Evening star., 1938-10-30
ROOTS BIOGRAPHY PUBLISHED
Shakespeares Friends Are Subject of New BooUsefu Volume
Gives Household Hints Narrative Poem and Verse
Collection Are Interesting Reading.
Bv Mary.Carfer Roberts.

~ -
ELIHU ROOT BY Philip c. Jessup.
In two volumes. New York: Dodd
Mead g. Co.
We have here the life history Of that
great lawyer and statesman who, in his
time, was characterized as the ''ablest
man on this side of the Atlantic" 1t is
contained in two weighty volumes and
set down in plain pedestrian manner.
1t is impartial in setting forth the
contradictions of its subjects career,
even though it is admiring in spirit.
1t is a good biography, but it hardly
seems likely that it will become a
popular one. To students of the period
which it covers it should have an ins-
mense interest. But the general pub
lie, having been trained in recent years
to expect biographies to be lively and
personal, will find this sober and heavy
going.
The first volume covers the period
of Mr.. Roots life up to 1909. In this
period he built up brilliant law pr;.c-
tice in New York City, engaged in
ululllClpdl pOllliNdl lAioNSAAASAAeo SSAA
orally in a non-partlsan or reform
capacity, launched the young Theodore .
Roosevelt on his public career, served
as Secretary of War for Presidents
Mckinley and Roosevelt and as Secre-
tary of State for Roosevelt. The Sec
ond volume covers the period between
1905 and MIR. Roots death in 1887. In
that time he served in the Senate. went
on a special mission to Russia for
President Wilson, and acted as Anlerl-
can representative in negotiations for
our entry into the World Court. 1t is
unnecessary to say that his career,
from its early beginnings. was spent
among the Nations prominent and
great, and that to 60 through his life
is to move constantly among names
which are destined to be part Of our
lasting history.
Mr.. Jessup. in setting forth his story,
has confined himself pretty closely to
events. There is very little of the per-
sonal in the book; there is only an oc-
casional passage given over to char
acter analysis or Interpretation. The
author has taken the line, apparently,
that Mr.. Roots career speaks with
its own tongue loudly enough. On
only one point, indeed, has he gone
into a discussion of personal motives,
and that is on the subject OF Mr..
Roots differentiation between what
was possible to him in his private law
practice and what in his public service.
He defended many corporations in
his time, as the world knows, and he
also acted as counsel to them in the
formulation of their business plans.
This was during the trust busting era
of Theodore Roosevelt, when, after
series of world-famous scandals, big
business" was in questionable repute.
Mr.. Root was the Presidents closest
intimate and adviser in much OF his
crusade against the monopolies. There
fore, he found himself in the curious
position of assisting attack in public
and advising for defense in private. 1t
was a position which, more than any
other thing, has sometimes caused his
sincerity to be questioned, and Mr.
that it deserves clariflcation.
His explanation is that Mr.. Root
had highly scrupulous lawyers con-
science which bade him serve the in
terests of his clients with no reserva-
tions once he had accepted their cases.
He refused many cases. as the book
points out: he would take none in
which he felt that he was called upon
to do wrong. And once into case, he
was better able than almost any other
lawyer of his time to make the law
serve his client by every possible in
depreciation. With an array of pow
erful corporations retaining him, he
became natural target for the type
of reformer who f1ourished in that day
Yet. as Mr.. Jessup points out, his most
virulent enemy was William Randolph
Hearst, himself not wholly unstained by
unpleasant charges.
AS against this private lawyers
conscience" Mr.. Jessup asserts, Mr..
Root had an equally scrupulous con-
ceptlon of his duty in public office
The two faculties of mind, the book
assures us, were in no way contradic-
tory; they were simply separate To
public duty he brought the same mag
nitude of comprehension and the
same understanding of men as he used
in his private law practice. He did
not tolerate graft or favoritism and no
amount of political influence could
bring him to appoint men whom he
thought unfit for Office. In this con-