Fordham University - Maroon Yearbook (New York, NY)
- Class of 1915
Page 1 of 44
Pages 6 - 7
Pages 10 - 11
Pages 14 - 15
Pages 8 - 9
Pages 12 - 13
Pages 16 - 17
Text from Pages 1 - 44 of the 1915 volume:
1915 Class Chronicle
N the autumn of 1911, the class of 'IS received a flying start from the, hands of Fr. Farley, '94, and has been going ever since at a whirlwind pace. Let it be said right here that if any one man more than another deserves thanks for fostering a great class-spirit, for forwarding all our projects, for encouraging andv bringing out whatever talents were in the fellows, and for lending his moral support even after passed out of his domain, that man is Fr. Farley, and we take this occasion for publicly expressing our gratitude to him. As said before, we got off to a flying start, Walter Lynch being elected president and a class-team immediately formed. Victory perched on our banners and it was our freshman team that won the interclass football championship of the college. Ed Betowski came down from Waverly and set the Monthly humming with some really poetic contributions, and Fred Palomba celebrated his advent to Fordham by capturing the long distance swimming championship of the Bronx River. Ed Moore, fresh from Morris High, broke all records at rapid translation, and John Dahlgren, ex '15, smashed all records at rapid fire conversation, even talking the veteran Coates off his feet. During the temporary absence of Fr. Farley that year, the vigorous Fr. Fitzpatrick pounded the Greek language into us with his ponderous Hellenic Lexicon, and Fr. Judge endeavored to rap the knowledge of English verse into the head of the present writer with the leg of a chair. In the Christmas play, Paul Lannin donned the regal robes of King Rene; in the spring farce half
the class had492
The Fordham Monthly
the cast was made up of Freshmen Thespians; three out of a possible six, Sam Taylor, Walter Black and Walter Lynch, represented “1915” in the varsity prize debate; and again, when the Oratorical contest came off, four out of the eight contestants were members of the Freshman class. Not bad, eh ? However, we bore our honors with becoming modesty, and did not lord it over the rest of the college too much, for fear we might excite their envy.
Sophomore, 1912-1913. Under the careful tutelage of Fr. Taaffe and Fr. Johnson, ,the class of T5 progressed swimmingly through its year in oratory, while Fr. OXaughlin gave us safe conduct through the intricacies of a course in Mechanics, and gave the present writer the benefit of the doubt in the exam. A large number of new-comers, mainly recruited from St. Francis Xavier’s, now came into the class, and at the same time from out the wild and wooly fastnesses of Colorado, Douds arrived, shaggy and unshorn, to bring eternal joy to the heart of Duffy. At the first class meeting, Walter Black was elected president, and in this same conclave Paddy Macaulay proved conclusively his right to the title of King of the Mexican Athletes. Pete Dooling now pinch-hitted his way into fame and glory; Harry Kane broke a leg, hook-sliding for Alma Mater; and Dominic Puleo fractured a rib over a joke in the Epodes of Horace. The Class Dinner was held in April at the Hotel Knickerbocker; the class elections for offices in the coming school-year were held in the following month. After a tumultuous meeting in which the contention was so uproarious as to sitmmon the Prefect of Discipline from the other side of the Quadrangle, and after a long-drawn-out dead-lock in which the vote was tied twice, Lester Patterson was elected president of the coming Junior class.
Junior, 1913-1914. The genial Fr. Mahony next took a hand and put us through our paces in Philosophy; and while Fr. Burke endeavored to throw light on the dark spots in High Finance, Fr. Murphy made History not only agreeable but possible after luncheon. During the autumn, Walter Lynch gave a notable performance of “Prince Hal” in ‘‘Henry IV,” and Paddy Macaulay showed us what a good character actor he could be as “Worcester,” id what a wretched pool-player he was when he tackled a certain Senior. However, J. Shawe Mclver retrieved the reputation of the class by winning the pool-playing championship of Fordham. In the early part of November Dineen and Macaulay stumped for1915 Class Chronicle
the Democratic Mayoralty candidate. The Fusionists won. Under the auspices of the Alumni, the Fordham From took place in February, managed from its business side by the Juniors. For the first time the Prom was staged in the Grand ball-room of the Astor and this venture made it the greatest social and financial success that this dance has ever been. In April, the Junior class held its banquet at the Martinique, and in the same month Pete Dooling broke a leg sliding to first in the Cornell game. During the month of May, Patterson was again elected class president, the Juniors gave the only public specimen circle given in Fordham, and as a grand finale a battle royal was staged, in which Bob Murray, Lester "Patterson, Jim Duffy, John Douds, and Reggie Mendes endeavored in a friendly way to dismember each other. No decision was given, but Duffy seemed to have the best of it.
Senior, 1914-1915. Fr. Hill took care of us in our Senior year, and if it were permitted us to characterize him in the less elegant speech of colloquialism, we would call him a “good fellow ’ a “prince ' Mr. Kelly undertook, in his own illuminative and interesting manner, to show us the way the stars go. We hate to brag, but the way we have gone through this Senior year is a shame. A Senior won the debating medal in the person of Paddy Macaulay, a Senior won the Preliminary Peace Contest—Walter Lynch. A Senior, Walter Black, won the Oratorical Contest; and it was a trio wholly composed of ’15 men that defeated the Varsity Debating Team of C. C. N. Y. On the gridiron, Rice gave a rare exhibition of Celtic pluck, Kane dazzled with his spectacular end-runs, and Conklin went down to Georgetown and out-gamed and out-played a man twice his size. On the ball field, it was Kane again who “pulled” a “Jack Murray” in the game with Notre Dame, and who, at West Point, ran far back into the outfield, leaped five feet in the air, and tore a chunk out of the azure emphyrean in a frantic and successful attempt to spear one of Coffin’s stinging homers. Eddie Egan bore off the Tango Championship to demonstrate our supremacy in the field of fine arts, and Paul Lannin’s Portrait of a Philosopher Contemplating a Square Meal was admitted for exhibition in the Royal Academy. In theatricals, we had Paddy Macaulay playing the part of “Orsino” in such a way as to make Hackett turn green with envy; we had a supernumerary force recruited entirely from the Senior class; and in the spring play we had Harry Crocker doubling as a scene-shifter between the acts and as a galley-slave494
The Fordham Monthly
during the action of the play, an extraordinary feat, now that the days of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” are past.
.However, extraordinary feats are nothing to the class of T5. Were it not that the chronicler of these deeds is cramped for time and writing this article under pressure, he would fill reams upon reams of paper in the recountance of the glories of ’15, he would write till his fingers became numb with exhaustion and his eyelids wagged with tiredness. But it is not given him thus to fatigue himself, and the eager public must rest content with this meagre retailing of '15's accomplishments. To some this article may seem a manifestation of pavonian conceit and blatant braggadocio. If by conceit is meant a correct estimation of self, if by braggadocio is meant the showing forth of shining deeds that have too long been hidden from the public view by the bushels of an ill-advised modesty and a blush fully reticent nature,—we plead guilty. “Let your light shine before man,” saieth the Scriptures. We always obey the Scripture. Behold then the class that broke two legs in the cause of Varsity baseball; that spilt much life-gore, shattered many molars, and sustained a multiplicity of contusions and abrasions in order that Alma Mater might be triumphant on the gridiron! Behold the class that knew no Vanquisher! Behold the class that was the backbone of the Monthly, the class that ever took the lead in Dramatics! First in Debate! First in Oratory! First in----------
We were going to perorate, but we just recalled an incident which involves a compliment of which we are most justly proud. On a certain day in spring a year or so ago, the boys of a co-edu-cational high school came up to play the Prep; the girls came up to lend their moral support. At that time we happened to be busy in our scientific researches in the laboratory, and thus lost the opportunity to see the game. It was all over just when we finished, and as we streamed out of the Science Building, little cries of admiration and amazement issued from the fair co-eds. And at the very moment when we the class of 1915 were passing into the Gym, I heard her who was evidently the leader of this vast bevy of females cry out in awe-struck tones: “Ah, so bright,—so good,— so bkautifui, !”
Cyrii, B. Egan, ’15.Columbia
AIL, goddess fair,
O'er freedom's land presiding. Midst happy folk abiding,
Beneath thy rule, no curse Of war can hurrid trumpet blare, Nor wrinkled care Oppress us.
Oh, guide our destiny aright; Bless us
With all prosperity;
Nor with temerity
Let any foe assail our might!
E. R. M., 15.Demammonizing the Country
ACH century has had its special aims and individual aspirations and one might say its providential work. In ours, attention has been directed to imminent social problems and its mission seems to be to seek a permanent peace in the formidable struggle existent today between the world of capital and the world of labor. The great working class of the country has finally grown impatient at the conflict and has demanded that it cease. And so to-day we are face to face with one of the most important questions of the time, a question which has divided nations, whose answer has been vainly sought in bloodshed and revolution, bringing in their wake a series of consequences that threatened the stability of law and order. Philosophers, philanthropists and economists ascribe the social unrest of the times to the accumulation of great wealth on the part of a few and a consequent depreciation of the necessities and comforts of life to the millions of the workers of the country.
We do not decry the possession of wealth in itself. We recognize in every man, be he pauper or millionaire, the right to private property, a right that is come to him not through legislation, not through the common consent of the people, but a right that is born in him and is as firmly and as deeply rooted in his soul as is his natural right to life. Wealth in itself is not intrinsically wrong. The evil lies in the methods of accumulation and the means of disposal, for the same natural law that justifies the possession of a single dollar justifies the possession of a million. It is the mammoth fortunes, accumulated by wrongful means, by fraud, trickery and chicanery, by the underpayment of employee, by an unnecessary increase in the prices of the necessities and comforts of life; fortunes that are used to defeat the ends of justice and secure special privileges to the few, that to-day stand forth as the peril of the classes. W'hen such wealth, accumulated by a few, becomes so great that it is detrimental to the common good and defeats the end of society, then that wealth is excessive and should be circulated.
On all sides we see the evils of excessive wealth. It has cleft the country in twain. The facts are patent to all. Year after year the rich have become richer, and the poor poorer, until to-day theDemamtnonizing the Country
wealthy and the indigent practically constitute the two classes of the country. Between the two the gorge of separation is steadily becoming wider and wider. By the poor we do not simply mean those who are in poverty, those who are without even the necessities of life, but we mean those thousands who are living from hand to mouth, the thousands we see going to and from their daily work, receiving a wage that does not enable them to adequately provide for that time in their lives when they can no longer toil. These are the poor of the country and their number is steadily increasing. It is true, perhaps, that there is still a middle class, but just so surely as that class has decreased in the past, so under similar circumstances will it continue to decrease. This condition cannot long continue. Men will not always quietly acquiesce in social conditions that enable the few to live in affluence, luxury and ease, while the masses of the people cannot adequately provide for the future. History repeats itself and the history of India, Greece, Rome and Judea should stand as a lasting warning to all America. What greater misery and tyranny than among the castes of India, what greater social inequalities than among the ancient Greeks; what greater class distinctions than between the patricians and plebeians of Rome—all the fruits of the unjust accumulation of great fortunes by the few? In our own country to-day we have practically these same castes, the rich and the poor, we have the same great class distinctions and bitter class antagonism, and most of all we have among us modern Pharisees, who rob the workers in the coal fields of Pennsylvania and the iron workers of Colorado, and then in the guise of philanthrophv, establish foundations for the propagation of godless education and donate free libraries to a gullable public instead of giving decent wages to their employees.
This great estrangement of the rich and the poor will reach the breaking point. The poor see themselves deprived of the necessities and comforts of life, they do not fail to realize that through their low wages they are increasing the fortunes of their employers, while they can scarely maintain themselves. Among them is sown the seed of discontent and resentment at the injustice that is done them. They yield to the harangues of the Socialist demagogues, and are influenced by men of evil principles, who deceive them with artful promises and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and the loss of all they possess.
On the other hand, we see the enormously rich striving after498
The Fordham Monthly
greater wealth, evading the laws of the country, and totally subordinating the welfare of the community to their own individual good. They use their wealth to secure the passage of special legislation, they seek to monopolize the great commercial industries of the country and frequently, especially in the mining states of the West, the local government of a coriimunity is frustrated before the power of their wealth. The poor cannot obtain justice, and when justice is gone, violence and strife reign supreme.
Among the wealthy the desire for greater riches has made them forget that there is something greater than the riches, the pleasures and the honors of this life. Every effort they make, every thought they have is for the accumulation of greater wealth. Men have become worshippers at the shrine of Mammon; bowing down in admiration of the golden calf. Their hopes and desires are influenced by the power of the almighty dollar. The wealth they can grasp, The material prosperity they can reach are the objects of their desires and the limit of their aspirations. It creates- grave responsibilities, and occupied, as be is, with the preservation, the increase and the management of his riches, the man of wealth is wont to forget his eternal salvation. Mere earthly gains and material cares distract his attention, and all thought of the spiritual is lost to him forever.
As long as the world endures there will be some who will be unable to provide sufficiently for themselves. Until the end of time, unequalities of fortune will exist, the fatal result of the physical, intellectual and moral inequalities nature herself has established among men. These evils will never entirely disappear, but nevertheless, upon everyone of us rests the duty of mitigating them as far as lies within our power. Were men of wealth to realize that they are not the absolute owners of their riches, but merely the administrators, that their wealth belongs to God, and. they are His stewards, they would use it in accordance with the intentions of their Maker. Were they to realize that they are under a solemn obligation to better the poor and to enable them to obtain the necessities, the comforts and some of the luxuries of this life, the great social inequalities would be lessened, the bitter class antagonism woufd disappear, and the rich arid the poor would live together in the brotherhood of man and under the fatherhood of God.
Walter A. Lynch, T5.Religious Liberty in the United States
N 1620 the Puritans landed in Massachusetts. Bravely sacrificing temporal advantages on. the altar of the faith, they braved the dangers and hardship of an unknown land and established a community where they could worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. To them was given a great opportunity. In a world torn by religious strife they could have risen to the height of a great principle,—the principle of religious freedom. But such a broad liberalism was contrary to the spirit of the time. It was an age when intolerance was regarded as a virtue by all sects. To bum or banish heretics was a sacred duty. Heretics, when they secured power, were no less hostile to their former orthodox persecutors. The Puritans were content to rest on the plane of universal bigotry.
In 1636 Roger Williams was cited before the General Court of Massachusetts for preaching the doctrine of liberty of conscience. Thus the odium theologicum, the curse of Europe, was introduced on the virgin soil of the new continent.
Roger Williams was exiled from Massachusetts, and in midwinter lie journeyed through the primeval forests to Rhode Island, where he unfurled the banner of religious liberty and established a state where he and all men might worship God according to the dictates of their consciences. No such land had previously existed in the wrhole civilized world.
Roman Catholics and Quakers were especial objects of persecution in England, and, quite naturally, they turned to the new world as a place of refuge. Lord Baltimore, a devout Catholic, by reason of his high official position, and being in the good graces of James I, succeeded in obtaining a charter for Maryland, which embodied a very broad conception of toleration. The Quakers, likewise, under the leadership of William Penn established religious freedom in the colony of Pennsylvania. In Rhode Island, Maryland, and Pennsylvania therefore was first evidenced the spirit that was to become a500
The Fordham Monthly
great American ideal,—a free Church in a free state. All the other colonies either had an established Church or prescribed certain religious tests.
In Virginia, where the Anglican Church was established as firmly as in England, the agitation for the overthrow of state churches on the American continent was first begun and successfully effected. That great apostle of liberty, Thomas Jefferson, led the fight for the repeal of the obnoxious laws relating to religion. He was ably supported by James Madison and Patrick Henry and, finally, the problem of religious liberty was solved. “Opinion,” said Mr. Jefferson, “is something with which government has nothing to do. . . . it is error alone which needs the support of government; truth can stand by itself.”
The action of Virginia in establishing religious liberty, together with the arguments contained in Jefferson’s “Notes on Virginia,” undoubtedly had tremendous weight in the Federal Convention which assembled in May, 1787, in Philadelphia, for the purpose of framing the Constitution. Virginia at that time was one of the most powerful states. Moreover, the statesmen who framed our Constitution knew well the history of other governments. The difficulties of the colonies in religious matters were clearly before them. They determined to found a government in which the greed and selfishness of sects would be curbed, and freedom of opinion allowed to all. They, therefore, enacted that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” A resolution introduced by Pinckney that “The legislature of the United States shall pass no laws on the subject of religion,” failed of adoption. Many were uneasy at this, and, when ratifying the Constitution, three states, New Hampshire, New York and Virginia, urged the adoption of an amendment similar to the rejected proposal.
The conventions held in the several states to ratify the Constitution reflected the prevailing opinion on the question of religious tests. Those states which required such tests opposed their exclusion. It was feared by some that the Federal Government “might pass into the hands of Roman Catholics, Jews, or infidels.” It was seriously urged that, as the Constitution stood, the Pope of Rome might become President of the United States, and a pamphlet setting forth that objection was circulated. In the North Carolina Constitutional Convention, James Iredell, who was the leader of theReligious Liberty in the United States
Federalists and was afterward by President Washington appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court, referring to the subject, said:
"I met by accident with a pamphlet this morning, in which the author states there is a very serious danger that the Pope might be elected President. I confess this never struck me before, and if the author had read all the qualifications of a President, perhaps his fear might have been quieted. No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President I know not all the qualifications for Pope, but T believe he must be taken from the College of Cardinals, and probably there are many previous steps necessary before he arrives at this dignity. A native American must have very singular good fortune who, after residing fourteen years in his own country, should come to Europe, enter Romish orders, obtain the promotion of Cardinal, afterward that of Pope, and at length be so much in the confidence of his country as to be elected President. It would be still more extraordinary if he should give up his popedom for our presidency.”
Most of the states, however, felt that the Constitution did not go far enough, and they proposed amendments guaranteeing re-ligious freedom and other fundamental rights. Massachusetts strongly opposed the abolition of religious tests, while Virginia and Rhode Island just as strongly demanded a more explicit guarantee against the establishment of religion.
The first Congress held under the new Constitution passed twelve amendments and sent them to the legislatures of the several states for ratification. The first of these is the clause, "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” James Madison of Virginia urged on Congress the duty of removing all apprehension of an intention to deprive the people "of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled.”
Our Federal Constitution, therefore, proclaims religious liberty as a fundamental right of everyone, be he citizen or alien. Thus502
The Fordham Monthly
the American people were the first to separate political government from ecclesiasticism. In the words of a great American statesman, Thomas F. Bayard:
“Religious liberty is the chief corner-stone of the American system of government, and provisions for its security are imbedded in the written charter and interwoven in the moral fabric of our laws. Anything that tends to invade a right so essential and sacred must be carefully guarded against, and I am satisfied that my countrymen, ever mindful of the sufferings and sacrifices necessary to obtain it, will never consent to its impairment for any reason or under any
pretext whatever 7
The experience of our nation shows that neither Church or State are benefitted by being united. They both flourish best in an atmosphere of absolute freedom.
The bigot is still amongst us, ready to fan the flame of prejudice. But his task becomes increasingly difficult with the passing years. For toleration is always advancing. Lecky has expressed it thus: “In one age the persecutor burnt the heretic; in another he crushed him with penal laws; in a third he withheld from him places of emolument; in a fourth he subjected him to the excommunication of society. Each stage of advancing toleration makes a stage in the decline of the spirit of dogmatism and of the increase of the spirit of truth.77
It is our duty to remain true to the ideal that actuated the founders of the Republic,—the ideal of religious freedom. The right to choose his religion is sacred to everyone He that would deny that right is an enemy to true religion and to true democracy.
John Francis Curran, 715.Unemployment: A Peril of the Masses
T has been said, and we are prone to gloat upon the phrase, that we are living in an age of progress. But have we asked ourselves what this word “progress” means? Does it mean advance in civilization? If it does, somehow or other I can not seem to forget that over there across the Atlantic, eleven of the greatest nations of the world are locked in a death-struggle. Or does it mean improvement in social conditions? Do you know that the very problem we are discussing this evening, that cancer which is eating its way right into the heart of our social system and threatens its very existence, was more successfully dealt with in the far-away Middle Ages which we modems are apt to deride, than at any other time before or since? Among the ancients, constant warfare used up all the men; there were no unemployed. Rome fed them, and perished amid the ruins of her paternalism. But in the centuries that followed the long arm of the Church, through the agency, of the guilds and monasteries, kept the poor from want, and it was not until the searing brightness of the Renaissance and the all-devouring flame of the Reformation swept away the so-called darkness of Medievalism, that unemployment once more became a problem—a problem which no state has solved.
For the sake of convenience, we may divide the vast army of our unemployed into three general classes: those who are physically unable to work; those who arc unwilling to work; and those who are unable to get work. The first class, those who are physically unable to work, give us but little trouble', for the great majority of the individuals composing it are cared for at home, the other members of the family contributing to their support; and it is only when the family finds itself unequal to the burden thus imposed upon it that any obligation devolves upon the state.
The second class presents a real problem: what are we going to do with all those unfortunates the only reason for whose unemployment is that they will not work ? Obviously the state cannot be504
The Fordham Monthly
expected to support them, for that would be taxing industry to put a premium on idleness. It is equally obvious that something must be done, for it is the voluntary vagrant who swells the ranks of the criminal class and populates our jails and prisons. What then are we to do? The only practical remedy is to go behind the actual condition and remove the causes that produce it What are the causes? First in our catalogue, we have heredity. While it must ever remain a fundamental principle in our study that neither heredity nor any other circumstance can ever become a determining cause in the formation of a man's character, yet it must be admitted that mentally and morally, as well as physically, the child is affected by the disposition of the parents. Probably, in ninety-nine cases out of every hundred, not heredity strictly so-called but early association and training, or rather lack of training, is what produces the effect. The child of shiftless, work-avoiding parents is seldom found to possess an overpowering desire for hard manual labor.
In this connection, there are two other causes that we might mention: one, the fact that the parents of the poorer class, sometimes through necessity, often through negligence, allow too great a degree of liberty to their young; the other, that owing in some cases to the inability of the older members of the family to earn a living wage, and in others to the greed of father or older brothers, small children are forced to work inhuman hours at tasks Nfar beyond their strength. Too much freedom means opportunity to make bad companions and worse habits, to learn the ways of the yegg-man and the drug fiend, and all too often results in the luckless youth's becoming one of those pests of our cities, the man with no visible means of support. On the other hand, too much work at an early age means the blunting of all the higher instincts in a man, the paralysis of ambition, and usually ends in a sort of dull, unreasoning opposition to all work, so strong as to be almost physically incapacitating. Another element that enters into the formation of this class is the fact -that a not inconsiderable number of unskilled laborers find it infinitely more easy to drift along with the current, eating when they can beg a meal, sleeping when they can find a place to sleep, than to work twelve or fourteen or sixteen hours a day and receive in return but the merest of pittances.
These are the most important of the causes with which we have to deal. How are we going to do it? First of all, we must inspire in the parent—as far as that is possible—a sense of responsibilityUnemployment: A Peril of the Masses 505
for his children, and show him where the dangers lie. Secondly, by compulsory industrial education, and by the total prohibition of child labor, we must provide these embryonic citizens with a fair mental and physical start in life. Again, by efficient legislation, minimum wage laws and so on, the condition of the unskilled laborer must be so improved as to be made, at least, far preferable to vagrancy. Lastly, both capitalist and laborer should be taught to respect each other's rights as men, and to hearken to the ringing words of Pope Leo XIII: “Class hatred is not necessitated by class distinction.” Not for one moment do we pretend, of course, that when we have done all this, the tramp and the gangster will cease entirely to be—it is our destiny in this life ever to strive for, never to reach, perfection; but we do maintain that their numbers will be decreased and the ranks of the criminal army depleted.
Now we come to the third and last class, those who though able and willing to work, are unable to find a market for their labor. It is this class that constitutes the greatest menace to the community. Lully thirty per cent, of the trained male wage earners in the Eastern seaboard states are out o f work, and this proportion is increasing geometrically. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company reports 357,000 unemployed in New York City alone, and Mr. Sears, director of the Public Employment Bureau, has stated that in his opinion the number of people out of work reaches 500,000.
Besides this, there are at all times hundreds of thousands of men,
who though actually employed, are at any moment likel)r to lose their means of sustenance. Think what that means! Perhaps you have seen the haunted look in the eyes of some poor fellow who has struggled along for years in constant fear of dismissal? Then consider the conditions of a society composed of millions such as he! Caligula is said to have wished that all the people had but a single neck, so that he could slay them all with one stroke of his sword. The great capitalists of to-day have that terrible power; with a nod of the head they take away the livelihood of thousands, and cast them out to starve.
What should be the government’s attitude towards these unfortunates ? Undoubtedly, in extreme cases aid should be forthcoming, but it is a dangerous thing to lead the mass of the people to rely on the state to provide for its necessities. It must not be forgotten that “the number of dependents tends to increase in direct ratio to the aid they count upon receiving and that once the government be-Rev. Ov en
l Clur«r on •» ,! • no ________I
Edmund J Burke. S J.
R«v Michaol J M«hO«y SJ IKlwrrr onHiU ry rt.il«.»ophy
SCOrt M. Welly. S. J. lisnr ol Ptiy«ie». Gooloyy. • no AI Iron o n v
Mr. George £ $lro iaver. S.J. PrOlmorol C h • mi itr y.
The Professors of Sf.nior YearM.
John W. ConkunJames J. CunninghamFrancis X. Dineen Cyru B. Egan
John R. FisherWilliam F. Uenrich
Paui. J. LaxninJamks L. McCormack
James S. McIver
Reginald G. MendesJohn C. Mulcahy•
Robert J. MurrayRichard
H. O’BriknLester W. Patterson
Dominic A. Puleoaawvfl a Haasof
I.:-Chari.es N. Shaffer
■WFrancis X. Ungkkland»
Suggestions in the Fordham University - Maroon Yearbook (New York, NY) collection:
Are you trying to find old school friends, old classmates, fellow servicemen or shipmates? Do you want to see past girlfriends or boyfriends? Relive homecoming, prom, graduation, and other moments on campus captured in yearbook pictures. Revisit your fraternity or sorority and see familiar places. See members of old school clubs and relive old times. Start your search today!
Looking for old family members and relatives? Do you want to find pictures of parents or grandparents when they were in school? Want to find out what hairstyle was popular in the 1920s? E-Yearbook.com has a wealth of genealogy information spanning over a century for many schools with full text search. Use our online Genealogy Resource to uncover history quickly!
Are you planning a reunion and need assistance? E-Yearbook.com can help you with scanning and providing access to yearbook images for promotional materials and activities. We can provide you with an electronic version of your yearbook that can assist you with reunion planning. E-Yearbook.com will also publish the yearbook images online for people to share and enjoy.
Material on this website is protected by copyright laws of the United States and international treaties.
No protected images or material on this website may be copied or printed without express authorization.