Tactful Contact With Public Officials

Many a good cause has been lost be­cause of lack of knowledge in making a tactful approach to public offi­cials, or of conduct becoming in the presence of such officials. It is not al­ways that men in official position are as charitable and forgiving in spirit as was King Charles II of England on one occasion, in dealing with William Penn, the Quaker. It is stated that—

"William Penn, with hat upon his head, entered the palace chamber of the king, and said: 'Hello, friend Charles! How is it with thee this morning?' Whereupon King Charles politely removed his own hat and said: 'Very well, friend Penn. I remove my hat in deference to thee, as it is the custom of the court of England that only one hat shall be worn in the pres­ence of the king."

There was a time when such a dis­courteous act in the presence of the king would usually have meant impris­onment or death; and while such se­vere punishment is not to be feared in our own day, yet it is a fact that many people defeat the very objectives they desire to gain because of failure to make favorable contacts with the officials to whom they appeal in a right­eous cause. The Good Book teaches us to be courteous and show deference to those in authority. Even though the public official in office may not personally be worthy of honor or respect as a man, yet it is proper to honor and respect the office he oc­cupies, acknowledging him as the representative of the state, and there­fore as "the minister of God to thee for good."

To approach public officials from whom we desire to obtain favor or redress for grievances with a haughty or self-important spirit, is to ruin all prospects of success. We should ap­proach them in the same humble spirit that actuates the lover in appealing to the fair maiden whose heart he hopes to win. We must be as tactful as a Franklin, as courteous as a Wash­ington, and as diplomatic as a Ches­terfield—and sincere withal. It is es­sential to study and imbibe these de­sirable traits of character in order to win our way into the hearts of men.

There is nothing that serves as a greater test of a man's metal than, when speaking before a legislative committee, to have the members of the committee begin to ask all kinds of perplexing and even foolish ques­tions. The natural inclination is to retort with sharp and witty replies, which will tend to silence the ques­tioner or make him appear foolish in the eyes of the committeemen. But such a course would be a fatal mis­take. It is wise to assume that the inquirer is seeking information, and desires to have all points of the ques­tion at issue fully developed and brought out in the record of the hear­ing; therefore a straightforward an­swer should be given to all questions, whether sincere or otherwise.

At a. Congressional hearing on a Sun­day bill, one of the speakers opposing the Sunday bill manifested consider­able impatience because of being re­peatedly interrupted by questions. Finally, he strenuously objected to any further questioning from the members of the committee, and appealed to the judgment of the people attending the hearing as to his being subjected to in­sult by such interruption with ques­tions. This was a mistake on his part, and the chairman of the committee po­litely informed him accordingly, and said, "It is the duty of this committee to get all the information we can upon this subject. We reserve the right to ask any question and as many ques­tions as we desire, and we will ask them when and where we will, if, in our judgment, you fail to make clear the subject matter you are discussing. If you do not want us to question you, you would better not appear before this committee."

When appearing before an official body of men, a speaker should be pre­pared to have his speech all shot to pieces, and no matter how insulting or tantalizing the questions may be, he must manifest patience, Christian for­bearance, and the dignity of a gentle­man. If the members of the committee twist the meaning of the statements which have been made, and seek to trap one by cross-questioning and un­fair tactics, this should not be allowed to cause the speaker to appear an­noyed or flustered. Do not attempt to stand doggedly upon individual rights, but in a friendly, good-natured way, appeal to fair play and common justice for an unbiased consideration of the is­sues involved. It is seldom the case that the majority of a legislative com­mittee will permit an intolerant mi­nority to take unjust advantage, even if the majority do not themselves agree with the speaker.

It is well to ascertain, as far as pos­sible, the attitude of the committee members, and be able to detect who are for and who are against the posi­tion to be maintained. If the speaker's friends on the committee begin to ask him leading questions, he should recog­nize in these questions that they con­sider that he has gone afield on his subject, and should take his cue from the questions, and follow the lead which his friends on the committee have given him in this manner. Time and again I have seen the speaker just give a passing notice to these leading questions, and then take up the former argument from which his friends had endeavored to divert him.

If there are Catholics on the com­mittee, the speaker would be most un­wise to refer to the mistakes of the Catholic Church in church and state affairs during the Dark Ages, for such a course would be sure to alienate their sympathies for the cause represented. Under such circumstances, it is best to confine the arguments to funda­mental principles and to national and Christian ideals as opposed to un-Chris­tian methods.

In all contact with public officials, the Saviour's admonition, "Be ye there­fore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves," is especially applicable.

Takoma Park, D. C.