen thousand pounds of grain per day under private ownership; whereas under government control the same mill produced only two thousand pounds a day.26

Wages for common laborers and railroad workers alike were shockingly low, being only between three thousand and five thousand rubles (approximately three to five cents in American money) a month. As Goodrich noted, because no one could live on so small a wage, workers were engaged on the side in the black market.27 Goodrich found traveling conditions primitive. Before the Revolution of 1917, Russia had thirty-nine thousand railroad engines. In 1921, there were only nine thousand engines; the rest had been stripped for parts and stood rusting and idle in the repair shops. The locomotives burned wood. Second- and third-class coaches were simply boxcars without heat. They had holes cut out of their sides to allow in light. Second-class coaches were equipped with a few crude wooden benches; passengers in third-class cars had to stand.

In 1921 and 1922, the drought-afflicted areas included all of the Volga region and much of the Ukraine, an area of more than a thousand miles across the eastern and central parts of the Soviet Union and more than three hundred miles north and south. The average peasant of that time, during the best of conditions, was barely able to scratch out a living for himself and his family. For instance, in Samara Gubenia, one of the most fertile of the Russian provinces where Goodrich traveled, more than 60 percent of the population did not produce enough to support themselves even during years of average rainfall.

Drought, however, was not the only cause of the famine. Political, social, and economic upheavals in the aftermath of the revolution laid the foundation for the terrible human suffering. Both Communists and those seeking an overturn of the Communist regime, mainly foreign sympathizers from Britain and France, engaged in acts of terrorism.

Approximately one hundred thousand on both sides were executed or killed in battle. As many as two million Russians, mainly of the middle and upper educated classes, emigrated to escape communistic rule. The civil strife took place on some of the most productive land in the Volga and Ukraine regions, not only destroying crops but also preventing the planting of new ones. The Russian peasants were accustomed to droughts and had traditionally stored excess grain from productive years in anticipation of lean ones. The government, however, had established “grain patrols” to scour the countryside and confiscate any grain surpluses for distribution among the starving city workers.

These grain patrols acted in the belief that the peasants were hoarding grain to undermine the collective farm policies of the Communist government. The search-and-seizure methods were so thorough that even much of the seed grain was taken, thus depriving the peasants of the ability to plant new crops. As Goodrich wrote in summarizing what he had learned: “The civil war of 1919 swept the Volga valley clean of its surplus grain supply. To quote a Volga peasant, ‘The Reds took all they could get and then the Whites [soldiers supporting the former Czarist regime] came along and took what was left.’”28

When Goodrich and Golder arrived in Samara, the cold weather had killed off the cholera bacteria. Typhus raged, however, and no vaccine had yet been discovered. The plague is transmitted from person to person by body lice, which seemed common to everyone in Russia according to Goodrich. The thousands of new graves in Samara were separated into two groups: those who had died from starvation, and those who had died from cholera and typhus. When the deaths came too quickly and individual graves could not be dug, Goodrich noted that as many as a half-dozen bodies were placed in a single grave or bodies were simply put in piles and burned.29

Not surprisingly, Goodrich observed that despair and a strong sense of fatalism were the predominant attitudes of the people. This was true even among the Soviet officials. One official reiterated to Goodrich the brutality that he had personally experienced. His father had tried to conceal from the government some food for his starving family, and the soldiers had bludgeoned him to death for the “crime.”30

Goodrich found that a small relief effort was already under way. Approximately seventy-five ARA workers were in the Volga region, along with a handful of members from the Society of Friends. Malnourished children were given food tickets that entitled them to two ounces of bread each day, nine ounces of milk each week, five ounces of beans on one day per week, and two ounces of rice four times a week. At one railroad station, Goodrich poked a bundle of rags with his cane, only to find that the rags moved. Three children were underneath, using the rags as protection from the cold while their parents searched for food.31 Abandoned children were everywhere on the streets and in lots where refugees were huddled together. Goodrich counted seventy-six abandoned children in one relief kitchen. In most instances, their parents had died; in other instances, the parents had decided that

On Thursday, October 13, Goodrich left Samara with Professor Golder and Professor Lincoln Hutchinson, the latter the head of the economics department at the University of California at Berkeley. The three men traveled next to the province of Penza, where Golder and Hutchinson were to make a complete statistical survey of the whole of eastern and southwestern Russia. There was a need for a survey, according to Goodrich, because the “Russians are proverbially careless in everything, and this includes gathering facts,” and the Russian peasant, “with true oriental cunning,” had concealed significant reserves from governmental confiscation.33

At Penza, the capital of the province, Goodrich found another desperate situation. Medical supplies were essentially nonexistent. The administrator of an eight-hundred-bed hospital confided to Goodrich that because he had no drugs available to treat cholera and typhus, the mortality rate from the two diseases was twice as great as it should have been. The hospital had only two thermometers, and many doctors had succumbed to the hardships. The administrator’s best assistant, thoroughly discouraged by the situation, had committed suicide just the day before.34

On Friday, October 14, Goodrich’s team traveled to Rtischtschere, “the city with the unpronounceable name.” The conditions there, if anything, were even worse than at Penza. The local peasants were barefooted or had made sandals out of birch bark. Their clothing was a patchwork of materials or simply grain sacks.

From Rtischtschere, Goodrich, Golder, and Hutchinson traveled to Saratov on Saturday, October 15, in the heart of the Volga region. Conditions there were much better than they had been in the Russian cities they had visited previously. Goodrich attributed this change in appearance to the fact that Saratov had a university of approximately five thousand students. Also, “its business life is dominated largely by the Volga Germans and their descendants, who seem to have retained some of that efficiency and desire for orderliness for which the Germans are noted.”35 Still, food was difficult to come by because of expense: A month’s supply of staple items such as bread, meat, cheese, potatoes, eggs, and beans was selling for less than one American dollar, but few peasants had that much money. As mentioned, common laborers were paid but pennies a month. A highly distinguished professor who met briefly with Goodrich reported that his salary was one hundred thousand rubles a month (about one American dollar) and that he had not been paid in more than four months.36

At Saratov, Goodrich witnessed Bolshevik justice firsthand. When Russian workers refused to unload cargo from an ARA ship without receiving some of the food, the local Cheka officer gave the workers a simple ultimatum: Be back to work in thirty minutes or face summary execution. Just days before, a band of robbers had been caught, and all nine were shot and buried along a roadside. Goodrich recounted: “Everybody that I talked to seemed to approve of this summary justice, even the peasants. The Central Government, I was told, justified the arbitrary power conferred on the Cheka on the theory that in no other way could countless counter-revolutions and raids have been prevented during the early days of the Soviet regime. They held that it was a case of ‘the end justified the means.’”37

Goodrich experienced another element unique to Russian society: the peasant communal system. Goodrich stayed in many peasants’ homes and became familiar with their customs. In his diary, he recounts much of what he learned about the communal way of living and describes how antithetical it was to Bolshevik Communism itself. The communal peasant, a staunch individualist, derived his political existence not from the central government, but from the Mir, the local governing body. Under that system, the commune owned the land. Yet the peasant could market and thereby benefit from his surplus crops beyond what was due the central government and commune. Each commune was a unit composed of a few hundred to a few thousand peasants. At the time Goodrich first toured the Soviet Union in 1921, some eighty million peasants belonged to communes of various sizes and complexities. Goodrich noted that the intellectuals could predict all that they wanted to about how the old form of the commune and the family were passing away, “but the Russian Peasant will go his way marrying and giving in marriage and rearing his family pretty much as the American farmer rears his family.”38

On October 20, Goodrich and his small entourage traveled to Markstadt, a small town of approximately four thousand northwest of Saratov. As Goodrich relates, death had been busy there. More than five thousand people in the immediate region had died since the first of the year, and the death toll continued each day: thirty-five on Monday, October 17; twenty on Tuesday; twenty-two on Wednesday. The story of abandoned children was much the same as it had been in the other towns and villages he had visited:

The Volga region, which was the heart of the famine and of Goodrich’s travels, had a population of approximately eighteen million. The average family had nine children. Put in comparable terms, about 15,000 to 20,000 persons lived in an area that was the size of a large Indiana township. In Saratov, there were 105 persons per square mile; in Kazan, 118; in Simbursk, 111; and in Samara, 69. Because the densely populated area was totally dependent upon agriculture, there being virtually no industry, it is easy to understand why a crop failure of two years’ duration would bring about such devastation.

Goodrich, Golder, and Hutchinson continued to travel from commune to commune with much the same findings. At Kutter-Russian, a commune of slightly more than 3,000 “souls” (Goodrich noted that the local authorities always referred to the inhabitants as “souls”), there were 622 children under the age of fifteen as of January 1921. By October, 400 of the children had died of cholera, typhus, or starvation.40 At Dehaus, the commune had only a thousand bushels of grain to feed the more than 6,000 peasants through the winter. This, of course, was impossible to do, and the commune leaders knew that death was a certainty for many.41

In Norga, a commune of 8,561, Goodrich found the majority of peasants to be satisfactorily nourished. It puzzled him, then, when the local officials predicted that half of the population would be wiped out by the end of the winter if foreign relief was not forthcoming. “Why is it,” Goodrich asked the farmers at Norga, “that when so many of you have plenty of bread and meat for the present you permit others at your doors to starve to death?”42

Goodrich subsequently visited several other communes before returning to Moscow by train on Monday, October 24. On the return trip to Russia’s capital city, his assigned interpreter again missed the train, which says much about Soviet promptness. The following night, Goodrich left for Kazan, the capital of the Tatar Republic. For the first time since he arrived in the Soviet Union, he dared to sleep in pajamas. He had been assured by the train authorities that his compartment had been properly deloused; therefore, he deemed that it was worth taking a chance to slip out of his clothes for the night.44

The following day, Goodrich rode the train westward, seeing the same dreary, monotonous landscape for hours. To pass the time, he talked with Sir Phillip Gibbs, a well-known British newspaper reporter, and typed about ten thousand words of his diary on his portable typewriter. That evening, Goodrich and Gibbs were dragged into a session of the great American indoor sport—poker. Goodrich won 180,000 rubles from his more experienced card-playing colleagues before retiring to the luxury of sleeping in his pajamas.

On his way to Kazan, Goodrich noted the tremendous natural resources that the new Soviet Union was blessed with. “Unless I am much mistaken,” Goodrich wrote, “there will develop in this Russian timberland within the next fifty years a great people and a great country.”45

The various religions practiced by the Tatars impressed Goodrich. Although more than 60 percent of the people in Kazan were Muslim, intermixed with the mosques were synagogues and Orthodox Greek, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran churches. At the time Goodrich visited Kazan, it served as the capital city for the newly formed Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. By October 1921, more than three hundred thousand Tatars had emigrated to other parts of the Soviet Union or abroad in an attempt to escape the famine.46

The desperation of the times is illustrated by an incident that occurred just a week before Goodrich arrived in Kazan. A peasant man with three small children tried to board the last boat bound for the Caspian Sea, where there was a chance for survival. He was denied admission to the boat, however, because a rule existed that an adult could go with only two children. Without hesitation, the man threw the youngest child into the Volga River and got on the boat with the other two children. When briefly stopped by the Cheka officer, the man exclaimed: “They would not permit all of us to go. If I remained here with them we would all die. Is it not better that one should die in order that three may live?” After hearing that explanation, the Cheka officer permitted the man to leave.47

As Goodrich noted, there were five hundred thousand Tatar children between the ages of five and fifteen and another four hundred thousand under the age of four who were receiving no help whatsoever. This knowledge brought Goodrich much sadness:

On November 1, Goodrich wrote a fourteen-page typewritten report to Hoover detailing the seriousness of the famine. The following day, he wrote a similarly lengthy report to Charles Hughes.49

That same day, Goodrich met with the president and the prime minister of the Tatar Republic before returning to Moscow on Sunday, November 3. The following night, he watched a performance of The Doll Maker at the famous Bolshoi Ballet. The following day, he traveled to Petrograd (now St. Petersburg), four hundred miles northwest of Moscow, to visit homes where abandoned children were being taken care of. He happened to be there on Monday, November 7, the fourth anniversary of the Russian Revolution, which had started in St. Petersburg. The population of the city had dwindled from 2,400,000 to only 600,000 since the revolution. Conditions were only slightly better than what he had found in the Volga communes.51

On November 10, Goodrich returned to Moscow in a snowstorm; the temperature was fifteen degrees below zero. He again visited the orphanages where the ARA had already established assistance programs and met with several top banking officials and the secretary of agriculture. Goodrich expressed concern that Soviet authorities could easily confiscate wealth, just as they had done before. In response, the Russian officials all tried to convince the former governor that the Soviet Union was deserving of foreign capital. “‘The changes now going on in our government are fundamental. Mr. Lenin has had a real change of heart,’ they [Soviet banking officials] answered. ‘It is not a mere strategic move on the part of the communists. It is not temporary. The retreat toward capitalism has actually set in. It will continue until capitalism is established and full assurance given to everyone that the right of contract and private property in Russia will be respected.’”52

Goodrich himself had seen measures taken by the Bolsheviks that lent some credibility to these opinions. Yet he was far from convinced that the Soviet Union was worth investing in at that point.

After his meetings, Goodrich returned to the ARA headquarters in Moscow and summarized these conversations and his famine investigations in a report to Hoover.

On receiving Goodrich’s account, Hoover cabled Goodrich, requesting him to return to the United States to report personally on his investigations. On his return, Goodrich retraced his steps from Moscow, passing through Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Belgium, and finally England. He boarded the steamship George Washington on November 20 to return to the United States. Goodrich arrived in New York City on December 3 and went immediately to Washington, D.C., to meet with Hoover.54

The initial groundwork of the investigation was now completed, but what lay ahead was an even more daunting task for Hoover and Goodrich: to convince a skeptical, Red-fearing United States Congress that the starving Russian peasants were deserving of immediate American aid.

Chapter 13

Emissary to Russia

In his last report to Herbert Hoover before he left the Soviet Union in November 1921, James Goodrich outlined the terrible suffering he had seen. He also wrote at length about the political turn of events he had discovered. Goodrich stressed to Hoover that the Russian peasant still had a friendliness toward the American people that had changed little from before the Russian civil war. He also offered an opinion that Lenin’s Bolshevik government was evolving into a regime that was less antagonistic to capitalism than had been previously thought. Moreover, Goodrich noted that he had talked to men of political affairs in the country and “found not one particle of sentiment for the old order (under the Czars) and the Russian people will have none of it.” He continued, “If Lenin can hold the majority of his party with him, and especially Trotsky and the army, this government will stand.”1

After learning about Goodrich’s account, President Warren G. Harding was convinced that direct aid from the United States government was the only way that relief could reach Russia in time to prevent the famine from becoming horrific in scope. Hoover encouraged this thinking. The ARA director was against the alternative, an appeal to the American public, for several reasons: First, it would take a relatively long time to mount because of the difficult logistics of such a campaign and because public sentiment was generally not in favor of helping the Bolsheviks; second, there would be private fund-raising groups that the ARA simply could not control; and third, a direct appeal to Congress had the best chance of maximizing a large return.

On December 6, President Harding made his first state of the union address to Congress. In that address, the president requested that Congress appropriate for Russian famine relief $10 million. This would be enough to purchase ten million bushels of corn and one million bushels of seed corn.2 On December 10, United States congressman Joseph W. Fordney of Michigan introduced legislation in the House of Representatives that would appropriate the $10 million that Harding was seeking. Meanwhile, the urgency of the situation was growing. On December 8, Colonel Haskell, director of ARA Russian operations, sent Hoover a sober forecast of what would occur if aid did not come immediately: “Somewhere between five million and seven million people in this area must die unless relieved from outside Russia. . . . As a Christian nation we must make greater effort to prevent this tragedy. Can you not ask those who have already assisted this organization to carry over eight million children through famine in other parts of Europe to again respond to the utmost of their ability?”3

By December 5, Goodrich had already returned to Indiana. Just five days later, he received Hoover’s telegram, summoning him back to Washington to appear before Congress. Instead of having hearings held before the Ways and Means Committee, Hoover had managed to have testimony heard before a more influential body, the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The hearings lasted two days, December 13 and 14. The first day was devoted entirely to the issue of famine relief. The second day’s testimony, about recent Soviet political developments, was offered in a closed executive session by Goodrich, Hoover, and others.

At the December 13 hearing, Goodrich was the first to testify. His testimony was the longest and most complete of any of the witnesses. Others who testified included Hoover; Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL); Dr. Vernon Kellogg, secretary of the National Research Council; Carl Vroonman, former assistant secretary of the Department of Agriculture; and Ralph Snyder, executive board member of the American Farm Bureau Federation.4

In his opening statement, Goodrich first explained the conditions that led up to the great Soviet famine: the seven years of foreign and civil war that had disrupted normal agricultural cycles in the Volga region; the subsequent reduction in the amount of crops that had been planted; and the terrible drought of the preceding summer and the partial drought of 1920. Goodrich next recounted his nearly two-month tour of sixteen different communes in the famine regions.5

On reading Goodrich’s report and the exchange that took place between him and members of the committee, one is immediately struck by Goodrich’s decisiveness. When the former governor was asked during the hearing whether the proposed $10 million in relief was adequate, he answered unequivocally that it would take twice that—$20 million but no more—to successfully address the famine. He also attempted to allay any fear by the committee that American relief would not go directly to the starving peasants, but would be confiscated by authorities or pocketed by Communist bureaucrats. “I heard of one man caught stealing American food who was . . . shot by order of the Soviet authorities,” Goodrich said. Goodrich interspersed his very thorough statistical summary with sympathetic anecdotes: finding the two orphan girls in Markstadt half-naked and sobbing; meeting the distraught hospital administrator at Kazan; hearing the disturbing news from the farmers at Norga, who predicted that one-half of the commune’s population would be dead by the end of winter if foreign relief was not forthcoming.6

Hoover’s testimony primarily dealt with the anticipated criticisms of providing relief to a nonrecognized government that America feared. He emphasized the humanitarian nature of the undertaking. He also informed the committee that relief had been offered only after negotiations had resulted in the release of all American prisoners of war in Russia. The future president further made the observation that United States famine relief would not have the unintended result of propping up the Communist regime. This was so, Hoover argued, because the aid would be going to a region of Russia primarily outside the scope of socialist (communist) influence:

By these last remarks, it is obvious Hoover was trying to sensitize the committee into believing that the Volgarian peasants were really just destitute “blood cousins” who deserved American generosity. Hoover went on to explain that it would be impossible to provide sufficient relief funds privately, since the ARA had been able to raise from a skeptical American public only approximately $500,000 in contributions since August. Finally, Hoover appealed to the economics of the relief. He attempted to persuade the committee that famine aid through the direct provision of agricultural products would relieve a glutted American commodities market: “We are today feeding milk to our hogs; burning corn under our boilers. From an economic point of view there is no loss to America in exporting those foodstuffs for relief purposes. If it is undertaken by the Government it means, it is true, that we transfer the burden of the loss from the farmers to the taxpayer, but there is no economic loss to us as a Nation, and the farmer also bears part of the burden.”8

During the second day of testimony, held in closed session, Goodrich noted the concessions to capitalism that the Communist regime had sanctioned: farmers were now able to keep and sell for personal profit surplus crops; retail shops and banks were beginning to reappear; serious discussions regarding the role of private property and contracts were under way. All of this was very important to members of the committee because of the desire, on the part of many in Congress, to investigate whether recognition of Russia and the establishment of diplomatic relations could or should be pursued.

After the day’s hearing, United States senator Joseph I. France of Maryland announced to the press that Goodrich’s testimony would go far toward bringing about a marked alteration in American policy toward the Soviet Union. Senator France had initiated legislation that would create a seven-person commission to investigate the resumption of trade relations between the two countries as well as the issue of diplomatic recognition by the United States of the Soviet republic.9

A spirited debate about the proposed famine relief occurred on the House floor, during which time Goodrich’s testimony was often used as the reference point. Despite this rhetorical tussle, the House of Representatives passed the relief legislation by a vote of 181 to 71. In the Senate, however, approval was less trouble-free. Senator Tom Watson of Georgia made a number of arguments against the bill, including the fact that the Soviet Union still owed the United States nearly $200 million, as well as the spurious argument that “the Russians do not even know how to mill corn; they don’t like it, won’t eat it.”10

Despite these objections, the Senate passed the legislation in a very short time. By December 22 President Harding signed the relief measure into legislation. From the time of the relief bill’s introduction to its passage, exactly twelve days had passed. Considering the normally slow, grinding process of legislation, the quick passage was a miracle. Clearly Goodrich’s and Hoover’s testimonies had confirmed the seriousness of the famine and the urgency to act. By Christmas, news had reached the Russian peasants that America had come to their rescue.11

Goodrich’s knowledge of the situation was truly convincing. One Soviet expert claimed that Goodrich possessed “more intelligence of real human sympathy or understanding about Russia” than almost anyone he had ever met.12 The crucial role that Goodrich’s testimony played before Congress is perhaps best summarized in a letter that Edgar Rickard, director-general of the ARA, wrote to Walter L. Brown, ARA’s European director, shortly after enactment of the famine legislation:

When James Goodrich appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in December 1921, he held no official position with the ARA. His earlier investigation in the Soviet Union had been simply as a private citizen, and only his travel expenses had been covered by the relief organization. On Christmas Eve, however, President Harding signed an executive order that appointed Hoover and Goodrich to the five-member Purchasing Commission for Russian Relief as chairman and vice-chairman, respectively.14 Just days before, Hoover had appointed Goodrich to the ARA Executive Committee. From January 4 to March 22, 1922, the Purchasing Committee met at least once a week to review bids by various agribusinesses. The committee reviewed hundreds of bids. When Hoover was unavailable to attend, Goodrich chaired the meetings until his second departure for the Soviet Union in mid February.15

By the end of January 1922, only one month after Congress had passed the legislation, $12 million had been spent for the following purchases: 6,945,000 bushels of corn, 1,370,652 bushels of seed wheat, 9,800 tons of corn grits, and 340,000 cases of condensed milk. By the end of January, three million bushels of grain had already been sent to the Soviet Union by thirteen steamships. Additional ships were in port loading in New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New Orleans. By May 22, 1922, fifty-eight steamships had transported cargo to meet the needs of the starving Russians.16 It was perhaps the largest relief effort ever undertaken by the United States government.

Ironically, no sooner had Goodrich received his appointment to the ARA Executive Committee than it was decided that he should return to Russia, but, strangely enough, not under the official auspices of the ARA. Rather, President Harding had decided that Goodrich should serve as an unofficial emissary. Since Goodrich could not become involved in political matters and still be officially associated with the ARA, he wore a different hat when he returned to Russia in February 1922. An article by the Associated Press briefly described the former governor’s new position:

The United States and Russia had had no formal diplomatic relations since the Bolshevik revolution in October 1917. Thus, the Harding administration believed that Goodrich’s second trip could serve as an excellent opportunity for an unofficial representative to share America’s concerns over Soviet domestic and foreign policies. Also, since Goodrich had the ear of President Harding, Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes, and Hoover, Communist leaders could be assured that their views, conveyed to Goodrich, would be relayed in confidence to the highest United States political authorities.

On February 12, 1922, Goodrich left on his second tour. It was during this trip that he met with the Soviet president, Vladimir Lenin. Goodrich arrived in Moscow on March 9. In his manuscript about his trips to Russia, Goodrich describes the Moscow of March 1922 as totally different from the one he had left the preceding November: The streets were filled with activity, the people had a sense of cheerfulness, more stores were open, and people could purchase more than the necessities of life.18

At Tsaritsin, Goodrich learned that American corn had recently arrived and that some twenty thousand peasants from the region had come on sledges in one day to carry it away. By mid March, 135 trains were carrying fifty thousand tons of American corn to the furthermost corners of the famine region. Men were working around the clock to unload the grain.19

Goodrich was forced to spend his first week in Moscow dealing with ARA personnel problems that were embarrassing to the relief organization: drunkenness by members of the local (Moscow) team, and an ARA officer in Petrograd who blatantly hired prostitutes.20 Moreover, Goodrich had hand-carried a letter from Hoover to Colonel Haskell that contained Hoover’s concern that most of the Russian ARA staff were Catholic. “I haven’t any prejudice in any religious matter as you know,” wrote Hoover to Haskell, “but if we are going to have peace in the United States we need to have a sprinkling of Protestants on the job somehow.”21

On March 18, Goodrich traveled to Samara to find further troubles: The Cheka had recently made two hundred arrests for illegal political activity. Five Russian ARA officials were on the list. In an unrelated matter, forty-nine members of an organization of bandits were on trial in Samara. They had killed about a dozen people in carrying out their thievery. Goodrich attended the last evening of the trial with the chief of the new Department of Justice of Samara, a Monsieur Zgakanoff. Nine of the bandits were sentenced to death, and the rest were sent off to serve sentences varying from three years to life imprisonment in Siberia.22

If the activities of the local ARA teams were not exactly encouraging, the success of food distribution was. Heavy snows and below freezing temperatures had allowed peasants from long distances, up to three days away, to travel by sledges to the distribution centers. They hauled away several hundred pounds of corn each. Still, death had been a common visitor in many of the communes. On March 19, Goodrich attempted to travel by train to Orenburg, only to have the train stopped: first, to avoid a gang of bandits, and, later, by a terrific snowstorm that blocked the tracks for several days. When it was learned how long it would take for the tracks to become cleared, Goodrich had his car attached to a freight train and attempted to return to Samara. The freight train became lodged in an “insurmountable snowdrift,” and Goodrich was stuck for another five days near the town of Bogotae. The misfortune did allow Goodrich to discuss with several local peasants the conditions that existed. What he learned was not pleasant:

The misery caused by the famine was not limited to within Russia’s borders. Rats and mice from the famine region were migrating by the hundreds of millions to Hungary, overrunning Budapest. In the Hungarian capital, market halls, food stores, and warehouses were swarming with the rodents. In some Hungarian villages, farmers gave up raising poultry and began breeding cats to try and stop the rat and mice plague.24

Meanwhile, Goodrich became livid because of the inefficiency of the Russian train system. He claimed that a good American worker could do the work of ten Soviet railroaders. Despite repeated delays on the return trip to Moscow, the common response of both railroad worker and passenger alike was “Nitchevo,” meaning “it doesn’t matter.”25 While Goodrich was delayed in returning to Moscow, he took the opportunity to write a lengthy letter to President Harding. The report dealt only briefly with the immense gratitude that the Russian people felt toward America for coming to their rescue. The remainder of Goodrich’s letter was concerned with Russia’s political conditions. Goodrich lobbied forcefully for recognition of the Bolshevik regime. In his opinion, whether the American public and officials liked it or not, the Bolsheviks were the only power in Russia capable of running the government.

The fervor with which Goodrich believed in United States recognition of the Bolshevik regime is easily seen in the concluding paragraphs of his letter to President Harding:

Goodrich arrived back in Moscow on Thursday morning, March 30. In the Russian capital, he was invited on April 1 to a formal dinner with the president of the Russian banking system and the director of forestry. He discovered later that the two men’s interest in dining with him was to learn Washington’s attitude toward Russian recognition. Without United States diplomatic recognition, Russian businesses could not deal directly with their American counterparts. The terribly anemic performance of the post–civil war Russian economy was at least partially a result of the policy of the Harding administration. The high-level Russian officials could not understand why America, on the one hand, was willing to provide tremendous famine relief, but, on the other, refused to recognize the Communist government. Goodrich writes of the conundrum:

Goodrich subsequently met with the Russian commissar of railroads and the commissar of foreign affairs (comparable to the United States secretary of state). The latter also confronted Goodrich about recognition. That same week, Goodrich attended a meeting of the Communist Party held in the Imperial Theatre in Moscow and heard an address by Leon Trotsky, who then served as secretary of the Soviet army. Although Trotsky’s speech was generally well received by an audience that was “intensely patriotic and nationalistic in spirit,” he was openly criticized by one Russian. Goodrich believed that the fact that the dissenter was able to openly criticize one of the highest-ranking Soviet leaders was significant because it indicated a growing sense of freedom of speech.29

Goodrich left Moscow on April 4, 1922. He arrived in New York on April 18, having traveled from England on the ocean liner Olympic. Goodrich’s return, replete with a message purported to be direct from Lenin, prompted the Detroit Free Press to predict that the reestablishment of United States–Russian relations was just around the corner.

Goodrich had, in fact, met with Lenin only once during his second trip.31 On his return, Goodrich denied publicly that he carried any message from the Soviet leader to Harding. It is unlikely, however, that his meetings with Lenin, the Soviet foreign minister George Chitcherin, and other Russian leaders were limited to discussing the success of the relief work, as Goodrich claimed.32

At a breakfast meeting with Hoover in Washington on the morning of April 20, Goodrich reported on the success of the relief effort. Goodrich and Hoover then proceeded to discuss Russian developments at a luncheon that same day with President Harding at the White House.33 At these meetings, Goodrich’s reports tended to take on a political tone. Privately, Goodrich continued to press the issue of recognition to Harding, Secretary of State Hughes, and Hoover. It would be a matter that would preoccupy and frustrate the former governor for the next decade. Publicly, he still limited his discussion to the famine and the tremendous success the ARA had had in overcoming great obstacles to provide humanitarian relief.

On May 16, 1922, Goodrich met again with Hughes and Hoover in Washington, D.C., before embarking on his third tour of Russia on May 18. He stopped in both London and Paris to meet with top-level officials about the political situation in Russia. In London, Goodrich met on the morning of May 28 with the controversial United States ambassador to Great Britain, George Harvey. Harvey told Goodrich that the Soviets would soon meet the conditions set down by the American government in order to obtain recognition.34

Goodrich arrived in Moscow on June 7. A week later, he was invited to view some property in the government’s possession. Believing the property to be simply some furs, Goodrich was not particularly excited about the invitation. When he arrived at the storehouse, however, his attitude changed. Three large sealed chests were brought out and their locks were broken. There in front of him were the Russian Crown jewels in all their brilliance. Goodrich wrote: “The old Czar’s crown, the crown of the Czarina, and the various members of the royal family were there, brilliant with diamonds, varying from one to two hundred carats, all of purest water, and of wonderful color. There were crowns of diamonds, and pearls of emeralds, rubies, and amethysts; collars, bracelets, and necklaces of the precious stones. The scene beggared description.”35

Goodrich was shown the collection, purportedly worth $500 million at the time, for two reasons: first, to dispel the rumors that the crown jewels had been broken up and sold; and second, to inquire whether the jewels could be used as the basis for a loan in America to purchase agricultural implements and supplies.36 The first goal was accomplished, since Goodrich’s account of the incident was carried in newspapers by the Associated Press across the United States and Europe. Without formal recognition by the United States government, however, loans to the Soviet Republic, with or without the crown jewels as collateral, were out of the question.

It was during Goodrich’s third trip that he held a conference with Monsieur Rakovsky, the president of the Ukraine, whom Goodrich called “the clearest headed man I had met in Russia.” Rakovsky praised the work of the ARA. He also expressed his hope that it would continue its efforts in the Soviet Republic long after the immediate crisis had ended. The Ukrainian leader also pressed Goodrich on the issue of Soviet recognition. He probed Goodrich regarding whether America would take concessions for private property that had been confiscated by the national government after the civil war. Goodrich’s answer was much the same as before: Without a change in Soviet policy allowing for the private ownership of property and permitting American businesses to operate in Russia with limited governmental intrusion, the United States would not recognize or invest in the Soviet Republic.37 To be safe, Goodrich always combined this response with the caveat that he was speaking only as a private citizen. It was clear, however, that he was espousing the Harding administration’s views. Privately, Goodrich was much more sympathetic to Russia’s plea for recognition than he ever let on to the Russian leaders.

After Goodrich’s meetings, he cabled a brief report to Secretary Hughes. The matter that Goodrich spent the most time discussing was Lenin’s health. If news reports were accurate, Lenin’s death was imminent. Who would succeed him, whether there would be an attempt by other factions to overthrow the Bolsheviks from power, and other related questions were of critical importance to the United States. Goodrich wrote to Hughes:

In the meantime, Goodrich resumed his investigations of famine conditions by traveling through the various provinces. In the Tatar village of Tahtalla, he met with the president of the commune and learned that conditions had improved only marginally since the autumn of 1921. “‘In last September we had 1177 souls in this commune,’ he said. ‘There are 522 people left. Nearly 300 starved and the rest emigrated or died of typhus. Only about 12 percent of our livestock is left. If it were not for America we would all be dead. We raised very little last year and are now getting 250 adult and 250 child rations for relief, so you see the Americans are practically feeding the whole commune.’”39

Lawlessness continued to be a problem as well. Bands of marauders who had previously fought with the anti-Communist White Army continued to raid the communes and steal from and kill the Communist leaders. The problem was that most of the peasants were sympathetic to and befriended these soldiers, hating the Communists also. As one commune leader told Goodrich, only about 5 percent of the peasants were Communists themselves.40

Despite these political problems, Goodrich noted on his return to Moscow from Samara that, as far as the eye could see, “the fields bore evidence of good husbandry.” The weather had been excellent, and all indications were that the countryside east of Moscow would bear a bumper crop of rye, wheat, and other grain. “It seemed [to me] that in a few short weeks the work of American relief in Russia would be over.”41

During Goodrich’s second week in Moscow, he received separate invitations to meet with Leon Trotsky, head of the Russian army; Lev B. Kamenev, chairman of the Soviet Relief Commission; Maxim Litvinoff, acting secretary of state in Chitcherin’s absence; and Leonid Krassin, commissar of foreign trade, to discuss political relations between the United States and Russia. President Harding and Secretary Hughes had suggested that Goodrich meet with the highest leaders of the Soviet Union in order that they might better understand America’s attitude toward Russia, but Goodrich was reluctant to show his eagerness to meet. Goodrich intentionally waited to receive these invitations, and then he turned down the separate invitations, agreeing to meet with the Soviet leaders only collectively. Kamenev arranged the meeting while Goodrich was away from Moscow surveying the success of famine relief in several of the outlying provinces.42

On Sunday, June 18, Goodrich returned to Moscow. On the following day, the meeting with the Soviet leaders was held at the Kremlin office of Kamenev. Present were Kamenev, Litvinoff, Krassin, and Grigori Sokolnikoff, commissar of finance. Also present was Aleksei Rykov, acting president of the Soviet Republic and president of the Soviet Council. Rykov held these positions because of Lenin’s stroke of May 26, which had left the Soviet premier paralyzed over a good part of his body. Trotsky missed the meeting. Dr. Golder served as Goodrich’s interpreter. The points that Goodrich raised were contained in a note that Secretary Hughes had sent on March 25 to Litvinoff, listing specific conditions that had to be met prior to recognition.43

What ensued for the next three hours was a discussion covering the broadest range of issues integral to American-Russian relations. Time and again, Goodrich raised issues that concerned the Harding administration with regard to Soviet political, economic, and legal affairs: the lack of procedural due process in Russia, the lack of separation between the executive and judicial departments, the restrictions on the ownership of private property, the setting aside of contracts, the power and manipulation of labor unions, the Russian debt owed to the United States, the compensation due American companies that had been nationalized or whose property had been otherwise expropriated, and the reluctance of the United States to lend money to the Soviet Republic. On each issue, one or more of the five Soviet leaders—Rykov, Kamenev, Krassin, Litvinoff, and Sokolnikoff—responded to rebut or diffuse Goodrich’s arguments.44

With regard to the issue of debts owed to the United States, the Russian political leaders stood in unison in refusing to recognize and pay the foreign debts that had been incurred during the deposed czar’s reign. Rykov added: “You know that Russia cannot pay. It seems foolish to ask Russia to issue her obligations to pay when she knows that without financial help she cannot pay.” To this, Goodrich rejoined with his typical American “can do” attitude: “‘The difficulty with you gentlemen is that you yourselves have no faith in Russia,’ I replied. ‘Russia can pay, once her industrial and economic system is restored. You ought to show your faith in Russia by frankly saying that you recognize your debts, that they are valid obligations; that you will give us your undertaking to pay these debts, and will fix a definite time when interest and principal will be paid.’”45

Goodrich subsequently drafted a summary of the meeting and forwarded it to Hughes and Hoover. In Goodrich’s letter to Hughes, the former governor painted a gloomy picture of the deteriorating conditions in Russia:

On the next day, June 20, Goodrich attended a trial of the Socialist revolutionaries, this time with Dr. Sokolnikoff, minister of finance. Thirty-four prisoners who had denounced and killed many Communists were being tried for their political beliefs and activities. Goodrich left the trial in the late afternoon to attend a Moscow parade celebrating the Third Internationale. The day marked the anniversary of the slaughter of thousands of Communists by the “Whites,” and the Communist Party was attempting to make the most of it. All factories and offices had been closed, and tens of thousands of workers—not very enthusiastically, Goodrich noted—marched in step and weakly cried out “Comrades all together!” Goodrich observed that many banners denounced the political prisoners whose trial he had just left. By the end of the three-hour parade, a curious thing happened. Large crowds of marchers gathered before the Great Hall of the Nobles, demanding to be admitted to the trial of the revolutionaries. Against the defense’s objection, the court admitted the workers and permitted them to read a petition condemning the prisoners for “inciting a revolution in Russia, holding them responsible for the death of millions of Russian workers and peasants, and demanding the infliction of the death penalty.”47

The following day, Goodrich returned to the Volga valley to continue his inspection of ARA famine relief operations. On his return to Moscow, he began inquiring into the state of American business interests in Russia. He met with the managers of the Westinghouse Corporation, International Harvester, and the chairmen of the Soviet State Bank and the Commission on Concessions. From these meetings, Goodrich learned that the Soviet government rejected private ownership of property but was willing to enter into long lease agreements with foreign corporations. The major problem that plagued businesses was not the lack of private ownership or the lack of access to natural resources; rather, the major impediment was the liberal labor laws that at the time excessively burdened foreign businesses. It was far cheaper for American and German companies to manufacture goods in their own countries and ship them to Russia than it was to produce goods in the Soviet Union. For instance, under Soviet law, women workers who became pregnant were entitled to a full salary for seven months while on maternity leave. The managers of International Harvester told Goodrich that benefits of this kind made up nearly 25 percent of the company’s entire payroll.48

Goodrich next spent an afternoon touring the Kremlin, whose name means “fortress” in Russian. In his manuscript, he describes in detail the various historical sights he visited: the sixty-foot-high wall surrounding the towers, minarets, and gilded domes that adorn the churches and monasteries within the Kremlin; the twenty-six-foot-high, 185-ton bell that Empress Anna had cast in 1733; and the huge, elaborately decorated palaces of the czars. The Kremlin tour made quite an impression on him.49

On June 30, 1922, Goodrich left Moscow, completing his third trip to the Soviet Union. On his return train trip from Berlin to Riga, he found that Leonid Krassin, the Russian secretary of foreign trade, was a fellow passenger. The two spoke for several hours, with Krassin trying to convince Goodrich that American financial assistance and resumption of trade were justified. Goodrich told Krassin that before the United States would consider resuming trade relations with Russia, it would first want to know whether Russia was capable of succeeding in its own internal affairs: Could it balance its budget? Could its railroads make money? Could the natural resource trusts be operated efficiently? and so on. Goodrich further reminded Krassin that the Russian government had promised to submit a comprehensive plan of reconstruction at the Genoa, Italy, international economic conference in March 1922, but had failed to do so. Goodrich wanted to know what the plan was. He writes of Krassin’s response: “M. Krassin then proceeded for half an hour to talk about a perfectly foolish, impractical scheme involving railroad building, electrification, restoration of agriculture, purchase of thousands of tractors—all to be done by the Bolshevik government. Had this statement come from some young, enthusiastic communist I would not have been surprised, but coming from Krassin I was astounded.”50

On July 21, Goodrich returned from the trip along with Cora on the ocean liner Mauritania. Marie Moorman, the daughter of Goodrich’s business partner, Jesse Moorman of Winchester, had accompanied the Goodriches. After his third trip, Goodrich had intervened to arrange for four young Europeans to immigrate to the United States to begin new lives: Josephine Friedrich and Marie Kohlman from Bavaria, Peter Stuer from Latvia, and Hans Fredrichson from Denmark. Friedrich, who spoke no English and only a little French when she first arrived in Boston in September 1923, lived with the Goodriches as a companion to Cora from October 1923 to 1928, when she married.51

Upon Goodrich’s return in July 1922, he participated in a conference for officers of the ARA in New York. At this conference, the leadership of the ARA decided to cease feeding adults in Russia. They concluded, however, that they would continue feeding about one million children for another year.52 Goodrich and Hoover traveled to the White House on September 6, at which time Goodrich updated President Harding on the famine and the political discussions he had held with the Soviet leaders. Goodrich started to press privately for at least an open consideration of Russian recognition by the Harding administration. A brief newspaper excerpt captures the essence of Goodrich’s thinking:

Clearly, Secretary Hughes had a different opinion, and his strong will would not submit to Goodrich’s powers of persuasion. Hughes was a former governor of New York, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, and the Republican candidate for president in 1916, when he narrowly lost to Woodrow Wilson. He would also become the eleventh chief justice of the Supreme Court in 1930. The secretary of state believed that he should be the one sitting in the White House. At the very least, he was convinced that directing America’s foreign policy was his job. Hughes was adamantly opposed to any consideration of recognition without the radical changes dictated in his March 25 letter to Litvinoff.

Unable to shake Hughes from his position, Goodrich returned, discouraged, to Indiana and his neglected business interests. By mid September, negotiations to reestablish relations between the two countries had come to a complete halt. The Harding administration had decided, following Goodrich’s recommendation in June, to appoint a commission to examine the economic conditions in Russia. The Soviets refused to allow an American investigation team to enter Russia, however, unless the United States reciprocated by allowing a Soviet team to visit and examine America’s economic conditions. The demand by Moscow infuriated Hughes. It essentially ended communications between the two countries for a considerable time. In early September, the Times of London reported that it had recently learned that more than 1.7 million Russians had been executed by the Cheka during the Soviet civil war, more than had been killed during all of World War I. The horrific news, reported in United States newspapers, solidified America’s impression that the Communists were a brutal lot and were not to be trusted.54

Privately, Goodrich remained very interested in the reestablishment of United States–Russian relations. Haskell kept Goodrich informed of ongoing ARA activities as well as of political matters by writing him periodically from Moscow. Goodrich also kept a close eye on political developments in the Soviet Union through newspaper accounts and correspondence with Hoover and other ARA officials.55 In late November 1922, Goodrich tried to resurrect the idea of an American commission’s visiting the Soviet Union with the understanding that a Russian commission would be permitted to come to the United States at an undesignated later date. He floated the idea past Haskell in Moscow, who in turn discussed it with Karl Radek (chief of the Russian Propaganda Bureau), but apparently nothing came of the proposal.56

Back in Indiana, Goodrich attempted to stay involved in the Russian recognition issue. He had given up on converting Secretary Hughes to his way of thinking; instead, he focused on gaining the support of Hoover. “I would rather have them in the family circle where we can talk things over with them,” Goodrich wrote to Hoover. He added, “With the departure of the A.R.A. the last point of contact with Russia will be severed.”57 Goodrich was far from alone in seeking the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Soviets. On March 15, 1923, the Women’s Committee for Recognition of Russia met for its second annual conference in Washington, D.C. In a telegram to President Harding, the delegation demanded a change in United States policy, mentioning Goodrich’s position in the bargain:

Nonetheless, Hughes clearly had the upper hand in influencing Harding’s views. He periodically sent to the president letters from Americans who had lived in the Soviet Union and who supported the administration’s position of nonrecognition. Harding seemed content to believe that he and Hughes were right, despite protests to the contrary.59

Meanwhile, on June 16, 1923, a dinner was held in Moscow informally concluding the ARA’s work in Russia. Almost all of the top Soviet leaders were present, including Kamanev, who was now acting head of the Russian government as a result of Lenin’s medical relapse in March. In addition to Kamanev, Chitcherin, Litvinoff, Radek, and Sokolnikoff were there. Trotsky, absent from Moscow, wrote a glowing letter thanking the ARA for its relief efforts. He let it be known “that both people and the Government of Russia are ready to make every effort to re-establish normal relations with the great American people.”60

Frustrated at the pace of negotiations, Goodrich attempted in June 1923 to press his views about recognition directly with President Harding. He wrote to Harding seeking an opportunity to meet with the president; however, before the meeting ever came about, Harding became ill and died in San Francisco on August 2.61 Harding’s death made it necessary for Goodrich to start all over, promoting a more moderate American policy toward Russia with Calvin Coolidge, Harding’s successor. Goodrich was totally discouraged by the attitude of Hughes and the lack of any interest on the part of the State Department to reexamine the situation. In an August 1923 letter to Edgar Rickard, the ARA’s executive director, Goodrich wrote:

Shortly afterward, Hoover tried to arrange a fourth trip for Goodrich, in which he would establish “at least a temporary contact in Russia.” The commerce secretary also suggested Goodrich’s name to the Rockefeller Foundation as a possible representative of the foundation in the Soviet Union. Goodrich had a “very pleasant” talk with the Rockefeller Foundation, but nothing came of this meeting or of Hoover’s hopes to use Goodrich to further United States trade possibilities with the Kremlin.63 Goodrich would wait for two more years before he would again visit the Soviet Union and attempt to influence Washington to view Russia differently.

Chapter 14

Return to Russia, 1925

At the end of August 1925, James Goodrich embarked upon his fourth and final trip to the Soviet Union.1 For five weeks, Goodrich and his wife Cora, Colonel William Haskell, and Frank Golder toured the Volga region and the cities that the former governor had first visited in 1921. What he found was “remarkable progress” in agriculture, railroads, banking, and manufacturing. At a personal level, the fourth trip was an opportunity for Goodrich to renew his own fondness for the Russian people. When he visited the commune of Schilling, Goodrich met a peasant woman who was selling vegetables and fruit. He told her who he was in his broken Russian, and the woman

Goodrich had returned with Golder to the Soviet Union at the invitation of the Russian Academy of Science, which was celebrating its twentieth anniversary. He held no official position and was simply attending as a representative of Indiana University. Golder represented Stanford University. The academy was holding an international conference for delegates from Europe as well as from the United States, China, India, and other countries. It was the first formal opportunity Russian intellectuals had had since 1914 to meet with their foreign counterparts. Goodrich and Golder were the only delegates from the United States.

Goodrich took every opportunity to learn about the progress the Soviet people had achieved since he had last visited in 1922. He met with a vast array of officials, both public and private. One of his first meetings was in Leningrad with Dr. Ivan Pavlov, the Nobel Prize–winning physiologist, who is perhaps best known in the West for his conditioned reflex experiments involving dogs. Pavlov was an outspoken critic of Communism. He constantly denounced Lenin to Goodrich and refused in 1922 to receive any special treatment during the famine. “These fellows have learned they cannot run a government according to their Marxian philosophy,” Pavlov told his visitor.3

On September 5, Goodrich met with Dr. Oldenburg, secretary of the Russian Academy of Science. Goodrich had first met Oldenburg in 1921. At that time, Goodrich and Golder had offered the eminent professor of modern Oriental languages, on behalf of the Rockefeller Foundation, $500,000 for the purpose of maintaining the operations of the Russian Academy of Science. Oldenburg had refused the generous offer because he was attempting to force the Russian government to support the academy. The maneuver had apparently worked, since the Communist government had contributed two million rubles (at that time about $1 million) in 1925 toward sustaining the academy. Oldenburg praised the Communist regime, and especially Lenin. He believed that the moderate faction of the Communist Party was gaining control and that the government would continue to move toward a fuller embrace of capitalism.4

Back in Moscow on September 7, Goodrich found the Russian capital abuzz with activity. Everywhere he went, Russians repeatedly asked him about the “Scopes Monkey Trial,” which was going on in Dayton, Tennessee, and about who or what was a “Ford”? Goodrich held two meetings with Maxim Litvinoff, who was still acting commissar of foreign affairs in the absence of Chitcherin. In a series of meetings with private citizens, Goodrich learned that there was a tremendous shortage of housing. Families of several members were forced to live in apartments of only two or three rooms. Because housing was first offered to workers at an artificially low rent (as little as three dollars a month) there was no incentive for investors to build any additional housing. The low rent was subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers.5 Goodrich subsequently met with the commissar of transportation, the head of the Textile Trust, and the assistant commissar of agriculture. From the latter, he learned that in 1925 Russia would have in excess of one billion poods (1.8 million tons) of foodstuffs, quite a different situation from the one that had existed in 1922.6

On the evening of Monday, September 14, Goodrich and Golder attended a meeting of the Moscow Soviet in the famous Bolshoi Theatre. While he claimed the meeting was pure “propaganda from start to finish,” he could not help but mention with pride the reception that the delegates attending the Academy of Science anniversary received from the thousands who attended the meeting. “When the names of the two American delegates [Goodrich and Golder] were read and we arose, the entire theatre stood up as one person and cheered again and again until we too were compelled to go to the front and cries of ‘America’ arose from all over the great building.”7

The following day, Goodrich attended a meeting of the economic research section of the Academy of Science, accompanied by the Soviet minister of finance Grigori Sokolnikoff. The featured speaker was the noted British economist John Maynard Keynes. According to Goodrich, Keynes’s address was not well received. It is little wonder, given that throughout the talk Keynes criticized Lenin and Leninism, attacked the gold standard, and advocated instead a monetary standard based upon the average value of certain basic products.8

A meeting the next day with a young Russian reinforced Goodrich’s belief that the Soviet Union under the Communists was on its way to economic prosperity.

On Friday, September 18, Goodrich, with a young interpreter, left for Saratov to retrace his previous journeys while on the famine relief missions in 1921 and 1922. Although the crop conditions were generally much improved, Goodrich found the appearance and plight of the Russian peasants little different. As he stated, “Men and women while strong and rugged physically are miserably dressed and have a pathetic, sad appearance as they stand along the railway in the little Communes through which we passed.”10 On September 20, Goodrich took the steamboat Leon Trotsky down the Volga River. He and his interpreter traveled to Tsaritzin, whose name had recently been changed to Stalingrad in honor of Joseph Stalin.11

While in the Ukraine, Goodrich met with President Petrofsky of the Ukraine Republic, who was one of six chairmen of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet of Russian Republics. Petrofsky also asked about the Scopes trial and the question of recognition. Goodrich recounted again the conditions necessary for the Communist government to be recognized by America: recognition and payment of the debts contracted by the Kerensky government; restoration of American property in Russia nationalized by the Soviet government; and cessation of propaganda by sympathizers associated with the Third International Communist Party.12

On his return to Moscow, Goodrich met with the general manager of Amtorg, the Russian agency that conducted export and import business in America. Goodrich also had a lengthy discussion with Litvinoff on the afternoon of September 25 about Russian-American relations.13 Two days later, Litvinoff invited Goodrich to dinner to continue the discussions. Present at Litvinoff’s home opposite the Kremlin, besides Litvinoff, were Nikolay Bukharin, the editor of Pravda, and Karl Radek, director of propaganda. During the two-hour discussion, Litvinoff, Radek, and Bukharin emphatically denied that the government had any connection with the Third Internationale. On the issue of recognition, the Soviet leaders conveyed a sense of befuddlement. It was well known that the Weimar Republic of Germany had extended diplomatic recognition in April 1922 and Great Britain had in 1924. By 1925, the United States remained the major holdout.

On the afternoon of Tuesday, September 29, Goodrich met with Joseph Stalin. At the time, Stalin held the positions of secretary of the Politburo as well as secretary of the Communist Party. During a two-hour meeting, Stalin, who would become the most important and powerful figure in modern Russian history, covered much of the same ground with Goodrich as had been covered by Litvinoff, Radek, Krassin, Kamenev, and other Soviet leaders. Goodrich raised with Stalin the matter of the inflammatory anti-American speech he had heard Kamenev give before the Moscow Soviet on September 14. Stalin expressed disappointment over Kamenev’s remarks as well as those of Zinoviev, who espoused support for the Third Internationale. Stalin concluded the meeting by repeating “what was so often said to me in Russia,” wrote Goodrich, “that the Russian people liked the Americans and preferred closer cooperation with them than to any other country in the world.”14 Goodrich’s brief appraisal of the stolid Georgian was that he was “a man of rare good common sense, sound judgment, and in my opinion is easily the most powerful factor in Russia.”15

The following day, Goodrich met with Leon Trotsky in Trotsky’s Kremlin office. Trotsky tried to convince Goodrich that the Soviet Union deserved recognition. He detailed the government’s plan to attract foreign capital, reduce the costs of production in agriculture, and be competitive in the world markets. As for Trotsky’s proposal to continue the heavy subsidizing of workers’ rents, Goodrich called the plan “rotten economics.”16

When Goodrich departed Russia on October 7, his work was not finished. In Berlin, he met with Chitcherin, the Soviet foreign minister, at the Russian embassy. Chitcherin expressed outrage over the note he had received from the United States secretary of state C. E. Hughes in December 1923. Hughes’s note had followed President Coolidge’s speech to Congress, in which Coolidge had given a strong indication that American policy toward the Communists was softening. Given the capacity in which he was visiting the Soviet Union, Goodrich was clearly not in the position to speak for either Hughes or the president.17

Goodrich’s impressions on his fourth trip confirmed what he had begun to believe when he had visited in 1922: that Russia under the Communists was making great progress and that conditions, despite severe internal problems, were generally much better than they had been under the czars. The items he specifically mentioned in support of this assessment included the extension of voting rights to intellectuals, scientists, and technicians; the decentralization of power from Moscow in favor of local governments; the amendment of marriage laws to recognize church marriages and of the inheritance laws to remove the prohibition against inheritances of more than five thousand dollars; the reinstatement of private traders; the defeat of Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Sokolnikoff, who opposed addressing the issue of international debts on any terms; and the rise in power of Stalin and the movement toward the right. From his perspective, the government’s adoption of “State capitalism” was a step in the right direction, a step that would ultimately lead to the eradication of the last vestiges of Communism.18

When Goodrich returned to the United States in October 1925, he was more certain than ever that Russian recognition would be of benefit to both countries. In an attempt to convince President Coolidge of the changes he had seen, he traveled to Washington and met with both the secretary of state, Frank B. Kellogg, and Coolidge. Hoover had arranged the meetings. Kellogg was even more dogmatic than his predecessor had been in opposing recognition, while Coolidge, true to his cautious nature, “made no commitments and urged Goodrich to summarize his views on paper.”19

Disheartened by the tepid response, Goodrich nonetheless returned to Winchester and wrote to the president in November 1925: “It is safe to say today that the working classes of Russia are in better condition and better satisfied than they were under the Tsar.” He went on to state that recognition would promote world stability, renew American business ties with Russia, and “accelerate rather than retard the march now going on from communism to capitalism.”20

After spending five years stewing about the problem, Goodrich finally gave up lobbying for United States recognition of the Communists. It was not until eight years later, on November 16, 1933, that President Franklin D. Roosevelt finally granted recognition to the Soviet Union through an exchange of letters with Litvinoff.21 Goodrich believed that the many years of nonrecognition not only hurt the Soviet people but delayed a grand opportunity for American businesses to prosper in a vast country that could have benefited from American goods.

Goodrich’s opportunity to participate in the ARA famine-relief efforts in Russia is significant for several reasons. First, his investigations into the famine and his subsequent testimony before Congress gave credibility to earlier reports of the famine that the media had tended to sensationalize. Goodrich was a highly respected former governor. He had long served as a member of the Republican National Committee and was generally well known and highly regarded in Washington’s political circles. His firsthand experience of the famine, coupled with his business and political background, gave credibility to his testimony. In fact, during debate about famine-relief legislation on the House and Senate floors, members of Congress made repeated references to Goodrich’s testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Their faith in Goodrich’s views was summarized in an Associated Press article written in February 1922: “Goodrich is a man known to be, as one commentator expressed it, ‘a hard-boiled Republican, who thinks as the President does.’ Goodrich is a wealthy Indiana public utilities owner, long in politics, and high in his party’s counsel. When he came back from Russia, and made his report on Russia, the President believed it. The same was true of senators and representatives with whom the former governor has spoken.”22

Second, James Goodrich’s testimony made it clear that only immediate relief would prevent one of the worst famines in history. The ARA was not in a position to raise funds privately because of the general skepticism among the American people toward Communist Russia. Goodrich and Hoover, however, convinced Congress that public relief would not result in propping up the Bolshevik government. It would merely address starvation among the peasant class.

Third, Goodrich told the story of Communist Russia and, in a very real way, assisted in providing a more realistic perception of the Soviet Republic and its people to the American public. Goodrich addressed groups in large and small cities alike and gave interviews to many national newspapers.23 Major articles about his various trips were reported by the Independent, the New York Times, the New York Sun, the New York Herald, the Detroit Free Press, the Pittsburgh Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Indianapolis Star, and other leading papers in the United States. Even the China Press of Shanghai reported on Goodrich’s investigation.24 Goodrich himself wrote articles in Outlook and Century magazines as well as a major article, “The True Communists of Russia,” for Current History.25

Fourth, Goodrich served as an important conduit for initiating relations between the United States and the new Soviet government. Formal diplomatic relations between the two countries had come to an abrupt halt in 1917 when the Bolsheviks took control of the government. Between 1917 and 1933, Goodrich was probably the highest-ranking American emissary to have direct and repeated contact with the Soviet leadership.

Goodrich’s analysis of the causes of Russia’s pathetic conditions and what it would take for Russia to become a self-sufficient and profitable nation were right on the mark. He correctly attributed Russia’s decline during the post–civil war era of the early 1920s to a totally inexperienced and idealistic group of radicals, among whom were Lenin, Trotsky, Rykov, and Krassin. He wrote in the last chapter of his manuscript about his trips to Russia:

Despite these pitfalls, Goodrich was optimistic that Russia’s leadership was gradually recognizing the foolishness of its earlier policies and would successfully transform modern Russia into greatness. He wrote:

If Goodrich was on target in diagnosing Russia’s illness and cure, he was significantly off the mark in predicting the timing of recovery and health. Not even to this day, more than seventy years after Goodrich’s last visit, can Russia lay claim to being the economic and world power that the former Indiana governor predicted it would become. In defense of Goodrich’s optimism, it must be remembered that when he completed his fourth and final trip, the Soviet government’s adoption of a new comprehensive economic-political policy had been in effect for more than four years. The New Economic Policy (NEP) was announced in March 1921 by Lenin. Its purpose was to retreat temporarily from the unattainable goal of Communism to state capitalism. Under the NEP, the monetary system and the market economy were restored. Peasants were allowed to dispose of their products for personal gain after meeting their tax obligations; most small-scale industries were denationalized to allow the rise of a new class of small-business owners. Many outside and inexperienced followers of Soviet policy, such as Goodrich, believed that the NEP was a sign of a broader acceptance of capitalism and not simply the aberration from Communism that it turned out to be.28

Part of Goodrich’s miscalculations may be explained by his understandable fondness for the Russian people and his deep desire to see the Soviet nation prosper. Goodrich knew the Russian people and their leaders personally. They were not faceless bureaucrats uniformly and fervently devoted to full-fledged Marxist Communism. They convinced him that they generally liked Americans and simply wanted to be treated as equals, which necessitated mutual recognition. Furthermore, unlike Washington’s “three H’s” (Harding, Hughes, and Hoover), who knew the Russian political leadership only by reputation, Goodrich had met with the highest echelon of the Communist leadership: Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Rykov, Kamenev, Chitcherin, Bukharin, Litvinoff, Radek, Sokolnikoff, and Krassin. He believed that he understood the fractious elements in the Communist Party, and he was convinced that the moderate-conservative wing would ultimately prevail. He believed that this powerful faction would be concerned with improving living conditions and would toss aside the leftists’ utopian dream of Marxist Communism.

In hindsight, however, it is clear that Goodrich did not fully appreciate the zealotry and ruthlessness that many of these same leaders would adopt in creating a totalitarian communist organization. Contrary to Goodrich’s appraisal, communist political ideology, not pragmatism, prevailed in the next several decades. The NEP, which was in full force when Goodrich visited the Soviet Union, was an aberrational concession. It was viewed by Lenin and later by Trotsky and Stalin as necessary to prevent a complete overthrow of the Bolsheviks, not as a long-term policy goal. Moreover, Stalin’s own calculating mind and personal ambitions caused him in 1928 to move away from the NEP in order to rid himself of rivals such as Kamenev, Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Bukharin. In a series of adroit political maneuvers, Stalin shifted to leftist policies that these rivals opposed. He, thus, was able to condemn them for creating factionalism and deviation from the Communist line. Stalin then either demoted them or eliminated them altogether. The playing out of this sort of personal ambition would have been nearly impossible for Goodrich to forecast.

Despite the political turn of events that Goodrich failed to foresee accurately, the first and primary purpose of his travels to Russia—to assist in famine relief—was a complete success. A total of 381 Americans served with the ARA in Russia at one time or other during the twenty-two months that the relief organization had a presence in the Soviet Union. A handful of this number were regular army officers; the majority were volunteers, like Goodrich, who saw an opportunity to play an important role in relieving suffering.29 Despite its small numbers, this group was responsible for feeding as many as ten million starving Russians. The ARA efforts undoubtedly prevented millions from dying. The ARA’s campaign is considered one of the greatest humanitarian undertakings in history. It is little wonder that James Goodrich considered it his greatest personal adventure.

[1. ]“Randolph County’s Teddy Roosevelt Rally Day,” Randolph County History: 1818–1990, p. 48.

[2. ]Ibid.

[3. ]Ibid.

[4. ]Ibid., pp. 48–49.

[5. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 42–44. Those who opposed Goodrich’s selection for local party chairman were the former Randolph Circuit Court judges Leander J. Monks, who had recently been appointed to Indiana’s Supreme Court, and Albert O. Marsh. They both claimed that Goodrich was too young. Goodrich was convinced, however, that Marsh’s objection was a result of Goodrich’s support of his former law mentor, James S. Engle, for the local judgeship when Monks resigned.

[6. ]Ibid., pp. 45–48.

[7. ]See Clifton J. Phillips, Indiana in Transition: The Emergence of an Industrial Commonwealth, 1880–1920 (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau and Indiana Historical Society, 1968), pp. 50–84.

[8. ]Goodrich practiced law with a number of attorneys after Enos and James Watson. From 1895 to 1900, Goodrich practiced with Macy and John J. Cheney. Cheney, who had previously served as Randolph Circuit Court judge, retired in 1900 and was replaced in the firm by Alonzo L. Nichols. In January 1902, Macy was appointed Randolph Circuit Court judge, and Macy’s position in the firm was filled by Alonzo L. Bales. The firm’s name was changed to Nichols, Goodrich and Bales. In 1908, Macy resigned as judge and rejoined Goodrich in the firm of Macy, Nichols, Goodrich and Bales. After Macy’s death in 1912, his son, John W. Macy, Jr., left Columbia Law School and replaced his father in the firm. In 1910, Goodrich opened a law office in Indianapolis under the name Robbins, Starr and Goodrich. In 1913, Leander Monks, originally from Winchester, resigned from the supreme court of Indiana and joined the firm, which became Monks, Robbins, Starr and Goodrich. See John L. Smith and Lee L. Driver, “James P. Goodrich,” in Past and Present of Randolph County Indiana (Indianapolis: A. W. Bowen, 1914), pp. 1521–24; “Judge John Winchester Macy,” Past and Present of Randolph County Indiana, pp. 1048–51.

[9. ]See “New Republican Chairman: J. P. Goodrich Slated to Succeed Hernly,” Indianapolis News, July 26, 1901, p. 8, col. 2; “J. P. Goodrich Chosen to Succeed Hernly as Republican State Chairman,” Indianapolis Journal, August 8, 1901, p. 8, col. 2.

[10. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 53–54.

[11. ]Ibid., p. 55; see also Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” pp. 21–22.

[12. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 65. For a more extensive account of the life of Albert J. Beveridge, see Claude G. Bowers, Beveridge and the Progressive Era (Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1932).

[13. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 65.

[14. ]Ibid., pp. 70–77.

[15. ]“Watson’s Duties as House Whip,” Indianapolis News, December 16, 1905, p. 7, col. 4.

[16. ]“Watson Nominated for Governor,” Indianapolis Star, April 3, 1908, p. 1, col. 3; “Rushville, Watson’s Home Town and That of Hall, Democrat, Will Hold a Jollification Night over Both Candidates, Regardless of Party,” Indianapolis News, April 4, 1908, p. 14, col. 1. In a letter from James Watson to James P. Goodrich dated January 25, 1901, Watson wrote: “Your advice on the Governorship question is timely and I shall abide by it. I am a candidate for renomination [to Congress] and shall say nothing about my ever-living ambition to be Governor of Indiana.” James P. Goodrich Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa.

[17. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 80. See also “Watson and Bingham Cry Saloon-Democracy Bond: Liquor Issue Put First by Watson,” Indianapolis Star, June 5, 1908, p. 1, col. 7; “Watson Defends County Unit Plan,” Indianapolis News, June 5, 1908, p. 1, col. 3; and “Watson Penetrates Enemy’s Territory: Nominee in Special Train Makes Option Stand in Southern Indiana,” Indianapolis Star, October 30, 1908, p. 1, col. 1.

[18. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 79.

[19. ]“Indiana Will Storm Chicago,” Indianapolis News, p. 3, col. 1.

[20. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 83.

[21. ]“Watson Offered Choice of Two Plums by Taft,” Indianapolis Star, July 22, 1913, p. 5, col. 2.

[22. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 84.

[23. ]Ibid., p. 85.

[24. ]Louis Ludlow, “Raised $22,000 in Campaign to Elect Watson,” Indianapolis Star, July 16, 1913, p. 1, col. 1; Louis Ludlow, “Watson Pleads Vainly to Take Witness Stand,” Indianapolis Star, July 25, 1913, p. 1, col. 1; “Spurns Watson In Last Appeal,” Indianapolis Star, July 26, 1913, p. 2, col. 3; Louis Ludlow, “Where Did Fund Go? Is Mystery Up to Mulhall: Goodrich and Parry Join in Charge that Manufacturers’ Gift Went Astray,” Indianapolis Star, July 28, 1913, p. 1, col. 1.

[25. ]Letters from Goodrich to Watson, January 31, 1918, and February 20, 1918 (regarding Goodrich’s cosigning for an overdue loan by Watson from National City Bank of Indianapolis), James P. Goodrich Papers, box 28.

[26. ]The assistance was not always one way. There were a few times when Watson came to Goodrich’s aid. Once, Watson tried to protect Shields Edger, James Goodrich’s uncle and an ardent Democrat, from being fired from his position as Winchester’s postmaster in June 1918 because of drunkenness. See letter from Watson to Goodrich, June 11, 1918, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 28.

[27. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 86–87.

[28. ]Ibid., pp. 87–88.

[29. ]Ibid., pp. 88–89. See also “Washington Water, Light and Power Company,” AR 2601–3, Dissolved Corporations, State Archives, Indiana Commission on Public Records. Other officers of the company were Henry Starr, vice-president, Chicago; Carl R. Semans, secretary, who also served as general manager of the company, Washington, Indiana; and Edwin H. Cates, treasurer, Richmond, Indiana. We know from the company’s 1913 annual report, dated April 30, 1913, that Washington Water, Light and Power Company purchased the Citizens Light and Fuel Company. The corporate office headquarters of Washington Water, Light and Power Company was Goodrich’s law office, located at 931–939 Pythian Building, Indianapolis.

[30. ]See “Goodrich, James Putnam,” The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography (New York: J. T. White, 1926), p. 76.

[31. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 91–92.

[32. ]Ibid., pp. 93–94.

[33. ]Ibid., p. 95.

[34. ]Woodrow Wilson won the 1912 presidency by gaining 6,293,453 popular votes, while Roosevelt received 4,119,538 votes and Taft received 3,484,980 votes. Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist Party candidate, received 900,672 votes. Wilson, however, achieved a major electoral college victory—435 to Roosevelt’s 88. Taft received only 8 electoral votes, and Debs received none. An excellent summary of the 1912 split between Taft and Roosevelt is contained in Will H. Hays, The Memoirs of Will H. Hays (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1955), pp. 79–81.

[35. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 110.

[36. ]See Hays, The Memoirs of Will H. Hays, p. 70.

[1. ]Walden S. Freeman, “Will H. Hays and the Politics of Party Harmony,” in Their Infinite Variety: Essays on Indiana Politicians (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1981), pp. 336–39; Hays, The Memoirs of Will H. Hays, p. 146. Hays’s organization of the 1916 campaign is discussed in detail in James O. Robertson’s “Progressives Elect Will H. Hays Republican National Chairman, 1918,” Indiana Magazine of History 64 (September 1968): 173–90.

[2. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 99–100.

[3. ]Ibid., p. 99.

[4. ]Ibid., p. 102.

[5. ]Ibid.

[6. ]“Goodrich Announces Candidacy for Governor on Republican Ticket,” Indianapolis Star, December 30, 1915, p. 6, col. 3.

[7. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 103.

[8. ]Ibid., p. 104.

[9. ]Ibid., p. 106.

[10. ]Hays, The Memoirs of Will H. Hays, p. 146.

[11. ]“The Republican County Ticket,” Winchester (Ind.) Herald, November 1, 1916, p. 1, col. 4.

[12. ]Hays, The Memoirs of Will H. Hays, p. 108.

[13. ]Ibid., p. 109.

[14. ]See Earl Mushlitz, “Issues of the Indiana Campaign as James P. Goodrich Sees Them,” Indianapolis Star, September 24, 1916, magazine section, p. 2, col. 1.

[15. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 112.

[16. ]Ibid.

[17. ]See “Speech of James P. Goodrich,” Indiana State Library, Indiana Division, Ip 336.2, no. 6; “Many March in Rain in Goodrich Parade,” Indianapolis Star, November 4, 1916, p. 1, col. 4. On Saturday, November 4, a day-long Republican rally was planned for “Goodrich Day” in Winchester. See “Goodrich Day” (paid announcement), Winchester (Ind.) Herald, November 1, 1916, p. 8, col. 1.

[18. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 103.

[19. ]Fort Wayne (Ind.) Sentinel, August 19, 1916, p. 1, col. 3; Indianapolis News, August 19, 1916, p. 18, col. 2.

[20. ]According to one Democratic participant in the 1916 state election, the Democratic campaign “was a cross between a comedy and a tragedy. A political battle had never before been so miserably mismanaged in the history of the state accustomed for half a century to fierce fights.” Claude Bowers, The Life of John Worth Kerns (Indianapolis: Hollenbeck, 1918), p. 377. See also Jacob P. Dunn, Indiana and Indianans—A History of Aboriginal and Territorial Indiana and the Century of Statehood (Chicago: American Historical Society, 1919), p. 785.

[21. ]The Wilson-Hughes race was so close that Hughes’s running mate, Hoosier Charles Fairbanks, was convinced that he and Hughes had won. It was reported that he had won in at least one newspaper. See “Fairbanks Happy in G.O.P. Revival,” Indianapolis Star, November 8, 1916, p. 8, col. 1.

[22. ]“Great Reception Given Goodrich,” Winchester (Ind.) Herald, November 13, 1916, p. 1, col. 1. Harry Fraze, one-time Winchester mayor, was present for the parade and celebration, and he described the euphoric welcome that James Goodrich received (interview, October 26, 1991). We know that Pierre was present for election day from a sentence on the front page of the Winchester Journal: “Pierre Goodrich left Tuesday [November 7] to resume his studies at Harvard University” (November 8, 1916, p. 1, col. 3).

[1. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 114.

[2. ]Ibid., p. 121. Goodrich’s decision to take a relatively nonpartisan approach toward his appointments is also discussed in his obituary, Indianapolis News, August 16, 1940, p. 2, col. 1.

[3. ]“Goodrich Ready to Take Seat,” Indianapolis Star, January 8, 1917, p. 1, col. 6.

Sincerely yours,

James P. Goodrich

[5. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 115–19; “Goodrich Counsels Economy: Recommends in Message Many Reforms to Reduce Public Expenditures,” Indianapolis Star, January 9, 1917, p. 1, col. 4; “Governor Outlines Program,” Indianapolis Star, November 11, 1916, p. 1, col. 1.

[6. ]“Inauguration of Goodrich to Be Simple,” Indianapolis Star, November 26, 1916, p. 1, col. 1.

[7. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 119–20; “Governor Goodrich’s Message,” Indianapolis News, January 9, 1917, p. 6, col. 2.

[8. ]See David Mannweiler, “Governors of Indiana,” Indianapolis News, March 16, 1964, p. 5, col. 8.

[9. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 121. See also “Governor’s Czarism,” Indianapolis News, January 15, 1917, p. 6, col. 1.

[10. ]Indianapolis City Directory (1917–21), Indiana State Library, Indiana Division; see also “Goodrich Selects Home Where He Will Live While Governor,” Indianapolis Star, December 28, 1916, p. 1, col. 2.

[11. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 125.

[12. ]Ibid., pp. 124–27. Regarding Goodrich’s tax revision proposals, see Ernest I. Lewis, “Governor Appeals to State’s People: Inequalities of Taxation,” Indianapolis News, March 14, 1917, p. 5, col. 4.

[13. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 122.

[14. ]Benjamin D. Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” p. 31, quoting in part Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 107.

[15. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 120. See also John A. Lapp, “Legislation Is Branded Failure,” Indianapolis Star, January 1, 1918, p. 20, col. 7.

[16. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 127.

[17. ]See Cedric C. Cummins, Indiana Public Opinion and the World War, 1914–1917 (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau, 1945), pp. 17–41.

[18. ]Indianapolis News, March 28, 1917, p. 1, col. 3.

[19. ]Jeannette Covert Nolan, Hoosier City: The Story of Indianapolis (New York: Julian Messner, 1943), p. 262; Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 150. For a summary of Indiana’s involvement in World War I, see Charles Roll, Indiana (Chicago: Lewis Publishing, 1931), pp. 449–67.

[20. ]Indiana State News Bulletin, August 1, 1928, p. 4; see also Indiana War Records, Gold Star Honor Roll (Indianapolis, 1921); Clifton J. Phillips, Indiana in Transition: The Emergence of an Industrial Commonwealth, 1880–1920, vol. 4 of The History of Indiana (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau and Indiana Historical Society, 1968), pp. 610–11.

[21. ]Nolan, Hoosier City: The Story of Indianapolis, pp. 262–64.

[22. ]“Governor Calls Meeting in Each County to Urge Increase in Food Crops,” Indianapolis Star, April 6, 1917, p. 1, col. 1. See also George S. Cottman, Centennial History and Handbook of Indiana (Indianapolis: State of Indiana, 1917), with supplement, “Highlights of Indiana in the World War,” edited by Edith Margaret Evans and Freeman T. Felt, pp. 9–11. Goodrich’s belief in the importance of increasing the food supply is evident in a speech he delivered to two thousand farmers in Anderson, Indiana, on February 5, 1918, “2,000 Farmers Hear Goodrich,” Indianapolis Star, February 6, 1918, p. 5, col. 4.

[23. ]See “The Fourth ‘Liberty Loan Proclamation’ by James P. Goodrich, Governor of Indiana,” Indianapolis Star, September 28, 1918, p. 5, col. 5; James P. Goodrich, “Indiana Patriot League Articles,” Indianapolis News, March 16, 1918, p. 8, col. 2; and “Duty Calls to Every Hoosier: Each Loyal Indianian Must Do His Share, Goodrich Says in Message,” Indianapolis Star, January 1, 1918, p. 20, col. 2.

[24. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 130–31; Richard M. Clutter, “Indiana and the First World War,” Indiana Military History Journal 1 (July 1976), pp. 20–22; George S. Cottman, Centennial History and Handbook of Indiana (Indianapolis: State of Indiana, 1917), with supplement, “Highlights of Indiana in the World War,” edited by Edith Margaret Evans and Freeman T. Felt, pp. 9–11. Will Hays devotes an entire chapter to the State Council of Defense in his Memoirs of Will H. Hays (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1955), pp. 114–38.

[25. ]For instance, Goodrich claimed that by July 1917 Fort Wayne, Indiana, had sent more men as soldiers and sailors to the European war than the entire state of New York had. Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 133–34. See also Richard M. Clutter, “Indiana and the First World War,” pp. 20–23; Clifton J. Phillips, Indiana in Transition: The Emergence of an Industrial Commonwealth, 1880–1920, pp. 608–9; and Jeannette Covert Nolan, Hoosier City: The Story of Indianapolis, pp. 260–68.

[26. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 142–43.

[27. ]Laws of Indiana, 1919, pp. 50–51, 822–23. The Board of School Commissioners of Indianapolis even inserted into teachers’ contracts a clause stating that disloyalty to the United States in spoken or written word (that is, the use of German) constituted cause for dismissal. The Indiana State Teachers Association passed a resolution on April 13, 1918, forbidding the teaching of German in Indiana schools. See Frances H. Ellis, “German Instruction in the Public Schools of Indianapolis, 1869–1919,” Indiana Magazine of History 50 (1954): 372, 374–78.

[28. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 142.

[29. ]Emma Lieber, Richard Lieber (Indianapolis: privately printed, 1947), p. 90; “Governor Names Military Staff,” Indianapolis News, April 11, 1917, p. 1, col. 6. Goodrich wrote in his autobiography that he first met Lieber accidentally when he was campaigning in Indianapolis for governor. He ran into Lieber on Monument Circle. At the time, Lieber was a wholesale liquor distributor. “I was struck with his knowledge, his spirit of liberality and broad vision with respect to the public service,” wrote Goodrich (“Autobiography,” p. 143).

[30. ]By the time Lieber left office in 1933, Indiana had sixteen state parks, all established during Lieber’s tenure as state parks director except two that had been created in 1916: Turkey Run in Parke County and McCormick’s Creek in Owen County. See “Indiana State Parks” (Indiana Department of Conservation, 1932; copy located in Indiana Division of the Indiana State Library). For more background information about Lieber, see “Richard Lieber, State Park System Founder, Dies at McCormick’s Creek,” Indianapolis Star, April 16, 1944, p. 1, col. 2; Harold Sabin, “Indiana Indebted to Richard Lieber for Excellent Park System,” Indianapolis Star, August 28, 1966, sec. 2, p. 10, col. 2; and Wayne Guthrie, “Father of Indiana State Parks,” Indianapolis News, October 22, 1965, p. 11, col. 6.

[31. ]Emma Lieber, Richard Lieber, pp. 95–103, 161.

[32. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 129–30.

[33. ]Ibid., pp. 131–33.

[34. ]Ibid., p. 135. See also “Governor Ill at Methodist Hospital,” Indianapolis Star, August 25, 1917, p. 1, col. 7; “Goodrich Little Better; Friends Not Admitted,” Indianapolis Star, August 25, 1917, p. 1, col. 7; and “Has Typhoid Fever,” Indianapolis News, August 27, 1917, p. 1, col. 4.

[35. ]“Governor Takes Turn for Worse,” Indianapolis Star, September 10, 1917, p. 1, col. 7; “Governor Leaves Hospital for Home at Winchester,” Indianapolis Star, October 22, 1917, p. 1, col. 2.

[36. ]See Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 136; “Governor Leaves Hospital for Home at Winchester,” Indianapolis Star, October 10, 1917, p. 1, col. 7; and “Goodrich Resumes Duties at State House,” Indianapolis News, October 29, 1917, p. 1, col. 4.

[37. ]Everett C. Watkins, “Goodrich Gives Coal Testimony,” Indianapolis Star, January 23, 1918, p. 1, col. 4.

[38. ]Donald P. Whitted, “Recollections,” Winchester News-Gazette, January 6, 1998, p. 8, col. 6.

[39. ]“Governor Seriously Hurt in Automobile Accident,” Indianapolis Star, August 29, 1918, p. 1, col. 4; “Goodrich Has Peaceful Day; Is Improving,” Indianapolis Star, August 30, 1918, p. 1, col. 1; “Governor’s Progress Pleases Physicians,” Indianapolis Star, August 31, 1918, p. 1, col. 5; Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 150–51.

[40. ]Walden S. Freeman, “Will H. Hays and the Politics of Party Harmony,” in Their Infinite Variety: Essays on Indiana Politicians (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society, 1981), p. 340.

[41. ]“Will Hays Boomed to Head G.O.P.: National Leaders Launch Move to Displace Wilcox with Indiana Chairman,” Indianapolis Star, January 9, 1917, p. 1, col. 3.

[42. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 140.

[43. ]Ibid., p. 133.

[44. ]Ibid., p. 141. Hays’s account of his selection as national Republican chairman is contained in his Memoirs of Will H. Hays, pp. 153–68.

[45. ]Letter from Will H. Hays to James Goodrich, June 13, 1918 (in response to Goodrich’s letter to Hays dated June 11, 1918), Will H. Hays Collection, James P. Goodrich file, Indiana State Library, Manuscript Section, Indianapolis.

[46. ]Letter from Will H. Hays to James Goodrich, June 10, 1918, Will H. Hays Collection, James P. Goodrich file, Indiana State Library, Manuscript Section, Indianapolis.

[47. ]Letter from Goodrich to Hays, June 20, 1918, Will H. Hays Collection, James P. Goodrich file, Indiana State Library, Manuscript Section, Indianapolis.

[48. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 151.

[49. ]“Goodrich Delivers Speech at Republican Convention,” Indianapolis News, May 29, 1918, p. 9, col. 1.

[50. ]“Governor Pleads Republican Cause,” Indianapolis News, October 23, 1918, p. 1, col. 3.

[51. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 152–53. See also “Governor Will Pen Bi-Ennial Message Soon,” Indianapolis Star, December 18, 1918, p. 13, col. 8.

[52. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 154.

[53. ]Ibid., pp. 180–81.

[54. ]Ibid., pp. 157–58.

[55. ]Ibid., pp. 163–65.

[56. ]See “Governor Will Pen Bi-Ennial Message Soon,” Indianapolis Star, December 18, 1918, p. 13, col. 8. Goodrich discussed the committee’s correspondence with soldiers’ employers in an exchange of letters between Goodrich and Seymour Avery, president of the Wheeler-Schebler Carburetor Company, Indianapolis. Letter from Avery to Goodrich, December 6, 1918; letter from Goodrich to Avery, December 9, 1918, Goodrich files, Archives, Indiana State Library. See also “Governor Thinks Surplus Labor After War May Be Used for Road Building,” Indianapolis News, October 23, 1918, p. 5, col. 3.

[57. ]Roll, Indiana, p. 460.

[58. ]See Hazel E. Crawford, “Indiana’s Victory Celebration of World War I,” Indiana Military History Journal 4 (October 1979): 16–20; “Governor Proclaims Welcome Home Day,” Indianapolis News, March 29, 1919, p. 44, col. 7.

[59. ]“Governor Proclaims Heroes’ Day,” Indianapolis Star, September 23, 1918, p. 4, col. 2.

[60. ]Ibid., p. 177; “Governor’s Address Welcomes President Wilson to the State,” Indianapolis News, September 5, 1919, p. 3, col. 3.

[61. ]“Governor Issues Statement Regarding the Keeping of Militia in Calumet Strike Region,” Indianapolis News, October 28, 1919, p. 5, col. 1.

[62. ]In August 1919, the nation experienced a large increase in inflation, which led to extremely high prices for basic commodities. On August 5, Goodrich proposed government intervention to stop those who were manipulating the markets in order to enjoy excessive profits. There is no indication that any of Goodrich’s proposals were ever adopted at the state or federal level. See “Governor Seeks Method to Lower Basic Commodities,” Indianapolis Star, August 6, 1919, p. 1, col. 3.

[63. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 177–80; “Goodrich Addresses New England Society in Brooklyn,” Indianapolis News, December 22, 1919, p. 23, col. 1.

[64. ]James E. Watson, As I Knew Them, pp. 189–203, 214–16 (League of Nations); pp. 190–203 (Versailles Treaty).

[65. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 180–81.

[66. ]Ibid., p. 184.

[67. ]Nolan, Hoosier City: The Story of Indianapolis, pp. 269–75.

[68. ]Watson makes reference to this agreement in a letter to Goodrich dated January 7, 1919, James P. Goodrich Papers, James E. Watson file, box 28.

[69. ]“All on Goodrich Wagon,” Indianapolis Star, April 26, 1919, p. 1, col. 4.

[70. ]E. C. Watkins, “Solons Shy at Goodrich Boom,” Indianapolis Star, January 28, 1920, p. 4, col. 1.

[71. ]See Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 179–80. See also “Indiana Republicans for Goodrich for President,” Indianapolis Star, April 26, 1919, p. 1, col. 4. For a brief account of Watson’s presidential opportunities at the 1920 convention, see “Indiana Senator Refused Republican Nomination for President in 1920,” Indianapolis News, March 2, 1964, p. 28, col. 7. He did run, however, against Herbert Hoover for the 1928 Republican nomination.

[72. ]Had Goodrich seriously sought the Republican nomination, he would have been a very strong contender. James Goodrich discusses briefly being suggested as a presidential candidate in his “Autobiography,” pp. 179–80.

[73. ]“Goodrich Announces He Will Not Be Candidate for President,” Indianapolis Star, January 28, 1920, p. 1, col. 8.

[74. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 141.

[75. ]Ibid., p. 167.

[76. ]“Goodrich Boom Stirs for 1920,” Indianapolis Star, July 23, 1917, p. 1, col. 2.

[77. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 141.

[78. ]Letter from Goodrich to Senator Harry S. New, April 3, 1920, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 13.

[79. ]Letter from Goodrich to Ezra Mattingly, November 6, 1920, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 7.

[80. ]For a brief account of Watson’s presidential opportunities at the 1920 convention, see “Indiana Senator Refused Republican Nomination for President in 1920,” Indianapolis News, March 2, 1964, p. 28, col. 7.

[81. ]Williams, Current, and Freidel, A History of the United States: Since 1865, pp. 421, 730.

[82. ]See Charles F. Remy, “Governor Goodrich and Indiana Tax Legislation,” Indiana Magazine of History 43 (March 1947): 41–55.

[83. ]Also, in 1933, the Indiana General Assembly adopted a gross income tax, combining income and sales tax, to help finance poor relief during the Great Depression. See Encyclopedia of Indiana, 2d ed. (New York: Somerset Publishers, 1993), pp. 83–84.

[84. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” p. 185.

[85. ]For a description of the establishment and operations of the state departments of highways, conservation, and banking, see Indiana (Indianapolis: State Board of Public Printing, 1930), pp. 148–64.

[86. ]Goodrich, “Autobiography,” pp. 180–81.

[87. ]Goodrich’s term as governor is briefly treated in James H. Madison, The Indiana Way: A State History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), pp. 221–22; Clifton J. Phillips, Indiana in Transition: The Emergence of an Industrial Commonwealth, pp. 126–27, 611–12; Philip R. VanderMeer, The Hoosier Politician: Officeholding and Political Culture in Indiana, 1896–1920 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), pp. 19, 65, 196–97; Will H. Hays, The Memoirs of Will H. Hays, pp. 106–38; and Charles F. Remy, “Governor Goodrich and Indiana Tax Legislation,” pp. 41–56.

[88. ]Hays, The Memoirs of Will H. Hays, p. 138.

[1. ]Goodrich mentions Scott in a letter to Dr. Solomon Fabricant of New York University (January 3, 1972, Pierre F. Goodrich Collection, Archives, Wabash College). Goodrich mentions Frankfurter in a letter to Frederick Hayek (March 31, 1959, F. A. Hayek Collection, box 34, folder 17, Hoover Institution) and in a memorandum to the employees of the Indiana Telephone Corporation (March 5, 1970; in author’s possession). Frankfurter was an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1939 to 1962.

[2. ]“I remember Mr. Goodrich telling me about losing his swimming trunks once while rowing on the Harvard row team,” said Rosanna Amos. “He always had some kind of tale to tell” (interview, December 10, 1991).

[3. ]Florence Dunn, interview, July 18, 1992.

[4. ]Randolph County History: 1818–1990, pp. 223–27.

[5. ]John Goodrich, Pierre’s first cousin, returned to Winchester after World War I. He first worked at the Peoples Loan and Trust Company and later established Standard Securities, Inc. He took a particular interest in furthering the activities of Winchester’s American Legion Post 39 and contributed a considerable sum of money toward that end. See “W.W. I John B. Goodrich ‘Survivors’ Trust,” Randolph County History: 1818–1990, p. 228.

[6. ]Paul Sayre, The Life of Roscoe Pound (Iowa City: College of Law Committee, 1948), p. 210.

[7. ]The source of the article is unknown, but a copy of the article is contained in a scrapbook of the Goodrich and Miller families kept by Mary Miller of Liberty, Indiana.

[8. ]Florence Dunn, interview, July 18, 1992.

[9. ]Winnifer’s father was Lewis G. Ellingham. He owned several newspapers, including the Winchester Democrat and the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. He was also Indiana’s secretary of state from 1910 to 1914 and a well-known state Democratic Party leader.

[10. ]See Dick D. Heller, Jr., ed., 1979 History of Adams County, Indiana, vol. 1 ([Decatur, Ind.]: Adams County Historical Society, 1979), p. 272.

[11. ]“Charles A. Dugan, Deceased, Decatur, Indiana,” Biographical Sketches of Adams County, Indiana Citizens (Indianapolis: Citizens Historical Association, 1977), pp. 70–71.

[12. ]On one occasion, however, the imposing mansion was the location of great sadness for the family. The year before Dorothy’s marriage to Pierre, her older sister, Naomi (“Billie”), died in childbirth, and her funeral was at the home, as were the funerals of Charles Dorwin Porter (Dorothy’s great-uncle and the husband of Hoosier novelist and naturalist Gene Stratton-Porter) and Dorothy’s father, Charles. In 1968, the Dugan home was purchased by the Adams County Historical Society and converted into the county museum. See Heller, ed., 1979 History of Adams County, Indiana, p. 336.

[13. ]See Decatur (Ind.) Democrat, July 17, 1902, p. 1, col. 4. The Decatur Democrat even reported when the Dugan family moved into the house on November 10, 1902. See “Dugans Occupy New House,” November 12, 1902, p. 2, col. 3.

[14. ]Dorothy’s other sister, Naomi, graduated from Northwestern University. Dorothy’s father, Charles Dugan, had undertaken two years of graduate study in astronomy and mathematics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

[15. ]Dorothy Dugan had spent the summer of 1918 at the National Training School of the Young Men’s Christian Association in New York City. The school was established to train young women for overseas work in World War I. Dorothy Dugan did not go to Europe, but during the latter part of 1919 she performed “club work” for women employees at the DuPont munitions plants at Pompton Lake, New Jersey, and Lowell, Massachusetts. See “Decatur Young Woman and Son of Governor Are to Wed July 17,” Indianapolis News, July 1, 1920, p. 21, col. 6.

[16. ]Ibid.

[17. ]“Leave on a Trip: Mr. and Mrs. Pierre Goodrich Left Saturday Evening Following Wedding,” Decatur (Ind.) Democrat, July 19, p. 1, col. 3.

[18. ]Ibid.

[19. ]Frances was born on October 10, 1921, in the Dugan home at 420 Monroe Street, Decatur.

[20. ]John Macy, Jr., had attended Winchester High School and was admitted to Wabash College in 1904. Macy never received his diploma from Winchester High School; he was denied the parchment for refusing to give the class oration required of every graduating senior. He was admitted into Wabash on the condition that he maintain high grades. Macy pledged with Phi Gamma Delta fraternity and four years later graduated Phi Beta Kappa, earning a bachelor of arts degree in languages and literature. He attended Columbia University Law School for one year but in 1909 was summoned by his father to return to Winchester without a law degree. John Macy, Sr., was forced to resign as Randolph Circuit Court judge because of ill health. Father and son practiced law together until 1912, when John Macy, Sr., passed away. John Macy, Jr., then practiced law with a number of law partners, including Jim Goodrich, until 1920, when Pierre returned to Winchester. Macy and Pierre practiced together for the next three years above the old Randolph County Bank at the intersection of Washington and Meridian streets. See Anna Marie Gibbons, “John W. Macy Retiring as Judge of Randolph Circuit Court,” Winchester (Ind.) News, December 2, 1966, p. 1, col. 3.

[21. ]Mary Simpson, interview, April 12, 1992. Accounts of the local bridge parties and the names of those who attended were published in the local newspaper. See “Bridge Party,” Winchester (Ind.) Journal-Herald, August 27, 1925, p. 5, col. 4.

[22. ]Jim Goodrich seldom missed a Sunday, and he would drive back to Winchester from Indianapolis late on Saturday nights during his years as governor just to teach the class on Sunday mornings. The class would have as many as 100 to 125 men each Sunday morning. It grew so big that the only place large enough to hold it was the church’s sanctuary. James Goodrich was a much-admired Sunday school teacher. Even years after the former governor’s death, his reputation as a religious instructor continued, although the effectiveness of his message may be questioned. Jack Davidson, a former Randolph County Republican chairman, told Claude Barnes, a one-time employee of the governor, “Jim Goodrich was the best goddamn Sunday school teacher I’ve ever had” (Don Welch, interview, December 16, 1991).

[23. ]Ralph Litschert was one of Pierre’s students in the Sunday school class. He remembers playing for several summers on the Winchester Presbyterian baseball team, along with Fred Oxley, Johnny Copeland, and others, all of whom also attended Pierre’s Sunday school class (interview, November 10, 1991).

[24. ]Pierre talked often about his “backsliding” to his two secretaries, Rosanna Amos and Ruth Connolly, though he did occasionally attend church when in Winchester (Rosanna Amos, interview, December 10, 1991; Ruth Connolly, interview, October 25, 1991).

[25. ]According to Goodrich’s first cousins, Elizabeth Terry and Florence Dunn, their uncle James and aunt Cora tried to persuade Pierre and Dorothy to stay in Winchester, but Pierre had plans that he believed were too big for Winchester. The couple moved to 1529 Park Avenue, Indianapolis (Elizabeth Goodrich Terry, interview, November 16, 1991; Florence Dunn, interview, July 18, 1992).

[26. ]Anna Marie Gibbons, interview, December 22, 1992. See also “John W. Macy Retiring as Judge of Randolph Circuit Court,” Winchester (Ind.) News, December 2, 1966, p. 1, col. 2.

[27. ]Florence Dunn, interview, July 18, 1992. Florence Dunn was excited at the prospect of living again near her cousin and Dorothy. In 1921, Florence had married Francis Dunn of Marion, Indiana, who had recently graduated from Harvard. The two moved to Indianapolis, where Francis was a manager with the W. H. Gossard Company.

[1. ]For information on Goodrich’s role in the relief efforts during the Russian famine, see Benjamin D. Rhodes, “Governor James P. Goodrich of Indiana and the ‘Plain Facts’ About Russia, 1921–1933,” Indiana Magazine of History 85 (March 1989): 1–30; Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove”; Harold H. Fisher, The Famine in Soviet Russia, 1919–1923: The Operations of the American Relief Administration (New York: Macmillan, 1927), pp. 143–50; Frank Alfred Golder and Lincoln Hutchinson, On the Trail of the Russian Famine (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1927), pp. 75–89; and James K. Libbey, Alexander Gumberg and Soviet-American Relations, 1917–1933 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1977), pp. 79–84.

[2. ]Letter from Herbert Hoover to Goodrich, August 23, 1921, ARA Personnel Records, box 276, Hoover Institution.

[3. ]James P. Goodrich, “Manuscript on Various Trips to Russia, 1921–1922” (referred to hereafter as “Russia Manuscript”), James P. Goodrich Papers, box 16, chap. A, pp. 6–7, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa. James Goodrich’s personal papers (filling twenty-eight boxes) are kept at the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library. They were sent there in 1982 from the estate of Pierre F. Goodrich. Apparently, James Goodrich’s papers were placed at the Hoover Presidential Library because of the close association between Goodrich and Hoover, especially in the ARA’s Russian famine-relief effort of 1921 and 1922. Almost all of James Goodrich’s accounts of his trips to the Soviet Union are recorded in his diaries and in a three-hundred-page manuscript that he wrote later. Goodrich apparently intended to publish the manuscript but never put it into final form. Also contained in Goodrich’s materials are more than one hundred articles about his four trips to the Soviet Union from various national and international newspapers. Most of them are undated. There are several other primary source materials that are related to the ARA relief efforts. The most extensive is contained in the ARA’s records at the Hoover Institution. For a much more thorough discussion of the resource materials related to Goodrich’s various trips to the Soviet Union, see Rhodes, preface to James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” pp. 7–10.

[4. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. A, p. 6.

[5. ]Ibid., p. 7.

[6. ]Letter from Herbert Hoover to Will Hays, August 22, 1921, ARA Personnel Records, box 276, Hoover Institution.

[7. ]Williams, Current, and Freidel, A History of the United States: Since 1865, p. 420.

[8. ]A. Morozanov, “Famine in the Volga Region,” Ekonomicheskaya Zhizn, June 30, 1921, from a translation in ARA Personnel Records, box 5, folder 2, Hoover Institution.

[9. ]See “Hoover, Herbert Clark,” World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 9 (Chicago: World Book, 1989), pp. 312–15.

[10. ]Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” p. 49.

[11. ]Goodrich mentions how he spent his time on the trip from New York to England in his letter to Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes, November 2, 1921, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 24; see also “Former Governor Leaves for Russia as Member of Hoover Commission,” Indianapolis News, September 13, 1921, p. 5, col. 2.

[12. ]Letter from Wheeler to Charles Hughes, August 14, 1921, U.S. National Archives, file 861.48/1529.

[13. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. A, p. 3.

[14. ]This news was contained in a report from Admiral Mark Bristol to Secretary of State Hughes, dated July 21, 1921, which is contained in Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Russia and the Soviet Union: 1910–1929, U.S. National Archives, file 861.48/1562.

[15. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. B, p. 3.

[16. ]Goodrich, “Russia Diary,” September 30 to October 5, 1921, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 17.

[17. ]Ibid., chap. B, pp. 9–10.

[18. ]Ibid.

[19. ]Goodrich, “Russia Diary,” October 6, 1921. See also Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” p. 57.

[20. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. A, pp. 9–10. See also Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” p. 57.

[21. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. B, p. 2.

[22. ]Ibid., p. 6.

[23. ]Goodrich, “Russia Diary,” October 9, 1921; Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” pp. 59–60.

[24. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. B, p. 7.

[25. ]Ibid., pp. 7–8.

[26. ]Ibid., chap. C, p. 2.

[27. ]Ibid.

[28. ]Ibid., chap. J, p. 11.

[29. ]Ibid., chap. C, p. 3.

[30. ]Ibid., chap. C, p. 5.

[31. ]Goodrich, “Russia Diary,” October 9, 1921; Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. B, p. 8; Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” p. 60.

[32. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. C, p. 7.

[33. ]Ibid., chap. D, pp. 8–9.

[34. ]Ibid., chap. C, pp. 9–10.

[35. ]Ibid., chap. E, p. 3.

[36. ]Ibid., chap. E, p. 5.

[37. ]Ibid., chap. E, p. 5B.

[38. ]Ibid., chap. E, p. 8.

[39. ]Ibid., chap. F, p. 7.

[40. ]Ibid., chap. G, p. 3.

[41. ]Ibid., p. 4.

[42. ]Ibid., p. 5.

[43. ]Ibid., p. 5 1/2.

[44. ]Ibid., pp. 5–10.

[45. ]Ibid., chap. H, p. 3.

[46. ]Ibid., pp. 3–4.

[47. ]Ibid., p. 10.

[48. ]Ibid., p. 6.

[49. ]Letter from James Goodrich to Herbert Hoover, November 1, 1921; letter from James Goodrich to Charles Hughes, November 2, 1921. James P. Goodrich Papers, box 24.

[50. ]Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” p. 74, quoting in part from Goodrich’s letter to Hughes, November 2, 1921, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 24.

[51. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. J, p. 3.

[52. ]Ibid., chap. J, p. 8.

[53. ]Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” pp. 75–76, quoting in part from “Governor Goodrich’s Preliminary Report on Russia,” November 1, 1921, in Documents of the ARA, vol. 3, pp. 398–410, Hoover Institution.

[54. ]A brief account of Goodrich’s return is contained in an Associated Press article dated November 16, 1921, “Hoover Recalls Gov. Goodrich to Report on Russian Famine” (with no newspaper reference), James P. Goodrich Papers, box 15.

[1. ]Letter from James P. Goodrich to Herbert Hoover, n.d., Frank A. Golder Papers, box 31, ARA Personnel Records, Hoover Institution.

[2. ]Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Warren G. Harding (Washington, D.C.: Federal Register Division, National Archives and Records Service), 19:2626–27.

[3. ]Letter from Colonel Haskell to ARA, December 8, 1921, ARA Personnel Records, box 81–2, Hoover Institution.

[4. ]See For the Relief of the Distressed and Starving People of Russia, 67th Cong., 2d sess., H.R. 9458 and H.R. 9459. The bill was introduced by Joseph W. Fordney, a representative from Michigan.

[5. ]U.S. Congress, House, 67th Cong., 2d sess., Russian Relief Hearings, December 13, 1921, pp. 3–5.

[6. ]See “Finds View Supported by Report of Goodrich,” Indianapolis News, Dec. 16, 1921, p. 1, col. 3.

[7. ]U.S. Congress, Russian Relief Hearings, December 13, 1921, p. 38.

[8. ]Ibid., p. 39. See also “Congress Asked for 20 Million to Help Russia,” Indianapolis News, December 14, 1921, p. 1, col. 3.

[9. ]See “Finds View Supported by Report of Goodrich,” Indianapolis News, December 16, 1921, p. 1, col. 3.

[10. ]U.S. Congress, Senate, 67th Cong., 2d sess., December 21, 1921, p. 62.

[11. ]See “Goodrich Plea Wins America’s Aid for Russia,” Indianapolis Star, December 14, 1921, p. 1, col. 3.

[12. ]These remarks are attributed to Alexander Gumberg, a native Russian who met Goodrich at this time. Gumberg worked in the United States in furthering Soviet-American relations after the Bolsheviks took power. See James K. Libbey, Alexander Gumberg and Soviet-American Relations, 1917–1933 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1977), p. 80.

[13. ]Letter from Edgar Rickard to Walter Brown, December 30, 1921, ARA Personnel Records, box 1A/236, Hoover Institution. See also Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” p. 87.

[14. ]See Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Warren G. Harding (Washington, D.C.: Federal Register Division, National Archives and Records Service, 1922), 18:9033. Other members of the five-member Purchasing Commission included Edgar Rickard, Edward Flesh, and Donald Livingston. Rickard served as executive director of the American Relief Administration.

[15. ]“Minutes of the Meetings of the Purchasing Commission for Russian Relief” (appointed under Congressional Act 117, 67th Congress, H.R. 9458), Warren G. Harding Papers, box 568, file 156, folder 7, Manuscript Division, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, and Warren G. Harding Papers, roll 181, Manuscript Division, U.S. Library of Congress.

[16. ]These figures were given by Goodrich in late January 1922 and reported in the New York Sun. See “Relief for the Starving Millions of Russia Near: Transportation Problem Settled, Says Ex-Gov. Goodrich, Back from Three Months Sojourn in Famine Districts,” January 28, 1922 (article in James P. Goodrich Papers, box 15). For a list of dates, port of debarkation, name of steamship, port of delivery, and tonnage transported, see Warren G. Harding Papers, box 568, file 156, folder 6, Manuscript Division, Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio, and Warren G. Harding Papers, roll 181, Manuscript Division, U.S. Library of Congress.

[17. ]See Frank J. Taylor, “U.S. and Russia May Resume Relations Soon,” The Globe, December 21, 1921 (article in James P. Goodrich Papers, box 15); “Russia Looks to America (Not Food, but Resumptions of Relations, Is Big Desire),” Indianapolis Star, December 22, 1921, p. 5, col. 2.

[18. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. K, p. 1.

[19. ]Ibid., pp. 1–2. Goodrich’s report on the success of famine relief is also contained in two unidentified newspaper articles, “Millions Fed Daily and Panic Has Disappeared, Hoover Reports to Harding,” and “Goodrich is Optimistic: Returning from Russia Today to Report to Harding,” April 19, 1922, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 15.

[20. ]Goodrich recounts his efforts to get these personnel problems under control in two letters to Walter L. Brown, director of the London ARA office, dated March 6, 1922, and March 10, 1922, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 16.

[21. ]Letter from Herbert Hoover to Colonel Haskell, February 16, 1922, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 19.

[22. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. K, pp. 7–9.

[23. ]Ibid., chap. L, p. 4.

[24. ]“Rats from Russia Overrun Budapest,” New York Times, January 29, 1922, p. 3, col. 4.

[25. ]Ibid., pp. 5–6.

[26. ]Letter from James Goodrich to Warren Harding, March 24, 1922, pp. 7–8, Frank A. Golder Papers, box 31, Hoover Institution.

[27. ]Ibid., p. 8.

[28. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. M, p. 5.

[29. ]Ibid., chap. N, pp. 9–11.

[30. ]“Lenine Note on Way to U.S.,” Detroit Free Press, April 17, 1922 (article located in James P. Goodrich Papers, box 15). See also “Goodrich Leaves Moscow for America to Report to Sec. Hoover on Famine Conditions in Russia,” New York Times, April 5, 1922, p. 31, col. 3; “Goodrich Arrives in London; Is Optimistic as to Famine Conditions,” New York Times, April 12, 1922, p. 4, col. 3; “Goodrich Is Returning to U.S. to Report to Pres. Harding on Famine Conditions,” New York Times, April 19, 1922, p. 21, col. 7; “Goodrich Arrives in U.S.,” New York Times, April 20, 1922, p. 17, col. 3; and “Goodrich Reports to Harding and Hoover, Gives Formal Statement,” New York Times, April 21, 1922, p. 3, col. 1.

[31. ]J. C. Young, “Goodrich Discusses N. Lenin,” New York Times, May 21, 1922, sec. 7, p. 11, col. 1.

[32. ]“Goodrich Depicts Russia to Harding,” New York Times, April 21, 1922, p. 3, col. 1.

[33. ]Goodrich mentions his breakfast meeting with Hoover and his luncheon with Harding at the White House in a letter to Colonel Haskell, April 20, 1922, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 19.

[34. ]In Paris, Goodrich met with a Mr. Logan, who was present at the Genoa conference at the invitation of the British prime minister Lloyd George. From Logan, Goodrich learned that a clear division existed between the pragmatic Communists, who were willing to accede to the capitalist countries’ demands, and the more ideological Communists, who were unwilling to move from their original position. Goodrich’s views of political events in Russia are summarized in two letters to Hoover: May 28, 1922; and June 2, 1922, Frank A. Golder Papers, box 31. See also “Goodrich Leaves London for Moscow to Investigate Harvest Prospects,” New York Times, May 30, 1922, p. 20, col. 3; “Goodrich Arrives in Moscow,” New York Times, June 7, 1922, p. 8, col. 2.

[35. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. O, p. 1. Goodrich describes the incident in a letter to Hoover, June 19, 1922, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 24.

[36. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. O, p. 2.

[37. ]Ibid., pp. 5–7.

[38. ]Telegram from Goodrich to Hughes, June 12, 1922, Frank A. Golder Papers, box 31.

[39. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. P, pp. 6–7.

[40. ]Ibid., chap. Q, pp. 1–3.

[41. ]Ibid., p. 4.

[42. ]Goodrich details his strategy in arranging the meeting with the Soviet leaders in his letters to Hoover dated June 10 and June 15, 1922, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 2. In the latter letter, Goodrich wrote to Hoover: I have not seen any of the men of the “higher-ups” as yet. I have been getting all the information I could from the outside and will send you additional memoranda by the next courier covering a great deal of information I have received. Mr. Kamenev and Mr. Rakow by messenger indicated a desire to talk matters of a political nature. I have declined to do so. Mr. Sakaloff, counsel for the commissariat of concessions asked me yesterday if I would accept an invitation to discuss matters with the central executive committee including Trotsky and others. I told him that I would give serious consideration to an invitation of that kind. I am rather expecting it. I have been standing rather stiff on this matter because I felt that if any discussion of America’s attitude toward Russia was to be had at all it only should be with those men in authority.

[43. ]Goodrich details the events leading up to the meeting and summarizes the meeting itself in a memorandum (pp. 14–19) attached to his letter to Hughes dated June 19, 1922, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 2. The relevant part of Hughes’s note to Litvinoff states:

It is only in the productivity of Russia that there is any hope for the Russian people and it is idle to expect resumptions of trade until the economic bases of production are securely established. Production is conditioned upon the safety of life, the recognition by firm guarantees of private property, the sanctity of contract, and the rights of free labor. If fundamental changes are contemplated, involving due regard for the protection of persons and property and the establishment of conditions essential to the maintenance of commerce, this Government will be glad to have convincing evidence of the consummation of such changes, and until this evidence is supplied this Government is unable to perceive that there is any proper basis for considering trade relations. . . . The foregoing is contained in a letter from Evan E. Young, American commissioner at Riga, to United States secretary of state Charles E. Hughes, September 29, 1922, Warren G. Harding Papers, box 567, file 156, folder 2, p. 13, Manuscript Division, Ohio Historical Society, and Warren G. Harding Papers, roll 181, Manuscript Division, U.S. Library of Congress.

[44. ]See Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. R. The meeting between Goodrich and the Soviet leaders lasted three hours, according to Goodrich’s letter to Charles E. Hughes, June 20, 1922, Frank A. Golder Papers, box 31.

[45. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. R, p. 7.

[46. ]Letter from Goodrich to Hughes, June 20, 1922, Frank A. Golder Papers, box 31.

[47. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. S, pp. 5–6.

[48. ]Ibid., chap. T, pp. 1–4.

[49. ]See Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. U, pp. 1–7.

[50. ]Ibid., p. 5.

[51. ]“Refugees from Chaos: The German-Americans,” Winchester (Ind.) News-Gazette, n.d.

[52. ]“Phone Association to Hold Annual Meeting” (Goodrich reports on Russia “As I See Her”), Indianapolis News, September 19, 1922, p. 9, col. 1; see also “Goodrich Praised by Russian Newspapers for His Relief Efforts,” Indianapolis News, July 27, 1922, p. 22, col. 4.

[53. ]Contained in a clipping dated July 7, 1922, Public Ledger Bureau, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 18. See also “Goodrich Tells of Report on Russia,” Indianapolis News, n.d. (found in James P. Goodrich Papers, box 15).

[54. ]See “Washington Ends Negotiations for Inquiry in Russia,” Baltimore Sun, September 19, 1922; “1,766,118 Executed by Russian Cheka,” New York Times, n.d. (reporting article from Times of London dated September 2, 1922, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 15).

[55. ]See memorandum from J. A. Lehrs to Colonel William N. Haskell (copy to James P. Goodrich), September 9, 1922, regarding interview between Haskell and Kamenev. Letters from Haskell to Goodrich, October 9, 1922, and October 11, 1922, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 19; letter from Haskell to Walter Lyman Brown (copy to James P. Goodrich), February 20, 1923, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 20. Dozens of articles about the Soviet Union and famine relief are contained in Goodrich’s collected papers, which indicates that Goodrich stayed abreast of events in Russia after his third trip. See James P. Goodrich Papers, box 15.

[56. ]This is mentioned in a letter from Colonel Haskell to Christian A. Herter of the Department of Commerce, December 2, 1922, Frank A. Golder Papers, box 31.

[57. ]Letter from Goodrich to Hoover, January 30, 1923, Commerce Papers, box 240, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa; see also Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” p. 131.

[58. ]Warren G. Harding Papers, box 567, file 156, folder 3, Ohio State Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio, and Warren G. Harding Papers, roll 181, Manuscript Division, U.S. Library of Congress.

[59. ]See letter from Evan E. Young to Hughes, September 29, 1922; letter from Hughes to Harding, October 24, 1922, which includes Young’s letter; letter from J. O. J. Taylor, superintendent of Siberia Mission, M. E. Church, South, to Hughes, June 8, 1923; and letter from Hughes to Harding, June 12, 1923. Harding’s letter of June 15, 1923, to Hughes states: “It is very gratifying to have these expressions of approval from one [Taylor] who is in a position to properly appraise the situation in Russia.” Warren G. Harding Papers, box 856, file 156, folder 4, Manuscript Division, Ohio State Historical Society, and Warren G. Harding Papers, roll 181, Manuscript Division, U.S. Library of Congress.

[60. ]Goodrich was not present for this dinner. A list of the Russian leaders and ARA officials in attendance and a digest of the speeches given at the occasion can be found in James P. Goodrich Papers, box 16. See also Walter Duranty, “Soviet Heads Thank America for Relief,” New York Times, June 17, 1923.

[61. ]Letter from Goodrich to Harding, June 5, 1923, Frank A. Golder Papers, box 32; Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” p. 134.

[62. ]Letter from Goodrich to Rickard, August 9, 1923, ARA Personnel Records, box 288, Hoover Institution; see also Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” p. 135.

[63. ]Letter from Hoover to Goodrich, September 12, 1923; letter from Goodrich to Hoover, September 17, 1923, ARA Personnel Records, box 261 Hoover Institution; Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” pp. 135–36.

[1. ]For a thorough examination of Goodrich’s fourth and final trip to the Soviet Union, see Benjamin D. Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” pp. 140–55.

[2. ]Goodrich, “Russia Diary,” September 20, 1925, p. 85.

[3. ]Ibid., p. 9.

[4. ]Ibid., pp. 17–20.

[5. ]Ibid., pp. 51–52, 62.

[6. ]Ibid., pp. 40–50.

[7. ]Ibid., p. 69.

[8. ]Ibid., p. 74.

[9. ]Ibid., p. 78.

[10. ]Ibid., p. 80.

[11. ]Ibid., pp. 91–92.

[12. ]Ibid., pp. 102–3.

[13. ]Ibid., pp. 106–7.

[14. ]Ibid., pp. 120–22.

[15. ]Ibid., p. 120.

[16. ]Ibid., pp. 123–24.

[17. ]Ibid., pp. 126–27.

[18. ]Ibid., pp. 128–32.

[19. ]Rhodes, James P. Goodrich, Indiana’s “Governor Strangelove,” pp. 153–54.

[20. ]Letter from Goodrich to Coolidge, November 23, 1925, James P. Goodrich Papers, box 3.

[21. ]See Franklin D. Roosevelt Papers, vol. 2, pp. 471, 474–75; The Annals of America: 1929–1939, vol. 15 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1976), pp. 219–20.

[22. ]Undated and unattributed article contained in James P. Goodrich Papers, box 15.

[23. ]Goodrich addressed the Foreign Policy Association at the Hotel Astor in New York City on January 26, 1922 (see “Goodrich Addresses Foreign Policy Association,” New York Times, January 27, 1922, sec. 2, p. 1, col. 7; “Former Governor of Indiana Tells of Conditions in Russia,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 27, 1922) and the Brooklyn, New York, Chamber of Commerce on February 18, 1922 (see “Tells Brooklyn Chamber Country Requires Huge Loans to Restore Economic Conditions,” New York Times, February 19, 1922, p. 20, col. 8). Goodrich also spoke before several other groups. See “Ex-Governor Will Address Columbia Club on Sovietism,” Indianapolis Star, January 16, 1922, p. 1, col. 4; “Phone Association to Hold Annual Meeting,” Indianapolis News, September 19, 1922, p. 9, col. 1.

[24. ]Sidney Brooks, “Russia as a Hoosier Banker Sees Her,” The Independent, November 21, 1925, p. 583; “Soviet’s Fall Unlikely: Ex-Gov. Goodrich Tells Why He Thinks Russian Government Will Continue,” New York Times, January 29, 1922, sec. 7, p. 9, col. 1; “Tells President and Hoover of Economic Conditions and Result of Relief Work,” New York Times, April 21, 1922, p. 3, col. 1; “Relief for the Starving Millions of Russia Near,” New York Sun, January 28, 1922; Charles G. Ross, “Outlook for Recognition of Russia More Hopeful, U.S. Authorities Believe,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 3, 1922; “Russians Weary of War and Revolution, but Better Off Than Under Czars, Says Hoover’s Emissary After Tour of Country,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 6, 1922; “Lenin Dolls Up His Government,” Salem (Ore.) Statesman, March 24, 1922; “American Relief Memorial,” (San Antonio) Texas Express, April 24, 1922; “Goodrich Heads Mission,” China Press, August 23, 1922; “Goodrich Optimistic as to Russian Famine,” New York Times, April 12, 1922; “Lenine Note on Way to U.S.: Message Being Brought by Goodrich Expected to Help Shape Soviet Policy,” Detroit Free Press, April 17, 1922; “Relief for the Starving Millions of Russia Near,” New York Sun, January 28, 1922.

[25. ]J. P. Goodrich, “The True Communists of Russia,” Current History, September 1922, reviewed in The Freeman, October 18, 1922; James P. Goodrich, “Can Russia Come Back?” Outlook 130 (March 1, 1922): 341–44; James P. Goodrich, “Impressions of the Bolshevik Regime,” Century 104 (May 1922): 55–65; “As Goodrich Sees Russia” (review of Goodrich’s article in Century), Pittsburgh Times, May 14, 1922.

[26. ]Goodrich, “Russia Manuscript,” chap. Y, pp. 2–3.

[27. ]Ibid., p. 21.

[28. ]Goodrich writes about the NEP in “Russia Manuscript,” chap. Y, pp. 14–23. For more thorough discussions of the NEP, see Warren B. Walsh, Russia and the Soviet Union (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1958), pp. 423–33; Edward Hallett Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1923, vol. 2 of A History of Soviet Russia (New York: Macmillan, 1951), pp. 280–383; George von Rauch, A History of Soviet Russia (New York: F. A. Praeger, 1967), pp. 124–31; and Adam B. Ulam, A History of Soviet Russia (New York: Praeger, 1976), pp. 59–87.

[29. ]See “American Relief Memorial,” (San Antonio) Texas Express, April 24, 1922.