Eleanor Read online

  Would Mrs. Roosevelt be willing to talk with the cardinal if he called her? “Why, Ed,” replied Mrs. Roosevelt, “I’m not the one who said I would have nothing to do with the Cardinal.” She would be back at Hyde Park by six that evening, if the cardinal wanted to reach her. As Flynn said good-by, he added a final word smilingly. She should not yield on Spain, if she talked with the cardinal. “Tell him the Basque priests fought and still are fighting Franco.”16

  Promptly at 6:30 p.m. the cardinal called. He was gracious and friendly, as if they had always been on the best of terms. He had reworked the statement and would send an aide up the next morning with the revised draft, if Mrs. Roosevelt was willing.

  Agnes E. Meyer, author and journalist and wife of the publisher of the Washington Post, was a doughty scrapper for federal aid to the public schools, whose improvement was a ruling passion in her life. She had clashed frequently with the representatives of the church and knew their arguments and stratagems well. She hastily wrote Mrs. Roosevelt that if she could not avoid the interview with the cardinal, it would be a gain for aid to education if in return for her willingness to support the principle that the parochial school child is entitled to community services “such as health, welfare and even transportation since the Supreme Court agreed to it,” the cardinal would declare “categorically that the demands of the Church would never go beyond the constitutional limits.”17

  The day after the cardinal telephoned her, a monsignor appeared at Val-Kill at 9:30 a.m., “a very comfortable looking Monseigneur whose name I never did discover,” she reported to Mrs. Meyer. They worked on two statements—one the cardinal’s, the other Mrs. Roosevelt’s—that would clarify their views and which would be issued by the chancery office. The monsignor told her as they worked away that he considered “the Quebec school system one of the best in the world. If you know the province of Quebec you may feel as I do that education there is deplorable.”18

  The two texts were agreed upon. Cardinal Spellman made it clear that his proposed use of public funds for parochial schools be only for “auxiliary services,” among which, however, he included textbooks. With reference to the constitutional point, the cardinal said: “We are not asking for general public support of religious schools. . . .Under the Constitution, we do not ask, nor can we expect, public funds to pay for their construction, or repair of parochial school buildings, or for the support of teachers, or for other maintenance costs.” His letter made no direct reference to Mrs. Roosevelt, but he noted “the great confusion and regrettable misunderstandings” that had arisen on the subject of federal aid and reaffirmed “the American right of free speech which not only permits but encourages differences of opinion.”19

  The cardinal’s statement was “clarifying and fair,” Mrs. Roosevelt said in her letter. She noted the cardinal’s acceptance of the view that general public support of religious schools was prohibited by the Constitution. His statement on “auxiliary services,” she felt, made it clear that the claim for federal support of such services was not intended to breach the fundamental prohibition against public support of religious schools.

  But this was more a hope than a statement of fact. “I am more convinced than ever that they will never help us to get federal aid for education unless they think they are going to get it too for parochial schools,” she wrote Agnes Meyer. The Barden bill, which would have provided federal aid, but only to the public schools, died in committee. She predicted to Cyril Clemens, editor of the Mark Twain Quarterly, that the church would work to get as many states and as many Supreme Court decisions as possible upholding the constitutionality of state funds for parochial schools, “and in the long run they are sure if it is constitutional for states, it may be declared constitutional for federal funds to be used not only for auxiliary services but for all services equally. Once that is done they control the schools, or at least a great part of them.”20

  At the Castel Gandolfo, Pope Pius XII put his stamp of approval on the exchange of statements between the cardinal and Mrs. Roosevelt, telling five visiting American newspapermen that the dispute had been resolved satisfactorily. In doing so, commented Newsweek, “the pontiff wrote finis to one of the bitterest and potentially most explosive public controversies in years.” A few days later, Mrs. Roosevelt disclosed in her column, almost laconically, that the cardinal had dropped in at Hyde Park and stayed for tea.

  The other afternoon as I was signing mail, with side glances out of my window, and I am afraid my thoughts centered on how quickly I could get out for a swim, Miss Thompson came to my desk, looking somewhat breathless and said: “Mrs. Roosevelt, Cardinal Spellman is on the porch and he wants to see you!”

  The Cardinal had dropped in on his way to dedicate a chapel in Peekskill. We had a pleasant chat and I hope the country proved as much of a tonic for him as it always is for me.21

  One result of that friendly forty-five-minute talk was Mrs. Roosevelt’s agreement that a good argument could be made for federal aid to transport children in all free schools, a modification in her position that pained some of the more militant defenders of the First Amendment. They disagreed, however, over aid for nonreligious textbooks. Before they finished, Mrs. Roosevelt brought up another subject:

  “Sir, before you go, let me say something. There are rumors that you are opposed to Governor Lehman. My feeling is that if the figures show that the Catholic vote has gone appreciably against Lehman, it will make it impossible for any Catholic to get elected in this state for many years to come. Because a lot of liberals, Jews, and Protestants will be very resentful.” “Oh, Mrs. Roosevelt,” the cardinal assured her, “I’m not opposed to Governor Lehman! I’ll get in touch with Ed Flynn as soon as he returns to town.”22

  Lehman stopped in at Val-Kill on his way down from the Adirondacks. Although earlier in the summer Democratic leaders who were Catholics had been urging him to run for the Senate, they now were saying that if he wanted the nomination they would support him. Mrs. Roosevelt said she would find out how they really felt and make it clear that if they opposed him she would not be able to support the Democratic ticket.23

  He was given the nomination but Mrs. Roosevelt continued to worry whether the party leadership was giving him all-out support. She spotted an Associated Press story from upstate New York in which a Jesuit priest was quoted as urging Catholics to vote for candidates who would not discriminate against Catholic children. She clipped it and sent it to Flynn. “This sort of story is going to do great harm in this campaign. Can’t it be prevented?”24

  In October she wrote President Truman that she feared a Catholic defection might defeat Lehman, and she asked for his help:

  I feel a little responsible for the situation here because undoubtedly Governor Lehman’s statement against the Cardinal’s letter to me is one of the things influencing the Catholic hierarchy and there are always some Catholics who can be influenced by a word passed down to the priests. . . .25

  The administration did give Lehman all-out support, and Lehman defeated Dulles by some 200,000 votes.

  But the episode left its scars. “I don’t think the Cardinal ever forgave Herbert for supporting Mrs. Roosevelt,” commented Mrs. Lehman. As for Mrs. Roosevelt, distrust of the church as a temporal institution was one of the reasons for her strenuous opposition later to John F. Kennedy’s bid for the presidential nomination. She came away from her encounter with the cardinal, she wrote a young friend,

  with a horrible feeling of insincerity. In his visit he never once mentioned the fact that he had written me that letter and you would think I was one of his most cherished friends. That does not give me any explanation of the letter nor much sense of security in his sincerity. I think the Barden Bill was something through which they hoped to hurt my influence which has been exerted on the UN delegation against returning Ambassadors to Spain. That is the real crux of the attack.27‡

  As for the cardinal, when he was questioned by Irwin Ross eight years later as to why he had called on Mrs
. Roosevelt, he told him: “I don’t like to have any hard feelings. I want to be charitable with everybody.” And in 1966 when he traveled to Hyde Park for the dedication of a Franklin D. Roosevelt postage stamp, he said a few words over Roosevelt’s grave in the rose garden and was then observed to move over to Mrs. Roosevelt’s grave and fold his hands in prayer.

  * Macherras is “an ugly word which means a woman who tries to play the part of a man,” a UN official who sent her the clipping translated.

  † According to Warren Moscow, Flynn made a secret flight to Rome and laid the facts of the quarrel before Pope Pius XII. “Equally secretly, Cardinal Spellman was ordered to make a public gesture of friendship to Mrs. Roosevelt. . .” (The Last of the Big Time Bosses: The Life and Times of Carmine De Sapio and the Rise and Fall of Tammany Hall [New York, 1971], p. 122).

  ‡ By the beginning of 1950 she was persuaded by officials in the State Department and by Gen. T. McInerny, a lobbyist for the Spanish government who had been introduced to her by her uncle, David Gray, whose military attaché he had been in Ireland, that the UN decision to withdraw ambassadors from Spain had been a mistake and might even have strengthened Franco’s position at home. “I can, of course, see that it might be wise and helpful to the Spanish people if we resumed ordinary diplomatic and economic intercourse,” she wrote on February 12, 1950. And when at the end of the month, the United States decided to resume relations with Generalissimo Franco and moved to rescind the UN resolution on the withdrawal of ambassadors, she did not oppose the decision.

  I do not like the Franco government and I would much rather see Spain under a government that the people themselves had chosen. I also think that in passing the resolution in the United Nations General Assembly in 1946, we exceeded our authority in trying to interfere in internal affairs and therefore since so many nations are now returning ambassadors, willy nilly, I think it is probably better to rescind the resolution and let people resume ordinary diplomatic relationships which does not in any way imply approval of the government in power, since it is somewhat inconsistent to have Ambassadors in Moscow, Yugoslavia, etc., and in the Argentine and not have them in Spain.26

  8. AN AMERICAN PHENOMENON

  THE MOST SENSATIONAL NEWS OF THE DAY, SAID “THE RHAM-katte Rooster,” which was the way Josephus Daniels signed his column in the Raleigh News and Observer, came neither from Turkey nor Tibet; it was the report from Hyde Park that Eleanor Roosevelt had said, “I am tired. Let some of the youngsters carry on.” She loved his column, Mrs. Roosevelt replied. “I had been walking around with pneumonia, so it was true that I was weary. I am fine, now, however. . .”; and she did not add, for it was unnecessary, that she had resumed a schedule that once had led her husband to pray, “O Lord, make Eleanor tired.”

  “I sometimes think of quickly finishing up all the things I have to do, and then just not doing any more, but there always seem to be so many things to do.” So she told an interviewer for the New Yorker in mid-1948.1

  In addition to her duties at the United Nations, she had resumed her lecture tours under the auspices of her manager, W. Colston Leigh. She did a regular radio commentary with Anna and a television show under Elliott’s management. Her daily column appeared in newspapers ranging in number from seventy-five to ninety. She did a monthly question-and-answer page for McCall’s, to which she had moved in 1949 from the Ladies’ Home Journal. That year, too, the second volume of her autobiography, This I Remember, on which she had been working since 1946, appeared. She joined the boards of the American Association for the United Nations and of Brandeis University. She performed assorted chores for the Americans for Democratic Action, spoke frequently for the United Jewish Appeal, faithfully supported the work of the NAACP and the Citizens Committee for Children, and appeared frequently at the Wiltwyck School for Boys, usually with a celebrity or potential donor in tow.

  These were her regular jobs; but in between the fixed points that they constituted in her schedule, a swarm of invitations, requests for her aid, for her opinion, for interviews managed to proliferate. They were reflected in the sheets of messages that Tommy had for her on her desk when she returned to her apartment:

  Martin Lencer, Washington D.C. producer of documentary films called to say he is in Washington at present and Mrs. R. had said she would be interested in seeing a film of his on Juvenile Delinquency—a 30 minute film. He wonders if Mrs. R. would like him to come to meet her in New York for the purpose of showing the film or if she will be in Washington soon.

  Mr. Koons [lawyer for the Roosevelt estate] called. No message.

  Mr. Zuckerman of the Association of Private Camps called to find out what time to pick up Mrs. R. Will call again Wednesday.

  Mr. Golden called to ask if Mrs. R. enjoyed the ham. (Ham is in the refrigerator.)

  Mr. Miller, University of Chicago, called to enquire about an appointment with Mrs. R. He has a project for World Peace which he thinks will prove interesting. He was in town from 9 to 12 of Feb.2

  Another day’s messages read:

  Pare Lorenz would like to see Mrs. R. next week if he may. Any time would be suitable.

  Mrs. Lucille Sullivan called to ask for an appointment for Mrs. Alice [Nourse] Hobart, author of Oil for the Lamps of China. Mrs. Hobart will be in town between 15th and 25th of Oct.

  State Department would like to know if Mrs. R. would be good enough to interview a group of Mexicans here on Pres. Truman’s Point Four program.

  They represent the oil industry in Mexico and are the first group of this kind to come here. They will be in N. Y. from the 17th.

  Mr. Frank Beal called to ask if Mrs. R. had written the column for the St. Lawrence Seaway project. He said that now would be a good time to bring the matter up since Canada’s Premier [Louis S.] St. Laurent is talking about Canada doing the project alone.

  Allard Lowenstein will call for Mrs. R. at 9:00 Saturday.

  Mrs. Craig McGeachy Schuller will be delighted to see Mrs. R. at the Stanhope Hotel at 1:00 or 1:15 on Wed. Mrs. Eder, President of the National Council of Women will be present and also Mrs. Barclay Parsons of Women United for U.N.3

  Only occasionally were her iron constitution and even stronger will unequal to her schedule. For over a year William Bishop Scarlett and his wife, Leah, both of whom she was very fond, had been hoping to have her come to them in St. Louis. Finally it was arranged that she would speak at the Flower Service in the cathedral. But in mid-March she came down with a bad case of grippe and lost her voice and had to cancel. “Of course we are terribly disappointed, personally, ecclesiastically and botanically!” Bishop Will, as his friends called him, wrote back. “But not for anything in the world would we have you run the slightest risk. And I am glad that your doctor seems to have control of the reins.” Not everyone took disappointment as gracefully.4

  It was an unbreakable rule that engagements must be kept, equally so that letters must be answered. Late at night, just as she had done in Washington, she went over the fifty to one hundred letters that Tommy still put aside for her daily. Often now the replies she asked Tommy to draft were ones of regret:

  Thank regret will be in Geneva for a HRC meeting

  ack—regret too busy to undertake any more work

  Regret—plans for 1952 too uncertain

  ack regret never write out speeches as always talk extemporaneously

  ack regret not making any engagement which will take me away from home during summer

  regret already have all the engagements I can keep

  regret no time

  Some letters she used in her column, others she sent on to Franklin Jr. in Washington or to James in California for them to answer or, if they were related to her television program, to Elliott. Sometimes, if she knew a government official well, she sent a letter on to him or her. “Dear Anna,” she wrote Mrs. Rosenberg, who had become assistant secretary of defense under General Marshall, “I am forwarding the enclosed for whatever action you think advisable.” She did the s
ame with job applicants. “I do not have any part in the selection of personnel for the UN. I will, however, send your letter to the Director of Personnel.”

  Occasionally she was requested to ask a favor of the president. John Ihlder, of the National Capital Housing Authority, wrote reminding her that she had asked FDR to approve the first half-million-dollar appropriation for the authority, which he had done, just as, at Ihlder’s suggestion, she had asked Franklin to order an end to segregation in government cafeterias, which he also had done. Now he had a third request. He was reaching the retirement age and unless Truman signed an executive order exempting him, the services of a man who believed in public housing would be lost. Would she ask the president? She refused:

  When I asked the first two things I was asking my husband and that was different from the present situation. I am terribly sorry not to be able to do what you want but since I have left Washington, I have never made a personal request of any kind of the President. I would, however, be glad to forward to him for consideration an endorsement written by someone else but I cannot myself ask for anything.5

  There were two types of letters that she answered meticulously—questionnaires, because they challenged her to make up her mind, and inquiries from children. They were studying the lives of outstanding people, Louise Peters of Vermont wrote her in a child’s labored scrawl. “Perhaps when you were in the fourth grade you started developing habits that helped to make you the successful person that you are today. . . .” “Dear Louise,” she replied. “I am sending you a copy of a letter my father wrote to me when I was a little girl. I hope you will like it as much as I did.” “Dear Werner,” she wrote a high-school editor who wanted to do an article on the responsibilities of citizenship, “you need not be destined for a career in law or government to be policy makers. Each and every vote at every election counts as does each letter written to a Congressman or Senator or even newspaper.”