1. Ritchie P. Lowry, Who's Running This Town? Harper and Row, N.Y., 1965, pp. xviii-xxii.

2. ASF., pp. 9-22, offers a rather extensive catalogue of leading family inter-marriages up to the 1930's but the source to which one must turn for a more extended treatment and detailing of such marriages (and divorces) as well as of the private lives of the rich and near-rich is Amory, Who Killed Society? passim.; The Proper Bostonians, passim.; and The Last Resorts, Harper, N.Y., 1952, passim. Amory, an hereditary insider himself, from Boston, is a sharp if at times near-the-surface observer who encapsulates a good deal of genially corrosive social criticism in a constant flow of amusing anecdotes. His books are irreverently informative on all sorts of above-stairs details and are entertainingly readable. His central theme is that the claims to superiority of an earlier work-minded New England elite, to some extent justifiable, have given way to crass vulgarity and decadent frivolity among the latter-day metropolitan bourgeoisie, the rentier of which are largely useless to self as well as others. Amory, alienated from his hereditary class, writes of a low-life upper-class of pretended gentility, the nonfunctional elements of which are personally disoriented and indeed victimized by the possession of too much easy money. They can be looked upon as denizens of a gilt-edged slum, and observation shows that many of the rentiers behave little differently from delinquent ghetto-dwellers. Those elements of the moneyed class who do not fit into the world of corporate affairs or politics are usually thrust aside by the dominant men and given overgenerous palliative allowances or trust funds. Thereafter they dig themselves ever deeper into their tangled private hells. Dixon Wecter in The Saga of American Society, Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y., 1937, gives a much less mordant, rather superficial historical treatment of the same stratum as an example of social aspiration.

3. New York Times, December 17, 1965; 1:6.

4. Amory, Who Killed Society? pp. 59-106.

5. Ibid., unnumbered appendix. Amory lists more than 500 of these armorial families, of which Washington is genealogically listed as No. 1 and Zinzendorf as No. 521. Some families are entitled, impressively, to double registration. But, unfortunately, as Amory notes (p. 104) in the quest for a coat of arms the Fords, the Deerings "and hundreds more have tried and failed." There was once suggested, says Amory at the same place, a coat of arms for the Crane plumbing family of Chicago. "The shield was divided into four parts, including, in each section, a sink, a bathtub, etc. Over all was a hand gripping the handle of a chain--with the inevitable motto, 'Après moi le deluge.'" In St. Louis, Amory avers, the motto translates into "Après moi le Desloge" in honor of the Desloge family of the St. Joseph Lead Company. This family is credited with piously building an underground ballroom, a crypt of merriment, containing statues of many saints, leading local wits to say, "They've got every saint in there but St. Joe Lead."

6. Mills, pp. 63-68.

7. Recently at Harvard, members of the freshman class were surprised to notice that some of their number were receiving invitations to fancy-dress parties and cotillions in nearby Boston from hostesses they did not know. It was soon deduced that the invitations came to freshman who had attended private schools, with the single exception of one who had attended a public high school which was designated as an "academy." The names bad been hurriedly culled from the university directory. Here the private-school boys were singled out to meet Social Register daughters, presumably with a view to future correct matchmaking, although it may be that the mothers in charge simply reasonably wanted to be sure the unknown male guests knew correct social deportment and dress. This rough screening process would miss any future Alfred P. Sloans and similar uncut diamonds. But statistically the hostesses were on the right track. The incident serves to show how private-school status can be socially determining in unexpected ways.

8. Mills, pp. 58, 64-69, 106-7.

9. Amory, Who Killed Society? p. 212.

10. Ibid., p. 370.

11. Ibid., p. 211.

12. Ibid., p. 206.

13. Ibid., p. 198, and E. Digby Baltzell, The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy and Caste in America, Random House, N.Y., 1964, passim. Professor Baltzell delves thoroughly into this facet in various parts of his masterly analysis. Through the metropolitan clubs, it is Baltzell's thesis, there is imposed a caste rule from the top of American society. This society, indeed, is bounded by caste at top and bottom; the bottom caste, as shown in Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma, Harper and Bros., N.Y., 1939, consists of the Negro. The top caste is voluntary, the bottom caste involuntary. In between, induced reactive castes emerge, although there is a parallel stratified class society, as many sociological analyses show. This is not a simple Marxian stratification of capitalists and proletarians but a much more complex kind, with factions within classes and castes. What gives the whole at times a Marxian appearance is that none of the classes below the top sliver own productive property to any appreciable extent. But the caste structure includes more than Negroes and upper propertied elements; for the whites who are most active in holding Negroes down (mostly southerners), present themselves as an anti-Negro caste. Their claim to distinction is solely that they are not Negroes; their castemark is the lightness of their skin. Again, the propertied caste at the top has its own supporters, who accept its values, and these function as a subcaste. Jews are themselves forced into a castelike mold by exclusion. The United States, in other words, is not only a great deal more like the Banana Republics than it likes to think itself; it is also a great deal more like India, one of the most backward nations in the world, than most of its citizens suspect. Despite trumpetings about equality it is both a caste society and a class society, with emphasis upon the negative features of both. Ideologically derived propaganda, however, presents it to its own people and to the world as an egalitarian or opportunitarian society.

14. Baltzell, p. 84. Professor Baltzell sketches in some detail the Dillon background, pp. 83-86, and the difficulty the recent secretary of the treasury had in getting into the caste-iron Chevy Chase Club in Washington particularly.

15. Ibid., pp. 35-37.

16. John Slawson and Lawrence Bloomgarden, The Unequal Treatment of Equals: The Social Club . . . Discrimination in Retreat, Institute of Human Relations, AJC, N.Y., 1965, 20-21.

17. As to the case of the Merchants Club see Benjamin Epstein and Arnold Forster, Some of My Best Friends..., Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, N.Y., 1963, p. 34. Concerning the Duquesne Club, see Baltzell, pp. 362-63.

18. Osborn Elliott, Men at the Top, Harper and Brothers, N.Y., 1959, pp. 166-67.

19. Baltzell, p. 365.

20. Ibid., p. 367.

21. Ibid., p. 137.

22. Ibid., pp. 7-8.

23. Ibid., p. 7.

24. Ibid., pp. 362-68.

25. Elliott, pp. 164-71.

26. The University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center, Discrimination Without Prejudice: A Study of Promotion Practices in Industry, Ann Arbor, 1964, p. 1.

27. Vance Packard, The Pyramid Climbers, McGraw-Hill Book Company, N.Y., 1962, p. 36.

28. Ibid., p. 37.

29. Pinpoint studies and magazine commentaries thereon are as follows: Report of the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Jewish Committee on the Relations of Jews to Major Life and Fire and Casualty Companies in Philadelphia, June 25, 1965, shows that in 6 companies under scrutiny, of 187 senior officers only 1 was Jewish and of 109 directors only 1 was Jewish; with respect to 10 companies, out of 81 officers in 73 departments, 2 were Jewish in one company and 1 was Jewish in another. The same pattern prevailed among junior officers. Patterns of Exclusion from the Executive Suite: The Public Utilities Industry, Institute of Human Relations, AJC, N.Y., 1963, reports that of 755 officers in the 50 utility corporations designated by Fortune as the largest, only 8 (about 1 per cent) "appear to be Jews"; 43 of the corporations appear to have no Jewish officers at all. This same report cites the fact that in 1961 less than 0.6 per cent of the officers of 6 leading banks in an eastern city were Jews. The Mutual Savings Banks of New York: A Survey of the Exclusion of Jews at Top Management and Policy Making Levels, Institute of Human Relations, AJC, N.Y., 1965, shows that 82 per cent of New York City's 50 mutual savings banks have no key Jewish officers at all, and 60 per cent have no Jewish trustees; less than 2.5 per cent of the more than 400 officers and under 3.5 per cent of the approximately 750 trustees are Jews. Yet almost 25 per cent of the population of New York City and 50 per cent of its college graduates are Jewish! See also: Lewis B. Ward, "The Ethics of Executive Selection," Harvard Business Review, March-April, 1965; "Invisible Persuader on Promotions," Business Week, December 12, 1964; and "How Does Religion Influence job Choice?" Business Week, April 17, 1963. A more recent study by the American Jewish Committee of the 50 largest American commercial banks found that Jews, who in popular myth are monopolists of banking, hold only 1.3 per cent of senior officer positions and 0.9 per cent of middle-management positions; but in New York City with its very heavy Jewish population Jews hold only 0.6 per cent of senior officer positions (New York Times, September 2, 1966; 40:5-6).

30. New York Times, November 14, 1965; 85:3.

31. Cited by Baltzell, p. 43.

32. Ibid., pp. 40-41.

33. Amory, Who Killed Society? pp. 544-51.

34. Dana, p. 162.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid., p. 163. Dana erroneously spells the name "Bartou."

37. Ibid., pp. 163-64.

38. Ibid., pp. 196-240.

39. Elliott V. Bell, "The Decline of the Money Barons," in We Saw It Happen, edited by Hanson W. Baldwin and Shepard Stone, Simon and Schuster, N.Y., 1938, pp. 135-37.

40. Nevins, p. 269.