He decided to try a different approach. The next time hefound some of the workers not wearing their hard hat， he askedif the hats were uncomfortable or did not fit properly. Then hereminded the men in a pleasant tone of voice that the hat wasdesigned to protect them from injury and suggested that it alwaysbe worn on the job. The result was increased compliance with theregulation with no resentment or emotional upset.
You will find examples of the futility of criticism bristling on athousand pages of history. Take， for example， the famous quarrelbetween Theodore Roosevelt and President Taft—a quarrel thatsplit the Republican party， put Woodrow Wilson in the WhiteHouse， and wrote bold， luminous lines across the First WorldWar and altered the flow of history. Let’s review the facts quickly.
When Theodore Roosevelt stepped out of the White Housein 1908， he supported Taft， who was elected President. Then7 ·
Theodore Roosevelt went off to Africa to shoot lions. When hereturned， he exploded. He denounced Taft for his conservatism，tried to secure the nomination for a third term himself， formedthe Bull Moose party， and all but demolished the G.O.P. In theelection that followed， William Howard Taft and the Republicanparty carried only two states—Vermont and Utah. The mostdisastrous defeat the party had ever known.
Theodore Roosevelt blamed Taft， but did President Taft blamehimself？ Of course not， With tears in his eyes， Taft said： “I don’tsee how I could have done any differently from what I have.”
Who was to blame？ Roosevelt or Taft？ Frankly， I don’t know，and I don’t care. The point I am trying to make is that all ofTheodore Roosevelt’s criticism didn’t persuade Taft that hewas wrong. It merely made Taft strive to justify himself and toreiterate with tears in his eyes： “I don’t see how I could have doneany differently from what I have.”
Or， take the Teapot Dome oil scandal. It kept the newspapersringing with indignation in the early 1920s. It rocked the nation！
Within the memory of living men， nothing like it had everhappened before in American public life. Here are the bare factsof the scandal： Albert B. Fall， secretary of the interior in Harding’scabinet， was entrusted with the leasing of government oil reservesat Elk Hill and Teapot Dome—oil reserves that had been setaside for the future use of the Navy. Did secretary Fall permitcompetitive bidding？ No sir. He handed the fat， juicy contractoutright to his friend Edward L. Doheny. And what did Dohenydo？ He gave Secretary Fall what he was pleased to call a “loan” ofone hundred thousand dollars. Then， in a high-handed manner，Secretary Fall ordered United States Marines into the district todrive off competitors whose adjacent wells were sapping oil out ofthe Elk Hill reserves. These competitors， driven off their ground at the ends of guns and bayonets， rushed into court—and blewthe lid off the Teapot Dome scandal. A stench arose so vile that itruined the Harding Administration， nauseated an entire nation，threatened to wreck the Republican party， and put Albert B. Fallbehind prison bars.
Fall was condemned viciously—condemned as few men inpublic life have ever been. Did he repent？ Never！ Years laterHerbert Hoover intimated in a public speech that PresidentHarding’s death had been due to mental anxiety and worrybecause a friend had betrayed him. When Mrs. Fall heard that，she sprang from her chair， she wept， she shook her fists at fateand screamed：“What！ Harding betrayed by Fall？ No！ My husbandnever betrayed anyone. This whole house full of gold would nottempt my husband to do wrong. He is the one who has beenbetrayed and led to the slaughter and crucified.”
There you are； human nature in action， wrongdoers， blamingeverybody but themselves. We are all like that. So when you andI are tempted to criticize someone tomorrow， let’s remember AlCapone， “Two Gun” Crowley and Albert Fall. Let’s realize thatcriticisms are like homing pigeons. They always return home.
Let’s realize that the person we are going to correct and condemnwill probably justify himself or herself， and condemn us in return；or， like the gentle Taft， will say： “I don’t see how I could havedone any differently from what I have.”
On the morning of April 15， 1865， Abraham Lincoln lay dyingin a hall bedroom of a cheap lodging house directly across thestreet from Ford’s Theater， where John Wilkes Booth had shothim. Lincoln’s long body lay stretched diagonally across a saggingbed that was too short for him. A cheap reproduction of RosaBonheur’s famous painting The Horse Fair hung above the bed，and a dismal gas jet flickered yellow light.
As Lincoln lay dying， Secretary of War Stanton said， “Therelies the most perfect ruler of men that the world has ever seen.”
What was the secret of Lincoln’s success in dealing withpeople？ I studied the life of Abraham Lincoln for ten years anddevoted all of three years to writing and rewriting a book entitledLincoln the Unknown. I believe I have made as detailed andexhaustive a study of Lincoln’s personality and home life as it ispossible for any being to make. I made a special study of Lincoln’smethod of dealing with people. Did he indulge in criticism？ Oh，yes. As a young man in the Pigeon Creek Valley of Indiana， he notonly criticized but he wrote letters and poems ridiculing peopleand dropped these letters on the country roads where they weresure to be found. One of these letters aroused resentments thatburned for a lifetime.
Even after Lincoln had become a practicing lawyer inSpringfield， Illinois， he attacked his opponents openly in letterspublished in the newspapers. But he did this just once too often.
In the autumn of 1842 he ridiculed a vain， pugnacious politicianby the name of James Shields. Lincoln lamned him through ananonymous letter published in Springfield Journal. The town roaredwith laughter. Shields， sensitive and proud， boiled with indignation.