Characterizations of C* Algebras: The

Gelfand Naimark Theorems First

Edition Robert S. Doran
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/characterizations-of-c-algebras-the-gelfand-naimark-t
heorems-first-edition-robert-s-doran/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Philosophy of History After Hayden White 1st Edition

Robert Doran

https://textbookfull.com/product/philosophy-of-history-after-
hayden-white-1st-edition-robert-doran/

Gelfand Triples and Their Hecke Algebras Harmonic

Analysis for Multiplicity Free Induced Representations
of Finite Groups Tullio Ceccherini-Silberstein

https://textbookfull.com/product/gelfand-triples-and-their-hecke-
algebras-harmonic-analysis-for-multiplicity-free-induced-
representations-of-finite-groups-tullio-ceccherini-silberstein/

Computational aspects of polynomial identities Volume l

Kemer s Theorems Kanel-Belov

https://textbookfull.com/product/computational-aspects-of-
polynomial-identities-volume-l-kemer-s-theorems-kanel-belov/

The Norton Anthology of American Literature Volumes C D

E Ninth Edition Robert S. Levine

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-norton-anthology-of-
american-literature-volumes-c-d-e-ninth-edition-robert-s-levine/
The Fundamentals of C C Game Development using target
based development on SBC s First Edition Beuken

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-fundamentals-of-c-c-game-
development-using-target-based-development-on-sbc-s-first-
edition-beuken/

Transitions To Capitalism In Early Modern Europe:

Economies In The Era Of Early Globalization, C. 1450 -
C. 1820 Robert S. Duplessis

https://textbookfull.com/product/transitions-to-capitalism-in-
early-modern-europe-economies-in-the-era-of-early-
globalization-c-1450-c-1820-robert-s-duplessis/

Calculus On Manifolds: A Modern Approach To Classical

Theorems Of Advanced Calculus First Edition Michael
Spivak

https://textbookfull.com/product/calculus-on-manifolds-a-modern-
approach-to-classical-theorems-of-advanced-calculus-first-
edition-michael-spivak/

Willa of the Wood First Edition Robert Beatty

https://textbookfull.com/product/willa-of-the-wood-first-edition-
robert-beatty/

Functional Design: Principles, Patterns, and Practices

(Robert C. Martin Series) 1st Edition Robert C. Martin

https://textbookfull.com/product/functional-design-principles-
patterns-and-practices-robert-c-martin-series-1st-edition-robert-
c-martin/
CHARACTERIZATIONS OF
C*-ALGEBRAS
 PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS
A Program of Monographs, Textbooks, and Lecture Notes

EXECUTIVE EDITORS

Earl J. Taft Zuhair Nashed

Rutgers University Uni1•ersity of Delaware
New Brunswick, New Jersey Newark, Delaware

CHAIRMEN OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD

S. Kobayashi Edwin Hewitt

University of California. Berkeley University of Washington
Berkeley. California Seattle, Washington

EDITORIAL BOARD
M. S. Baouendi Donald Passman
Purdue University University of Wisconsin

Jack K. Hale Fred S. Roberts

Brown University Rutgers University

Marvin Marcus Gian-Carlo Rota

University of California, Santa Barbara Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
W. S. Massey
Yale University David Russell
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Leopolda Nachbin
Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas F{sicas Jane Cronin Scanlon
and University of Rochester Rutgers University

Ani/ Nerode Walter Schempp

Cornell University Universitat Siegen

Mark Teply
University of Wisconsin
 MONOGRAPHS AND TEXTBOOKS IN
PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS

1. K. Yano, Integral Formulas in Riemannian Geometry (1910)(out of print)

2. S. Kobayashi, Hyperbolic Manifolds and Holomorphic Mappings (1970)
(out of print)
3. V. S. Vladimirov, Equations of Mathematical Physics (A. Jeffrey, editor;
A. Littlewood, translator) (1970) (out of print)
4. B. N. Pshenichnyi, Necessary Conditions for an Extremum (L. Neustadt,
translation editor; K. Makowski, translator) (1971)
5. L. Narici, E. Beckenstein, and G. Bachman, Functional Analysis and
Valuation Theory (1971)
6. D. S. Passman, Infinite Group Rings (1971)
7. L. Dornhof[, Group Representation Theory (in two parts). Part A:
Ordinary Representation Theory. Part B: Modular Representation Theory
(1971' 1972)
8. W. Boothby and G. L. Weiss (eds.), Symmetric Spaces: Short Courses
Presented at Washington University (1972)
9. Y. Matsushima, Differentiable Manifolds (E. T. Kobayashi, translator)
(1972)
10. L. E. Ward, Jr., Topology: An Outline for a First Course (1972) (out of
print)
11. A. Babakhanian, Cohomological Methods in Group Theory (1972)
12. R. Gilmer, Multiplicative Ideal Theory (1972)
13. J. Yeh, Stochastic Processes and the Wiener Integral (1973) (out of print)
14. J. Barros-Neto, Introduction to the Theory of Distributions (1973)
(out of print)
15. R. Larsen, Functional Analysis: An Introduction (1973) (out of print)
16. K. Yano and S. Ishihara, Tangent and Cotangent Bundles: Differential
Geometry (1973) (out of print)
17. C. Procesi, Rings with Polynomial Identities ( 197 3)
18. R. Hermann, Geometry, Physics, and Systems(1973)
19. N. R. Wallach, Harmonic Analysis on Homogeneous Spaces (1973)
(out of print)
20. J. Dieudonne, Introduction to the Theory of Formal Groups (1973)
21. I. Vaisman, Cohomology and Differential Forms (1973)
22. B. - Y. Chen, Geometry of Submanifolds (1973)
23. M. Marcus, Finite Dimensional Multilinear Algebra (in two parts) (1973,
1975)
24. R. Larsen, Banach Algebras: An Introduction (1973)
25. R. 0. Kujala and A. L. Vitter (eds.}, Value Distribution Theory: Part A;
Part B: Deficit and Bezout Estimates by Wilhelm Stoll (1973)
26. K. B. Stolarsky, Algebraic Numbers and Diophantine Approximation ( 1974)
27. A. R. Magid, The Separable Galois Theory of Commutative Rings (1974)
28. B. R. McDonald, Finite Rings with Identity (1974)
29. J. Satake, Linear Algebra (S. Koh, T. A. Akiba, and S. lhara, translators)
(1975)
30. J. S. Golan, Localization of Noncommutative Rings (1975)
31. G. Klambauer, Mathematical Analysis (1975)
32. M. K. Agoston, Algebraic Topology: A First Course (1976)
33. K. R. Goodearl, Ring Theory: Nonsingular Rings and Modules (1976)
34. L. E. Mansfield, Linear Algebra with Geometric Applications: Selected
Topics (1976)
35. N.J. Pullman, Matrix Theory and Its Applications (1976)
36. B. R. McDonald, Geometric Algebra Over Local Rings (1976)
37. C. W. Groetsch, Generalized Inverses of Linear Operators: Representation
and Approximation (1977)
38. J. E. Kuczkowski and J. L. Gersting, Abstract Algebra: A First Look (1977)
39. C. 0. Christenson and W. L. Vox man, Aspects of Topology (1977)
40. M. Nagata, Field Theory (1977)
41. R. L. Long, Algebraic Number Theory (1977)
42. W. F. Pfeffer, Integrals and Measures (1977)
43. R. L. Wheeden and A. Zygmund, Measure and Integral: An Introduction to
Real Analysis (1977)
44. J. H. Curtiss, Introduction to Functions of a Complex Variable (1978)
45. K. Hrbacek and T. Jech, Introduction to Set Theory (1978)
46. W. S. Massey, Homology and Cohomology Theory (1978)
4 7. M. Marcus, Introduction to Modern Algebra (1978)
48. E. C. Young, Vector and Tensor Analysis (1978)
49. S. B. Nadler, Jr., Hyperspaces of Sets (1978)
50. S. K. Segal, Topics in Group Rings (1978)
51. A. C. M. van Rooij, Non-Archimedean Functional Analysis (1978)
54. L. Corwin and R. Szczarba, Calculus in Vector Spaces (1979)
53. C. Sadosky, Interpolation of Operators and Singular Integrals: An
Introduction to Harmonic Analysis (1979)
54. J. Cronin, Differential Equations: Introduction and Quantitative Theory
(1980)
55. C. W. Groetsch, Elements of Applicable Functional Analysis (1980)
56. I. Vaisman, Foundations of Three-Dimensional Euclidean Geometry (1980)
57. H. I. Freedman, Deterministic Mathematical Models in Population Ecology
(1980)
58. S. B. Chae, Lebesgue Integration (1980)
59. C. S. Rees, S. M. Shah, and C. V. StanojeviJ, Theory and Applications of
Fourier Analysis (19 81)
60. L. Nachbin, Introduction to Functional Analysis: Banach Spaces and
Differential Calculus (R. M. Aron, translator) (1981)
61. G. Orzech and M. Orzech, Plane Algebraic Curves: An Introduction
Via Valuations (1981)
62. R. Johnsonbaugh and W. E. Pfaffenberger, Foundations of Mathematical
Analysis (1981)
63. W. L. Voxman and R. H. Goetschel, Advanced Calculus: An Introduction
to Modern Analysis (1981)
64. L. J. Corwin and R. H. Szcarba, Multivariable Calculus (1982)
65. V. I. Istratescu, Introduction to Linear Operator Theory (1981)
66. R. D. Jiirvinen, Finite and Infinite Dimensional Linear Spaces: A
Comparative Study in Algebraic and Analytic Settings ( 1981)
67. J. K. Beem and P. E. Ehrlich, Global Lorentzian Geometry ( 1981)
68. D. L. Armacost, The Structure of Locally Compact Abelian Groups (1981)
69. J. W. Brewer and M. K. Smith, eds., Emmy Noether: A Tribute to Her Life
and Work (1981)
70. K. H. Kim, Boolean Matrix Theory and Applications (1982)
71. T. W. Wieting, The Mathematical Theory of Chromatic Plane Ornaments
(1982)
72. D. B. Gauld, Differential Topology: An Introduction (1982)
73. R. L. Faber, Foundations of Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry (1983)
74. M. Carmeli, Statistical Theory and Random Matrices (1983)
75. J. H. Carruth, J. A. Hildebrant, and R. J. Koch, The Theory of
Topological Semigroups (1983)
76. R. L. Faber, Differential Geometry and Relativity Theory: An
Introduction (1983)
77. S. Barnett, Polynomials and Linear Control Systems (1983)
78. G. Karpilovsky, Commutative Group Algebras (1983)
79. F. Van Oystaeyen and A. Verschoren, Relative Invariants of Rings: The
Commutative Theory (1983)
80. I. Vaisman, A First Course in Differential Geometry (1984)
81. G. W. Swan, Applications of. Optimal Control Theory in Biomedicine ( 1984)
82. T. Petrie and J. D. Randall, Transformation Groups on Manifolds (1984)
83. K. Goebel and S. Reich, Uniform Convexity, Hyperbolic Geometry, and
Nonexpansive Mappings (1984)
84. T. Albu and C. Nastiisescu, Relative Finiteness in Module Theory (1984)
85. K. Hrbacek and T. Jech, Introduction to Set Theory, Second Edition,
Revised and Expanded (1984)
86. F. Van Oystaeyen and A. Verschoren, Relative Invariants of Rings: The
Noncommutative Theory ( 1984)
87. B. R. McDonald, Linear Algebra Over Commutative Rings (1984)
88. M. Namba, Geometry of Projective Algebraic Curves (1984)
89. G. F. Webb, Theory of Nonlinear Age-Dependent Population
Dynamics (1985)
90. M. R. Bremner, R. V. Moody, and J. Patera, Tables of Dominant Weight
Multiplicities for Representations of Simple Lie Algebras (1985)
91. A. E. Fekete, Real Linear Algebra (1985)
92. S. B. Chae, Holomorphy and Calculus in Normed Spaces (1985)
93. A. J. Jerri, Introduction to Integral Equations with Applications (1985)
94. G. Karpilovsky, Projective Representations of Finite Groups (1985)
95. L. Narici and E. Beckenstein, Topological Vector Spaces (1985)
96. J. Weeks, The Shape of Space: How to Visualize Surfaces and Three-
Dimensional Manifolds (1985)
97. P. R. Gribik and K. 0. K ortanek, Extremal Methods of Operations Research
(1985)
98. J.-A. Chao and W. A. Woyczynski, eds., Probability Theory and Harmonic
Analysis (1986)
99. G. D. Crown, M. H. Fenrick, and R. J. Valenza, Abstract Algebra (1986)
100. J. H. Carruth, J. A. Hildebrant, and R. J. Koch, The Theory of
Topological Semigroups, Volume 2 (1986)
101. R. S. Doran and V. A. Belfi, Characterizations of C*-Algebras: The
Gelfand-Naimark Theorems (1986)
102. M. W. Jeter, Mathematical Programming: An Introduction to
Optimization (1986)

Other Volumes in Preparation

CHARACTERIZATIONS OF
C*-ALGEBRAS
The Gelfand-Nairnark Theorems

ROBERT S. DORAN
VICTOR A. BELFI
Texas Christian University
Fort Worth, Texas

MARCEL DEKKER, INC. New York and Basel

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Doran, RobertS., [date)

Characterizations of C* -algebras--the Gelfand-
Naimark theorems.

(Monograp?s and textbooks in pure and applied

mathematics ; 101)
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. C*-algebras. I. Belfi, Victor A., [date]
II. Title. III. Title: Gelfand-Naimark theorems.
IV. Series: Monographs and textbooks in pure and
applied mathematics ; v. 101.
QA326.D67 1986 512'.55 85-29234
ISBN 0-8247-7569-4

COPYRIGHT ~ 1986 by MARCEL DEKKER, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information
storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher.

MARCEL DEKKER, INC.

270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016

Current printing (last digit):

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 To

ROBERT B. BURCKEL
IZRAIL' M. GELFAND
MARK A. NAIMARK
Preface

This book is devoted to giving an account of two characterization theorems

which have had a substantial impact upon our thinking in modern analysis.
These theorems, due to I. M. Gelfand and M. A. Naimark in their original
form, were published in 1943, and served notice to the world that c*-alge-
bras had arrived and were a voice (among many, to be sure) to be heard
regarding future mathematical developments.
This volume is admittedly specialized. Our goal is to discuss the
Gelfand-Naimark theorems and related results, old and new, which have been
stimulated by them. It is our belief that readers with an interest in
Banach algebras and c*-algebras will appreciate and enjoy having these
results collected in a single volume and treated in a unified way. The
book is a natural outgrowth of a paper by Doran and Wichmann (1] which
appeared in 1977.
In order to achieve maximum generality we have treated algebras with-
out identity as well as algebras with identity. Further, much of the theory
requires that one deal with algebras with arbitrary (possibly discontinuous)
involutions and we have done this. However, as the experts know, at these
levels of generality there is a real danger in obscuring the main ideas and
principal lines of thought. We have tried to counteract this by first giving
complete proofs of the (now) classical Gelfand-Naimark theorems (Chapters 2
and 3), and then proceeding to the more refined results in later chapters.
We continually try to be attentive to the needs of the beginning reader
who simply wants to know what the Gelfand-Naimark theorems are all about.
Therefore we do not hesitate to repeat definitions if necessary or remind
the reader of what is going on in particular situations.
An introduction to those parts of the general theory of Banach algebras
needed to understand the remainder of the book is provided in Appendix B.
The theory of Banach algebras with involution is treated in the text. A

vii
viii PREFACE

reader with no previous knowledge of Banach algebras could read Chapter 1

on the history of the Gelfand-Naimark theorems and then should go to
Appendix B before proceeding to Chapter 2. It is expected that the reader
is familiar with basic real and complex analysis and has been exposed to
a first course in functional analysis. For the reader's convenience we
have summarized in Appendix A the main results from functional analysis
which will be used.
It should be emphasized that this book is not intended, in any way,
to replace the existing works and monographs on c*-algebras. Rather, it
is meant to complement and supplement them in a particular area. Even so,
in view of the fairly complete appendix on Banach algebras, the book could
be used as an introductory text on Banach algebras and elementary c*-alge-
bra theory.
The authors are deeply grateful for the help of many friends in the
writing of this book. Among these we would like to cite Professor Robert
B. Burckel for his constant support and interest in the project. He has
read the manuscript carefully and has offered many suggestions which have
clarified proofs and generally improved the exposition. We wish to thank
him also for bringing relevant papers to our attention which we might other-
wise have overlooked. His unselfish giving of his time, even when busy
with large projects of his own, is the sign of a true friend. Professor
Leo F. Boron was very helpful in securing photographs and biographical
information on Gelfand and Naimark. We thank him for his efforts.
The first draft of this book was written while the first author was
a member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Portions of
the book were also written while he was a visitor in the Department of Math-
ematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The hospitality and
support extended by these institutions is deeply appreciated.
Finally we wish to thank Texas Christian University for partial finan-
cial support during the writing and Shirley Doran for an exceptionally nice
job of typing.

Robert S. Doran
Victor A. Belfi
Contents

PREFACE vii

CHAPTER l. THE GELFAND-NAIMARK THEOREMS: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 1

l. Introduction 1
2. Definitions 3
3. Historical Development: A Tangled Trail 6
4. Gelfand and Naimark: The Mathematicians 9
Exercises 16

CHAPTER 2. THE GELFAND-NAIMARK THEOREM FOR COMMUTATIVE C*-ALGEBRAS 18

5. Gelfand Structure Theory: A Brief Review 18
6. Unitization of a C1'-Algebra 20
7. The Gelfand-Naimark Theorem 22
8. Functional Calculus in C*-Algebras 24
Exercises 28

CHAPTER 3. THE GELFAND-NAIMARK THEOREM: ARBITRARY C*-ALGEBRAS 30

9. Introduction 30
10. Continuity of the Involution 30
11. An Equivalent C*-Norm 31
12. Positive Elements and Symmetry 33
13. Approximate Identities in C*-Algebras 38
14. An Embedding Theorem for C*-Algebras 40
15. The Unitary Seminorm 42
16. The Involution in a C*-Algebra Is Isometric 45
17. The Gelfand-Naimark-Segal Construction 46
18. Construction of Positive Functionals 48
19. The Isometric *-Representation 49
Exercises 50

CHAPTER 4. BANACH *-ALGEBRAS: GENERALITIES 53

20. Introduction 53
21. *-Algebras 53
22. Normed *-Algebras 60
23. A'~-Algebras 77
24. Homomorphisms and Quotients of C*-Algebras 82
Exercises 88

ix
X CONTENTS

CHAPTER 5. *-REPRESENTATIONS ON A HILBERT SPACE: A CLOSER LOOK 94

25. Introduction 94
26. *-Representations on a Hilbert Space 94
27. TheGNS-Construction Revisited 101
28. Irreducible *-Representations 107
29. Pure States and Irreducible *-Representations 110
30. The *-Radical 118
Exercises 123

CHAPTER 6. HERMITIAN AND SYMMETRIC *-ALGEBRAS 127

31. Introduction 127
32. Definitions and Basic Properties 128
33. Hermitian Banach *-Algebras 133
34. Equivalent C*-Norms 150
35. The Russo-Dye Theorem in Symmetric Algebras 153
36. Further Characterizations of C*-Algebras 157
Exercises 162

CHAPTER 7. A FURTHER WEAKENING OF THE c*-AXIOMS 165

37. Introduction 165
38. Every C*-Seminorm Is Automatically
Submultiplicative 167
39. Some Applications 172
Exercises 175

CHAPTER 8. GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERIZATIONS OF C*-ALGEBRAS 177

40. Introduction 177
41. The Numerical Range of an Element in a Normed
Algebra 181
42. Two Numerical Range Formulas 185
43. The Numerical Radius 187
44. Hermitian Elements in a Unital Normed Algebra 189
45. The Vidav-Palmer Theorem and Applications 197
Exercises 200

CHAPTER 9. LOCALLY C*-EQUIVALENT ALGEBRAS 202

46. Introduction 202
47. Locally C*-Equivalent Algebras 202
48. Local c*-Equivalence Implies C*-Equivalence 206
Exercises 218

CHAPTER 10. APPLICATIONS OF THE CHARACTERIZATION THEOREMS 219

49. Introduction 219
SO. Compactifications in Topology 219
51. Almost Periodic Functions and Harmonic Analysis 220
52. The Spectral Theorem for a Bounded Normal Operator 222
53. The Structure Space of an Abelian von Neumann
Algebra 233
54. The C*-Algebra of Compact Operators 235
55. On the Closure of the Numerical Range 236
CONTENTS xi

56. The Gelfand-Raikov Theorem 237

57. Unitary Representations and Positive Definite
Functions 253
58. Completely Positive Mappings and Stinespring's
Theorem 257
59. C*-Algebra Methods in Quantum Theory 264
Exercises 265

NOTES AND REMARKS 270

Finite-dimensional C*-Algebras 270
The C*-Norm Condition on Matrix Algebras 270
The Dauns-Hofmann Theorems 271
The Gelfand-Naimark Theorems for Real C*-Algebras 274
Gelfand-Naimark Theorems for Jordan Algebras 275
A Gelfand-Naimark Theorem for Finitely Generated
C*-Algebras 280
A Characterization of the C*-Norm Condition
Without Using the Norm 281
Representations of Topological Algebras 282
A Characterization of C*-Algebras by Linear
Functionals 284
A Characterization of C*-Subalgebras 285
Symmetric *-Algebras 285
Characterizations of Hilbert Space 285
Characterizations of von Neumann Algebras 286
Characterizations of Commutativity in C*-Algebras 287

APPENDIX A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS 290

APPENDIX B BANACH ALGEBRAS 297

B.l First Properties 297
B.2 Examples 299
B.3 Invertible and Quasi-regular Elements 301
B.4 The Spectrum and Normed Division Algebras 306
B.5 Ideals in Banach Algebras 312
B.6 The Gelfand Theory of Commutative Banach Algebras 337
B.7 Factorization in Banach Algebras 347
B.8 The Holomorphic Functional Calculus 350
Banach Algebra Excercises 356

BIBLIOGRAPHY 373

SELECTED HINTS AND REFERENCES 399

SYMBOL INDEX 411

EXAMPLE INDEX 415

AUTHOR INDEX 417

SUBJECT INDEX 421

CHARACTERIZATIONS OF
C*-ALGEBRAS
1
The Gelfand-Naimark Theorems: Historical Perspective

§1. Introduction.

c*-algebras made their first appearance in 1943 in the now famous

paper of Gelfand and Naimark [1]. Since then hundreds of mathematicians
have contributed more than 2500 publications to the subject. It
continues to grow at a phenomenal rate and has permeated many branches
of mathematics through its connections with group representations,
abstract harmonic analysis, operator theory, algebraic topology, and
quantum physics.
Our primary purpose is to give an account of two celebrated
theorems of Gelfand and Naimark, their tangled history, generalizations
and applications, in a form accessible not only to specialists but also
to mathematicians working in various applied fields, and also to
students of pure and applied mathematics.
There are several reasons why one might wish to study the Gelfand-
Naimark theorems. They are, for example, beautiful in statement,
mathematically elegant, and rich in applications. Furthermore, the
theorems are central to the general theory of c*-algebras. Mathematicians
were quick to recognize the power implicit in the theorems. Spectral
theory of linear operators in Hilbert space was particularly affected
by them. Indeed, the Gelfand-Naimark theorem for commutative C*-algebras
is essentially the spectral theorem for normal operators in slight
disguise. Another aspect of the theorems concerns the canonical and
instructive nature of their proofs. The basic constructions in these
proofs have been imitated in many different and widely divergent
contexts.
What do the Gelfand-Naimark theorems say and how did they
achieve their present form? We shall have a great deal to say about

1
2 CHAPTER 1, GELFAND-NAIMARK THEOREMS

these questions soon. In this introduction we content ourselves with

the following general discussion. Definitions of all terms will be
given in Section 2.
At the turn of the century the abstract tendency in analysis,
which developed into what is now known as functional analysis, began
with the work of Volterra, Fredholm, Hilbert and F. Riesz, to mention
some of the principal figures. They studied eigenvalue problems,
integral equations, orthogonal expansions, and linear operators in
general. In 1918 the axioms for a normed linear space appeared for
the first time in F. Riesz's work on compact operators. The first
abstract treatment of normed linear spaces was given in Banach's 1920
thesis, and later, in 1932, he published his celebrated book Theorie
des operations Zineaires which was to be tremendously influential.
Many of the Banach spaces studied by Banach and others were at
the same time algebras under some multiplication---a fact which they
neither mentioned nor used. It is of some interest to record that in
1932 N. Wiener [1, p. 10), in his work on the tauberian theorem,
observed the fundamental inequality llxYII ::_ llxii·IIYII for the
algebra of absolutely convergent Fourier series; however, no systematic
use of the ring theoretic structure was made in his study---certainly
a missed opportunity!
The notion of an abstract Banach algebra was introduced by M.
Nagumo [1) in 1936 under the name "linear metric ring" in connection
with Hilbert's fifth problem. During the late 1930's the term "normed
ring" was introduced by the Soviet mathematicians. The present term
"Banach algebra" was used for the first time in 1945 by W. Ambrose [1)
in his work on generalizing the L2-algebra of a compact group.
One of the early fundamental results in the general theory of
Banach algebras was a generalization of a classical theorem of
Frobenius that any finite-dimensional division algebra over the complex
numbers is isomorphic to the field of complex numbers. S. Mazur [1)
announced in 1938 that every complex normed division algebra is
isomorphic to the field of complex numbers. (He also dealt with real
normed division algebras and showed that they were isomorphic to
either the reals, the complexes, or the quaternions.) As an immediate
consequence one obtains the following beautiful characterization of
the complex field among normed algebras: any complex normed algebra
2, DEFINITIONS 3

satisfying the norm condition I lxyl I = I lxl I ·I IYI I for all elements
x and y is isometrically isomorphic to the field of complex numbers.
It was Gelfand [1], in his 1939 thesis, who nearly single-handedly
developed the general theory of commutative Banach algebras much as it
is presented in Appendix B.
Many important Banach algebras carry a natural involution. In
the case of an algebra of functions the involution is the operation
of taking the complex-conjugate and in the case of an algebra of
operators on a Hilbert space it is the operation of taking the adjoint
operator. Motivated by these observations and by the earlier work of
Gelfand on the representation ·a£ commutative Banach algebras, Gelfand
and Naimark [1], working together, proved, under some additional
assumptions, the following two theorems:

GELFAND-NAIMWRK THEOREM I. Let A be a commutative Banach

algebra with involution satisfying llx1'xll llx*ll·llxJJ forall x
in A. Then A is isometrically 1'-isomoi>phic to C0 (X), the algebra
of all continuous complex-valued functions which vanish at infinity on
some locally compact Hausdorff space X.

GELFAND-NAIMARK THEOREM II. Let A be a Banach algebra with

involution satisfying llx*x!J = IJx*IJ·I!xiJ foraU x in A.
Then A is isometrically 1'-isomorphic to a norm-closed *-subalgebra
of bounded linear operators on some Hilbert space.

As mentioned earlier, in this book we shall present a thorough

discussion of these two representation theorems. We shall trace, as
carefully as we can, the interesting and rather tangled history which
led to their present form. Full proofs of the theorems will be given,
as well as a survey, with proofs, of recent generalizations and devel-
opments which have been inspired by the theorems. Finally a few
applications of the theorems will be given.

§2. Definitions.

We set down in this brief section the basic definitions that the
reader needs to know to read this chapter with understanding. A
discussion of the elementary theory of Banach algebras is given in
Appendix B.
4 CHAPTER 1. GELFAND-NAIMARK THEOREMS

A linear space A over a field F is said to be an associative

linear algebra over F (or simply an algebra if no confusion can arise)
if for each pair x, y of elements from A a product xy is defined
on A, i.e., a map from Ax A into A, such that for all x, y, z E A
and all A E F:
(i) x(yz) = (xy)z;
(ii) x(y + z) = xy + xz; (y + z)x yx + zx;
(iii) ll(xy) = (llx)y = x(lly).
Real and complex algebras are algebras over R and C respectively.
Whenever the field is unspecified we will be working with complex
algebras. An algebra A is commutative if xy = yx for all x, y E A.
If there exists an element e in an algebra A such that ex x = xe
for all x E A, then A is said to be an algebra with identity.
Throughout this book we shall assume that our algebras are nontrivial,
i.e., that they do not consist of the zero element alone.
A linear subspace I of an algebra A is a left ideal if x E I,
z E A imply zx E I. A linear subspace I is a right ideal if x E I,
z E A imply xz E I. A two-sided ideal is a left ideal that is also
a right ideal. An ideal I of A such I f A is a proper ideal.
An algebra possessing no proper two-sided ideals except {0} is said
to be simple. Of course in a commutative algebra the definitions of
left, right, and two-sided ideals are equivalent. In this case, we
simply write "ideal" for these.
A '''-algebra is an algebra over C with a mapping x + x'' of A

into itself such that for all x, y E A and complex II:

(a) (x + y)* = x* + y*;
(b) (h)* fx*;
(c) (xy)* y*x*;
(d) x** x.
The map x + x* is called an involution; because of (d) it is
clearly bijective. A subalgebra B of A is called a *-subalgebra
if x E B implies x* E B. Similarly, an ideal I is called a
*-ideal if x E I implies x* E I. A *-homomorphism of a ''-algebra
A into a *-algebra B is a linear mapping ¢: A+ B such that
¢(xy) = ¢(x)¢(y) and ¢(x*) = ¢(x)* for all x, y in A. If ¢ is
bijective, ¢ is a *-isomorphism of A onto B, and A and B are
said to be '~-isomorphic.
2. DEFINITIONS 5

An algebra A which is also a normed (resp. Banach) space

satisfying

llxyll ::: llxii·IIYII (x, y E A)

is called a normed algebra (resp. Banach algebra). A normed algebra

which is also a *-algebra is called a normed *-algebra. Of course, if
the algebra is complete it is called a Banach *-algebra.
The involution in a normed *-algebra is continuous if there exists
a constant M> 0 such that flx*ll ::: M·llxll for all x; the
involution is isometric i f llx*ll = llxll for all x. Two normed
*-algebras A and B are isometrically *-isomorphic, denoted A ~ B,
if there exists a *-isomorphism f: A~ B such that I lf(x} I I = I lxl I
for all x £ A.
A norm on a ''-algebra A is said to satisfy the c*-condition if

llx*xll llx*ll·llxll (x £A). (1)

A c*-algebra is a Banach *-algebra whose norm satisfies the c*-condition.

The norm in a c*-algebra with isometric involution clearly satisfies
the condition

llx*xfl (x E A). (2)

It turns out that in a Banach *-algebra (1) also implies (2) without the
assumption that the involution is isometric; however this is highly non-
trivial and will be shown in Chapter III. It is easily seen that
condition (2) implies that the involution is isometric and hence (2)
implies (1). Therefore conditions (1) and (2) turn out to be equivalent.
The Banach space C(X) of continuous complex-valued functions on
a compact Hausdorff space X is a commutative c*-algebra under point-
wise multiplication (fg) (t) = f(t)g(t)' involution f* (t) = f(t),
and sup-norm. A function f on a locally compact Hausdorff space X
is said to "vanish at infinity" i f for each E > 0 there is a compact
set K c X such that lf(x)j < E for all X E X \ K, the complement
of K in X. As with C(X), the algebra C0 (X) of continuous complex-
valued functions which vanish at infinity on a locally compact Hausdorff
space is a commutative c*-algebra. While C(X) possesses an identity,
C0 (X) does not unless X is compact, and in this case C0 (X) = C(X).
6 CHAPTER 1. GELFAND-NAIMARK THEOREMS

Examples of noncommutative C*-algebras are provided by the algebra

B(H) of bounded linear operators on a Hilbert space H. Hultiplication
in B(H) is operator composition, the involution T + T* is the usual
adjoint operation, and the norm is the operator norm

II T II = sup{ II n; II : I Ii; I I :: 1, i; E H}.

A norm-closed *-subalgebra of B(H) is called a eonerete c*-algebra;

clearly, every concrete C1'-algebra is a c*-algebra in the abstract
sense. If X is a locally compact Hausdorff space, then the algebra
C0 (X) can be viewed as a subalgebra of B(H); indeed, if ~ is a
regular Borel measure on X, with support X, and H = L 2 (X,~), the Hilbert
space of ~-square-integrable complex functions on X, then C0 (X) may be
interpreted as an algebra of multiplication operators on H. Hence
C0 (X) is a concrete C*-subalgebra of B(H) which is commutative.
The remarkable message of Theorems I and II of Section 1 is that these
examples exhaust the class of c*-algebras.
We end this section with a few historical notes regarding the
above terminology. The term "C*-algebra" was introduced in 1947 by
I. E. Segal [2] and was reserved for what we have called a "concrete
C1'-algebra ". The "C" stood for "closed" in the norm topology of
B(H). It has been speculated by some authors that the "C" was meant
to indicate that a c*-algebra is a noncommutative analogue of C(X);
however, Professor Segal has assured the first named author that he
didn't have this in mind--although he agreed that it was certainly
a reasonable supposition. The term "B*-algebra" was introduced in
1946 by c. E. Rickart [1] for Banach algebras satisfying condition
(2). This terminology is still in wide usage today. Finally, we
mention that the term "B'*-algebra" was used by T. Ono [1] in 1959
to describe Banach *-algebras whose norm satisfies (1). This some-
what cumbersome notation was only to be temporary as his goal was to
show that every B'*-algebra was, in fact a B*-algebra. We shall not
use the terminology "B*-algebra" in the sequel except possibly in the
historical notes.

§3. Historical development: a tangled trail.

In 1943 Gelfand and Naimark [1] published (in English!) a ground-

breaking paper in which they proved that a Banach *-algebra with an
3. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 7

identity element e is isometrically *-isomorphic to a concrete

c*-algebra if it satisfies the following three conditions:

1° II x*x II = II x* II · II x II (the c*-condition);

2o llx*ll = llxll (isometric condition);

3° e + x*x is invertible (symmetry)

for all x. They immediately asked in a footnote if conditions 2° and

3° could be deleted--apparently recognizing that they were of a
different character from condition 1° and were needed primarily because
of their method of proof. This indeed turned out to be true after
considerable work. To trace the resulting history in detail it is
convenient to look at the commutative and noncommutative cases
separately.
Commutative aZgebras: In their paper Gelfand and Naimark first
proved that every commutative c*-algebra with identity is a C(X) for
some compact Hausdorff space X. They were able to show quite simply
that in the presence of commutativity the C*-condition implies that
the involution is isometric (hence continuous). Utilizing a delicate
argument depending on the notion of "Shilov boundary" (cf. Naimark
[1, p. 231]) they proved that every commutative C*-algebra is symmetric.
Thus in the commutative case they were able to show that conditions
2° and 3° follow from condition 1°.
A much simpler proof for symmetry of a commutative C*-algebra
was published in 1946 by Richard Arens [1]. It may be of some
historical interest that Professor Arena--as he mentioned in a conver-
sation with the first named author--had not seen the Gelfand-Naimark
proof when he found his. In 1952, utilizing the exponential function
for elements in a Banach algebra, the Japanese mathematician Masanori
Fukamiya [2] published yet another beautiful proof of symmetry. The
arguments of Arens and Fukamiya will be given in full in Chapter II.
Nonaommutative aZgebras: The 1952 paper of Fukamiya [2] implicitly
contained the key lemma needed to eliminate condition 3° for non-
commutative algebras. In essence this lemma states that if x and y
are "positive elements" in a c*-algebra with identity and isometric
involution, then the sum x + y is also positive. Independently and
nearly simultaneously this lemma was discovered by John L. Kelley and
8 CHAPTER 1. GELFAND-NAIMARK THEOREMS

Robert L. Vaught [1]. The Kelley-Vaught argument is extremely brief

and elegant, and is the one that we shall give in Section 12.
The nontrivial observation that this lemma was the key to
eliminating condition 3° was due to Irving Kaplansky. His ingenious
argument was recorded in Joseph A. Schatz's [2] review of Fukamiya's
paper, making it an amusing instance where a theorem was first "proved"
in the Mathematical Reviews.
In marked contrast to the commutative case, the redundancy of
condition 2° for noncommutative algebras did not follow easily; in fact,
the question remained open until 1960 when a solution for c*-algebras
with identity was published by James G. Glimm and Richard V. Kadison [1].
Their proof was based on a deep "n-fold transitivity" theorem for
unitary operators in an irreducible c*-algebra of operators on a Hilbert
space. A beautiful theorem, proved in 1966, by Bernard Russo and
Henry A. Dye [1] made it possible to by-pass the Glimm-Kadison
transitivity theorem; an elementary proof of their result was given in
1972 by Lawrence A. Harris [1], and an extremely short elegant proof
was given in 1984 by L. Terrell Gardner [ 1 ]. The paper of Harris
contained powerful new techniques that simplified and unified several
other parts of the theory of Banach algebras with involution. Another
paper concerning the elimination of 2° (and also 3°) was published by
the Japanese mathematician Tamio Ono (1] in 1959. This paper contained
useful techniques but was flawed by errors in the arguments of both of
the main theorems (see the Mathematical Review of Ono [1]). Ten years
later Ono {2] acknowledged these mistakes and corrected them from the
viewpoint of 1959.
The original 1943 conjecture of Gelfand and Naimark was, at this
time, completely solved for algebras with identity. What about algebras
without identity? This question is of considerable importance since
most c*-algebras which occur in applications do not possess an identity.
An answer was provided in 1967 by B. J. Vowden [1]. He was able to
utilize the notion of "approximate identity" and several arguments from
Ono Ill to embed a c*-algebra without identity in a c*-algebra with
identity. He then applied the known case for algebras with an identity
to complete the proof. Hence after nearly twenty-five years of work
by outstanding mathematicians, the mathematical community had the
theorems as we have stated them in the introduction.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
degraded, and that the true prescription to elevate, reform, and
purify the public service is to prevent the clerks from being removed
out of their places in the Departments. This brotherhood has not
been hitherto very largely re-enforced from the Democracy. If there
has been an original civil-service reformer who has deserted from the
ranks of the Democracy, history does not record his name. It has
been left to the party to which I belong to afford conspicuous and
shining illustrations of that class of political thinkers who are never
quite sure that they are supporting a party unless they are reviling
the candidates and denouncing its platform, who are not positive
that they are standing erect unless they are leaning over backward,
and whose idea of reforming the organization in which they profess
to be classified is to combine with its adversaries and vote for
candidates who openly spurn their professions and depreciate the
stock in trade which they denominate their principles. Standing on
the corners of the streets, enlarging the borders of their phylacteries,
they loudly advertise their perfections, thanking God that they are
not as other men, even these Republicans and Democrats; they
traffic with both to ascertain which they can most profitably betray.
Mr. President, the neuter gender is not popular either in nature or
society. “Male and female created He them.” But there is a third sex,
if that can sex be called which sex has none, resulting sometimes
from a cruel caprice of nature, at others from accident or malevolent
design, possessing the vices of both and the virtues of neither;
effeminate without being masculine or feminine; unable either to
beget or to bear; possessing neither fecundity nor virility; endowed
with the contempt of men and the derision of women, and doomed to
sterility, isolation, and extinction. But they have two recognized
functions. They sing falsetto, and they are usually selected as the
guardians of the seraglios of Oriental despots.
And thus to pass from the illustration to the fact, these political
epicenes, without pride of ancestry or hope of posterity, chant in
shrill falsetto their songs of praise of non-partisanship and civil-
service reform, and apparently have been selected as the harmless
custodians of the conscience of the national Executive.
Sir, I am not disposed to impugn the good faith, the patriotism, the
sincerity, the many unusual traits and faculties of the President of
the United States. He is the sphinx of American politics. It is said
that he is a fatalist; that he regards himself as the child of fate—the
man of destiny; and that he places devout and implicit reliance upon
the guiding influence of his star. Certainly, whether he be a very
great man or a very small man, he is a very extraordinary man. His
career forbids any other conclusion.
The Democratic party was not wanting when its convention
assembled at Chicago in many renowned and illustrious characters;
men who had led the forlorn hope in its darkest and most desperate
days; men for whose character and achievements, for whose fame
and history, not only that organization but the country had the
profoundest admiration and respect. There was Thurman, and
Bayard, and Hendricks, and Tilden, and McDonald, and others
perhaps not less worthy and hardly less illustrious, upon whom the
mantle of that great distinction might have fallen; but the man at the
mature age of thirty-five abandoned a liberal and honored profession
to become the sheriff of Erie, without known opinions and destitute
of experience or training in public affairs, outstripped them all in the
race of ambition; and when but little more than a year ago he entered
this Chamber as the President elect of the United States, he
encountered the curious scrutiny of an audience to whom he was a
stranger in feature as in fame; a stranger to the leaders of his own
party as well as to the representatives of all the nations of the earth
who had assembled to witness the gorgeous pageant of his
inauguration.
Sir, the career of Napoleon was sudden, startling, and dramatic.
There have been many soldiers of fortune who have sprung at one
bound from obscurity to fame, but no illustration of the caprices of
destiny so brilliant and bewildering is recorded in history as the
elevation of Grover Cleveland to the Chief Magistracy of sixty
millions of people.
If when he was inaugurated he had determined that the functions
of Government should be exercised by officers selected from his own
party the nation would have been content; but he did not so
determine, and herein and hereon is founded the justification that
the majority of the Senate can satisfactorily use and employ in
demanding that no action shall be had in connection with these
suspensions from office until there has been satisfactory assurances
that injustice has not been done. If it were understood that these
suspensions and removals were made for political reasons the
country would be content, the Republican majority in the Senate
would be content. But what is the attitude? Ever since his
inauguration and for many months before, by many utterances,
official and private, in repeated declarations never challenged, Mr.
Cleveland announced that he would not so administer this
Government. At the very outset, in his letter of acceptance, he
denounced the doctrine of partisan changes in the patronage, and
through all of his political manifestoes down to the present time he
has repeated these assurances with emphatic and unchanging
monotony.
He has declared that there should be no changes in office, where
the incumbents were competent and qualified, for political reasons,
but that they should be permitted to serve their terms. Like those
who were grinding at the mill, one has been taken and another has
been left. Some Republicans have been suspended and others have
been retained. What is the irresistible inference? What is the logic of
the events, except that, in view of what the President has declared,
every man who is suspended is suspended for cause, and not for
political reasons? It is not possible to suspect the President of
duplicity and treacherous deception.
For the purpose of illustration, let me call the attention of the
Senate and through the Senate the attention of the country, which is
to judge of this matter, to the basis on which this inquiry proceeds. I
read from the letter of Grover Cleveland, dated Albany, August 19,
1884, accepting the nomination for the Presidency of the United
States. He says:
The people pay the wages of the public employés, and they are entitled to the fair
and honest work which the money thus paid should command. It is the duty of
those intrusted with the management of their affairs to see that such public service
is forthcoming. The selection and retention of subordinates in Government
employment should depend upon their ascertained fitness and the value of their
work, and they should be neither expected nor allowed to do questionable party
service.
There is another utterance in this document to which I might
properly allude further on, but which appears to me to be so
significant that I will read it now. It has a singular fitness in
connection with this subject that we have been discussing. Speaking
of honest administration, he says,
 I believe that the public temper is such that the voters of the land are prepared to
support the party which gives the best promise of administering the Government
in the honest, simple, and plain manner which is consistent with its character and
purposes.
And now:
They have learned that mystery and concealment in the management of their
affairs cover tricks and betrayal.
Yes, they have learned that mystery in the administration of the
patronage of the Government, by the concealment from the people of
the documents and papers that bear upon the character and conduct
of officials suspended and those that are appointed, cover tricks and
betrayal. “I thank thee for that word.” A “Daniel” has “come to
judgment.” No more pertinent and pungent commentary upon the
facts of the present situation could be formulated than that which
Grover Cleveland uttered before his foot was upon the threshold, that
mystery and concealment in the management of the affairs of the
people covered tricks and betrayal. There are tricks and somebody
has been betrayed.
Again, on the 20th day of December, 1884, after the election, some
of the contingent of Republican deserters who elected Mr. Cleveland
to the Presidency, becoming apprehensive that there might be
trouble about their thirty pieces of silver, formulated their
uneasiness in words and addressed him a letter calling his attention
to the professions upon which he had been elected and demanding
further guarantee. To that letter, on the 25th day of December, 1884,
Mr. Cleveland replied, and from that reply I select certain
paragraphs, not being willing to tax the patience of the Senate or
waste my own strength in reading what is not strictly material.
I regard myself pledged to this—
That is, to this practical reform in the civil service, this refusal to
turn out competent and qualified officials and put in Democrats—
because my conception of true Democratic faith and public duty requires that
this and all other statutes should be in good faith and without evasion enforced,
and because, in many utterances made prior to my election as President, approved
by the party to which I belong and which I have no disposition to disclaim, I have
in effect promised the people that this should be done.
Not his party, but the people, Republican as well as Democrats.
Then he proceeds to castigate the Democratic party:
 I am not unmindful of the fact to which you refer that many of our citizens fear
that the recent party change in the national Executive may demonstrate that the
abuses which have grown up in the civil service are ineradicable. I know that they
are deeply rooted, and that the spoils system has been supposed to be intimately
related to success in the maintenance of party organization, and I am not sure that
all those who profess to be the friends of this reform will stand firmly among its
advocates when they find it obstructing their way to patronage and place.
He goes on thus, and this is a most significant promise and pledge:
There is a class of Government positions which are not within the letter of the
civil-service statute but which are so disconnected with the policy of an
administration that the removal therefrom of present incumbents, in my opinion,
should not be made during the terms for which they were appointed solely on
partisan grounds, and for the purpose of putting in their places those who are in
political accord with the appointing power—
And then follows that celebrated definition which lifted the lid
from the box of Pandora—
but many men holding such positions have forfeited all just claim to retention
because they have used their places for party purposes in disregard of their duty to
the people, and because, instead of being decent public servants, they have proved
themselves offensive partisans and unscrupulous manipulators of local party
management.
The letter closes with this somewhat frigid assurance of
consolation to the Democratic party.
If I were addressing none but party friends, I should deem it entirely proper to
remind them—
That is, party friends—
that though the coming administration is to be Democratic—
Strictly Democratic—
a due regard for the people’s interest does not permit faithful party work to be
always rewarded by appointment to office, and to say to them that while
Democrats may expect a proper consideration, selections for office not embraced
within the civil-service rules will be based upon sufficient inquiry as to fitness,
instituted by those charged with that duty, rather than upon persistent importunity
or self-solicited recommendations on behalf of candidates for appointment.
“Here endeth the first lesson!” This was in the year 1884. I now
come to the declaration of 1885. Just as the Democratic State
convention which nominated the present governor of New York for
the position that he now holds, was about to assemble at Saratoga on
the 24th, I think, of September, the President gave out for
publication the letter of resignation of Dorman B. Eaton, a civil-
service commissioner, which was dated July 28, 1885, and
accompanied it with a letter of his own accepting that resignation
which was dated September 11, 1885. It was alleged in Democratic
newspapers that the President held back these letters in order to give
publicity to his reply at that time for effect upon the convention, and
it was remarked that it had caused a panic among the Democracy.
His letter is dated, as I said, September 11, 1885, and I will read a few
paragraphs showing his opinion of the Democratic party and the
course that they had pursued in attempting to force him off the civil-
service reform platform. After some rather glittering platitudes in
regard to the work accomplished by Mr. Eaton, he proceeds:
A reasonable toleration for old prejudices, a graceful recognition of every aid, a
sensible utilization of every instrumentality that promises assistance and a
constant effort to demonstrate the advantages of the new order of things, are the
means by which this reform movement will in the future be further advanced, the
opposition.
Now, this is an epithet to which I desire to call particular attention
—
The opposition of incorrigible spoilsmen rendered ineffectual and the cause
placed upon a sure foundation.
But not content with applying his scourge to the “incorrigible
spoilsmen” of the Democratic party, the President took occasion to
express his opinion in rather picturesque language of another class of
politicians that had somewhat afflicted him, and to whom he was
under bonds:
It is a source of congratulation that there are so many friends of civil-service
reform marshaled on the practical side of the question; and that the number is not
greater of those who profess friendliness for the cause, and yet, mischievously and
with supercilious self-righteousness, discredit every effort not in exact accord with
their attenuated ideas, decry with carping criticism the labor of those actually in
the field of reform, and ignoring the conditions which bound and qualify every
struggle for a radical improvement in the affairs of government, demand complete
and immediate perfection.
“Supercilious self-righteousness, attenuated ideas, and carping
criticism,” can not be regarded as complimentary phrases when
applied to the apostles of this new evangel of political reformation.
He continues—
I believe in civil-service reform and its application in the most practicable form
attainable, among other reasons, because it opens the door for the rich and the
poor alike to a participation in public place-holding. And I hope the time is at hand
when all our people will see the advantage of a reliance for such an opportunity
upon merit and fitness, instead of a dependence upon the caprice or selfish interest
of those who impudently—
To whom does he refer?—
who impudently stand between the people and the machinery of the
Government.
You will agree with me, I think, that the support which has been given to the
present administration in its efforts to preserve and advance this reform by a party
restored to power after an exclusion for many years from participation in the
places attached to the public service, confronted with a new system precluding the
redistribution of such places in its interest, called upon to surrender advantages
which a perverted partisanship had taught the American people belonged to
success, and perturbed with the suspicion, always raised in such an emergency,
that their rights in the conduct of this reform had not been scrupulously regarded,
should receive due acknowledgment and should confirm our belief that there is a
sentiment among the people better than a desire to hold office, and a patriotic
impulse upon which may safely rest the integrity of our institutions and the
strength and perpetuity of our Government.
The first official utterances of President Cleveland upon the 4th of
March, 1885, renewed the assurance that had been given. He
declared:
The people demand reform in the administration of the Government and the
application of business principles to business affairs. As a means to this end civil-
service reform should be in good faith enforced. Our citizens have the right to
protection from the incompetency of public employés who hold their places solely
as the reward of partisan service, and from the corrupting influences of those who
promise and the vicious who expect such rewards. And those who worthily seek
public employment have the right to insist that merit and competency shall be
recognized instead of party subserviency or the surrender of honest political belief.
How this system, thus inaugurated, this amphibious plan of
distributing the patronage of the country among his own partisans
and at the same time insisting upon the enforcement of civil-service
reform doctrines practically resulted finds its first illustration in the
celebrated circular of the Postmaster-General that was issued on the
29th of April, 1885. I do not propose to defile my observations by
reading that document. I allude to it for the purpose of saying that a
more thoroughly degraded, loathsome, execrable and detestable
utterance never was made by any public official of any political
persuasion in any country, or in any age. It was an invitation to every
libeller, every anonymous slanderer, every scurrilous defamer, to
sluice the feculent sewage of communities through the Post-Office
Department, with the assurance that, without any intimation or
information to the person aspersed, incumbents should be removed
and Democratic partisans appointed. I offered a resolution on the
4th of this month calling on the Postmaster-General for information
as to the number of removals of fourth-class postmasters, not
requiring confirmation by the Senate, between the 4th day of March,
1885, and that date. It was a simple proposition. It required nothing
but an inspection of the official register and a computation of
numbers. No names were required and no dates. There was a simple
question of arithmetic to ascertain the number of removals of fourth-
class postmasters not included in the list sent to the Senate by the
President, the salary being less than $1,000. Eighteen days elapsed.
There seemed to be some reluctance on the part of the Department
to comply with that request, and I thereupon offered a supplemental
resolution, which was adopted by the Senate, asking the Postmaster-
General to advise us whether that first resolution had been received,
and, if so, why it was not answered, and when a reply might be
expected.
On the second day following an answer came down. It does not
include the number of places that were filled where there had been
resignations. It does not include the list of those appointed where
there had been vacancies from death or any other cause; but simply
those who had been removed without cause and without hearing in
the space of the first twelve months of this administration pledged to
non-partisanship and civil-service reform. The number foots up
8,635. Eighty-six hundred and thirty-five removals of fourth-class
postmasters under an administration pledged by repeated utterances
not to remove except for cause, making an average, counting three
hundred and thirteen working days in that year, of twenty-eight
every day; and, counting seven hours as a day’s work, four removals
every hour, or at the rate of one for every fifteen minutes of time
from the 4th day of March, 1885, until the 4th of March, 1886. And
that is civil-service reform! That is non-partisanship in the
administration of this Government! That is exercising public office as
a public trust!
Mr. Cockrell. How many of these fourth-class postmasters are
there?
 Mr. Ingalls. I do not know.
Mr. Cockrell. About fifty-one thousand, are there not?
Mr. Ingalls. It makes no difference how many; they did the best
they could, and angels could do more. I see that the Senator from
Missouri is impatient; he is anxious that the axe should fall more
rapidly.
The President pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas will pause
a moment. It is the duty of the Chair to inform the occupants of the
galleries that the rules of the Senate forbid any expression of
approbation or disapprobation. It will be the painful duty of the
Chair to enforce that rule, if it is insisted upon.
Mr. Ingalls. I hope the Senator from Missouri will curb his
impatience and restrain his impetuosity. The Postmaster-General
will get through if you only give him time.
Mr. Cockrell. He will get through in four years at this rate.
Mr. Ingalls. One every fifteen minutes!
Mr. Cockrell. Fifty-one thousand is the number of fourth-class
postmasters, I believe, and only eight thousand in a year have been
removed.
Mr. Ingalls. Only one every fifteen minutes! How often do you
expect them to be removed? He has done the best he could. And this
does not include the number of those who resigned; this does not
include any except those who have been removed. To the Senator
from Missouri rising in his seat, impatient at the dilatory
procrastination of the Post-Office Department in not casting out
more Republican postmasters, I say this does not include all.
Undoubtedly many more than eighty-six hundred and thirty-five
have fallen beneath the axe of the Department or have been filled by
partisans of the party in power as a reward for efficient and faithful
party service in consequence of the retirement of thousands of
patriotic Republicans: and when the Senator from Missouri attempts
to convey the impression here that out of fifty-one thousand fourth-
class postmasters only eighty-six hundred and thirty-five have been
changed during this past year he is entirely outside the record. It is to
be observed that this is but a single Department. How many have
gone out of the State department, how many have gone out of the
Interior department, how many out of the Army and Navy
departments, and out of that illuminated Department of Justice, and
out of the Treasury, of course is entirely unknown, and probably will
always remain unknown till the secrets of earth are revealed at the
last day. They are carefully concealed; there are no lists furnished to
the press for publication. Therefore I trust that the friends of the
administration will be consoled, that the complaints which have been
so frequent hitherto of the want of activity on the part of the
administration in finding places for their friends will be tempered by
the consideration that they have done the best they could in the time
at their disposal.
Mr. President, the list of official utterances is not yet complete. On
the first day of this session President Cleveland again repeated his
declaration that the civil service was to be divorced from
partisanship, and he took occasion to inflict some more castigation
upon those who were endeavoring to force him off the civil-service
platform which he had declared he intended to occupy. This was his
language:
Lay siege to the patronage of Government, engrossing the time of public officers
with their importunities, spreading abroad the contagion of their disappointment,
and filling the air with the tumult of their discontent.
Rather florid, rather oriental phrase, but in its exactness
mathematical; a demonstration in geometry could not be more
explicit and satisfactory than that description by President Cleveland
of the occupation and the lamentations of the Democratic party. It
will bear repetition.
Lay siege to the patronage of Government, engrossing the time of public officers
with their importunities, spreading abroad the contagion of their disappointment,
and filling the air with the tumult of their discontent.
A besieging, importunate, contagious, tumultuous, discontented
organization.
There is more to the same effect in this document that I should like
to read, but time does not serve, nor is it material, because there are
other independent utterances to which I must pass; and I do this for
the purpose of showing the consistent and persistent adhesion of the
President of the United States to the declarations with which he
started out when he commenced to administer the Government.
On the 30th day of January, 1886, the ordinary avenues of
communication with the public being inaccessible, President
Cleveland availed himself of the interviewer, and in the Boston
Herald was printed a long letter detailing in quotations a
conversation with President Cleveland, the many points of which will
be found below. This was after this controversy, if you call it so,
between the President and Senate, had begun to develop and there
were some indications of approaching misunderstanding or
disagreement:
He next spoke of his position toward the Senate in the matter of confirmations to
office. He said it gave him some anxiety, for the Senate had been a good while in
disclosing what it meant to do. “They seem”—
He says plaintively—
“to distrust me,” said he, “if I am to accept what I hear from others. But I hear
nothing from them. They have not called upon me for information or for
documents.”
That complaint no longer exists.
“I have tried”—
He says—
“to deal honorably and favorably by them. My purpose was announced at the
beginning of my administration. I meant then to adhere to it. I have never changed
it. I do not mean to change it in the future. It seems to me unjust and ungenerous
in them”—
That is, in the Senate—
“unjust and ungenerous in them to suspect that I do. If I had not meant to
adhere to my policy it would have been foolish in me to begin it. I should have
escaped much in refusing to begin it. It is not at all pleasant for me to disappoint,
and I fear sometimes to offend, my party friends. Nothing but a sense of duty has
brought me to this step. Why run all this risk and incur this hard feeling only in the
end to retreat? It seems to me it would have been as impolitic as it is wrong. No; I
have tried to be true to my own pledges and the pledges of my party. We both
promised to divorce the offices of the country from being used for party service. I
have held to my promise, and I mean to hold to it.”
Then there was an answer to a question propounded by the
interviewer, in which he defines his relation toward offensive
partisanship in the Democratic party:
“I did not propose to hold party service in the past in the Democratic ranks as
against a man. On the contrary, it gave him a strong, equitable claim to office. He
had been excluded for twenty-four years because he was a Democrat. He should be
remembered for the same reason when a Democratic administration came into
power, provided he was a competent man for the position to be filled. What I
understand by civil-service reform, as I am carrying it out, is that the office-holders
shall be divorced from politics while they fill their positions under this
government. That rule I have meant to stand by.” I asked him if he was aware of
any deviation from it among his appointees. “If there has been any,” said he, “it has
not been called to my attention.” I suggested that some such charge had been made
in New York. He said he did not believe that there was any foundation for it, and
that it was well known there that his wishes were that the office-holders should
attend to the duties of their positions, and interfere neither with candidates nor
election contests.
And here comes in the significant statement bearing upon the duty
of Republicans in connection with these suspensions and removals
from office:
“My removals from office, such as are made,” said he, “are made for cause. It
would be absurd for me to undertake to give the country my reasons in all cases,
because it would be impracticable. When I have removed a Republican for political
reasons or for any other reasons, I would apply the same rule to my own party. I
think the Republican Senators should be just enough to believe this of me. They
ought to appreciate that I am trying to do my duty. Why they should continue to
distrust me I do not see. They do not come to me either personally or by committee
to get an understanding of my attitude, or to obtain explanations on points of
action to which they object. They stand off and question the sincerity of my
purposes.”
The eight thousand six hundred and thirty-five fourth-class
postmasters and the six hundred and forty-three suspensions before
the Senate and the thousands of changes in other departments “are
made for cause,” not for political reasons merely; but to give those
who have been so removed the opportunity to explain or defend
themselves would be “absurd” and “impracticable.”
But this is not all. Later in the winter the Civil Service Commission
was reorganized, and in a newspaper printed in this city appeared a
statement alleged to be “personal” and included in quotation marks,
and which it is commonly reported was in the handwriting of the
President.
I cannot rid myself—
He said, after speaking about the personnel of the Civil Service
Commission—
I cannot rid myself of the idea that this civil-service reform is something
intended to do practical good and not a mere sentiment invented for the purpose of
affording opportunity to ventilate high-sounding notions and fine phrases.
He alludes to the action of the Civil-Service Commission about a
weigher in the city of Brooklyn, and says:
 When the Civil Service Commission consulted with me as to the status of Mr.
Sterling and the true construction of the rule bearing upon that subject, I agreed
with them in their second opinion that the position of weigher was subject to an
examination, and that it should be filled by one who by means of a proper
examination under the law proved himself competent and eligible. But it seemed to
me that the good of the service required that the person to be appointed should be
possessed of certain traits and qualifications which no theoretical examination
would develop. One having in charge two or three hundred men of the class with
which a weigher has to deal should possess personal courage, energy, decision and
firmness of character. It is entirely certain that the possession of such
qualifications could not in the least be determined by the result of an examination
organized for the purpose of testing an applicant’s knowledge and education.
And he closes:
No cause can gain by injustice or by a twisting of its purposes to suit particular
tastes. And when a result is fairly reached through the proper operation of methods
adopted to further a reform, it should be accepted—especially by the friends of the
movement. They should not permit those of whom they require submission to say,
with any semblance of truth, that they themselves submit only when the result
accords with their views.
This closes the public declarations of the President of the United
States upon the views which he entertains as to the method and
plans and system upon which the public service is to be conducted
under his administration. There are some interesting details as to the
practical effects and results of the effort of the administration to
purify the public service, which I would be glad if I had time to refer
to, but I believe I will forbear. I can only say that it seems from an
inspection of the record as if the cry “put the rascals out” had been
changed in effect to “put the rascals in.” Of course Mr. President, no
party is exempt from accidents, no organization has a monopoly
either of good men or of bad men, and in calling attention to the
results of civil-service reform as applied to this administration, I
should be insincere if I were to assume that such results had followed
from any predetermined purpose to put bad men into office.
We heard a great deal during the campaign about the corruptions,
profligacy, misdeeds, and maladministration of Republican officials.
I can only say that in view of what has occurred under this
administration, if I were inclined to be uncharitable I could with
entire propriety say that while the Republican party was in power it
endeavored whenever it detected crime anywhere to punish it; but
one of the practical results of Democratic administration has been
the reverse, and that is to place in office a very large number of
admitted and convicted felons. I have before me a selection from
which I will, I believe, in support of this view of the case, give a law
extract, stating in advance that these compilations are made from
Democratic newspapers which, of course, is a mitigation of the
slander, though it does not necessarily destroy its credibility.
Mr. ——, of Baltimore, who was made an Indian inspector in 1885,
had been involved in notorious election frauds and was condemned
by the civil-service reform Independents of Maryland as a
companion of Higgins, as a ballot-box stuffer, and a professional
gambler.
The postmaster at Sioux City, Iowa, was convicted and sentenced
in Dakota for violation of the pension laws. The man who was
removed to make a place for this eminent civil-service reformer had
eight months yet to serve, and there was no complaint against him
even to the extent that he was an offensive partisan.
Mr. Holmes, a postmaster in Mississippi, had been involved in
notorious election-fraud scandals.
Mr. Shannon, appointed postmaster at Meriden, Miss., was the
editor of the Mercury newspaper, which after President Grant’s
death contained a rabid editorial attacking the General’s character;
and he had been indicted in the United States court for “unlawfully
and criminally conspiring with many others for the evasion of the
civil rights law.”
In Rhode Island a Democratic postmaster was appointed who had
been in the preceding three months arrested nine times for violation
of the liquor law.
In Pennsylvania a man was appointed in the Philadelphia Mint
who openly confessed to writing a forged letter from Neal Dow to be
used in influencing the German vote in the State of Ohio the
preceding year.
There have been some strange things done in Maine. I almost
hesitate to quote this, but if I am wrong the Senators from that State
will undoubtedly correct me. It is alleged that the postmaster in the
town of Lincolnville was at the time of his appointment actually in
the Portland jail, where he was serving a term for a misdemeanor.
 An agent by the name of Judd, who was appointed in the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, was, upon inquiry as to the fact whether he had
been a horse-thief and served in the penitentiary, suspended from
office. The writer states that the only ground for supposing that he
was not a horse thief arose from the fact that they do not put men in
the penitentiary for stealing horses out West: that if he was alive it
was a reasonable, natural conclusion that he had not stolen any
horses. Nobody denied the penitentiary.
A gentleman named Richard Board, of Kentucky, was appointed in
July, on the recommendation of Comptroller Durham, clerk in the
railway mail service and assigned to duty in New Mexico. This is
under the Postmaster-General, who found leisure between removing
postmasters every fifteen minutes to appoint this man in another
branch of the service where he incautiously mentioned to his friends
something about his previous history, and it appeared that he had
been three times arrested in Cincinnati for obtaining money under
false pretenses, that he had been twice arrested for stealing in
Kentucky, and once in Texas—a variegated and diversified career.
“No pent up Utica” contracted his powers. He had stolen in three
states. His father was a very wealthy man in high standing who had
spent a great deal of money to protect his son, and through him he
secured the endorsement of Comptroller Durham, and after he had
been in service for a few weeks he committed a number of robberies,
stole $163 from the money order service, and at the date of this
communication was lying in jail at Santa Fé awaiting trial.
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Voorhees] yesterday took
occasion to advert with somewhat of animated hilarity to the
suggestion of the Senator from Iowa about the evolutionary
condition of the Democratic party, and dwelt with considerable
unction upon a term that the Senator from Iowa had applied to the
Democracy in his very able and interesting speech: “a protoplasmic”
cell, and the Senator then proceeded to give us the definition of the
term as it appears in the dictionaries, and suggested that if those
facts had been known at the time when the canvass was pending Mr.
Cleveland would undoubtedly have been counted out in New York.
The Senator from Iowa might have gone further in his application
of the doctrine of evolution with much propriety. Geology teaches us
that in the process of being upward from the protoplasmic cell,
through one form of existence to another there are intermediary and
connecting stages, in which the creature bears some resemblance to
the state from which it has emerged and some to the state to which it
is proceeding. History is stratified politics; every stratum is
fossiliferous; and I am inclined to think that the political geologist of
the future in his antiquarian researches between the triassic series of
1880 and the cretaceous series of 1888 as he inspects the jurassic
Democratic strata of 1884 will find some curious illustrations of the
doctrine of political evolution.
In the transition from the fish to the bird there is an anomalous
animal, long since extinct, named by the geologists the pterodactyl,
or the winged reptile, a lizard with feathers upon its paws and
plumes upon its tail. A political system which illustrates in its
practical operations the appointment by the same administration of
Eugene Higgins and Dorman B. Eaton can properly be regarded as in
the transition epoch and characterized as the pterodactyl of politics.
It is, like that animal, equally adapted to waddling and dabbling in
the slime and mud of partisan politics and soaring aloft with
discordant cries into the glittering and opalescent empyrean of civil-
service reform.
The President closes his recent message to the Senate in this
language:
The pledges I have made were made to the people, and to them I am responsible
for the manner in which they have been redeemed. I am not responsible to the
Senate and I am unwilling to submit my actions and official conduct to them for
judgment.
There are no grounds for an allegation that the fear of being found false to my
professions influences me in declining to submit to the demands of the Senate. I
have not constantly refused to suspend officials, and thus incurred the displeasure
of political friends, and yet willfully broken faith with the people for the sake of
being false to them.
Neither the discontent of party friends nor the allurements constantly offered of
confirmation of appointees conditioned upon the avowal that suspensions have
been made on party grounds alone, nor the threat proposed in the resolution now
before the Senate that no confirmations will be made unless the demands of that
body be complied with, are sufficient to discourage or deter me from following in
the way which I am convinced leads to better government for the people.
He is not responsible to the Senate, nor is the Senate responsible
to him; both are alike responsible to the people. But in the cases at
bar we are compelled to inquire, in justice to the people, whether
those pledges have been redeemed, or whether they have been
broken, violated, and disregarded. Had the patronage of the
Government, within proper limits, been turned over for its exercise
to the party intrusted with power by a majority of the people there
could have been no complaint, but upon the assurances that I have
read, the declaration was made that in every case where an
incumbent was competent and qualified he should remain in office
till the expiration of his term.
When, therefore, some were suspended and others were left, what
is the irresistible inference, after the declarations of the President,
except that these persons were suspended for cause either affecting
their personal integrity or their official administration? Upon the
ground, then, of personal justice, if no other, we are entitled to know
whether wrong has been done by the accusations that have been filed
in the Departments, so that we may protect those who are unable to
defend themselves from injustice and defamation.
But there is another reason, and to me a still more convincing
reason, why we should be advised in the case of these suspensions
what are the papers, the official documents, and the reports on the
files of the departments affecting the administration of these offices,
and that is this: under the tenure-of-office act, every official
suspended is reinstated by the provisions of section 1768 of the
Revised Statutes, if the Senate adjourns without confirming the
designated person, and continues to exercise and discharge the
duties of that office, until he is again suspended by the President.
Therefore, in acting upon these cases we have a double duty to
perform; in the first place, to decide whether the person suspended
was properly suspended, and in the next place, whether he is a
competent person to be restored to office under and by virtue of the
operation of the statute under which he was suspended. If he is not a
competent person then he ought not to be restored, and we cannot
determine whether he is competent and qualified and fit to discharge
the duties of that office until we have the official declarations and
statements upon which the action of the President was based.
Since this debate began, there are indications that the President
has become convinced that his position is untenable, and that he has
concluded to yield to the reasonable requests of the Senate and
relieve suspended officials from the otherwise inevitable imputations
upon their conduct and character. I find the following
correspondence in one of the metropolitan journals, which if
authentic relieves the relation between the President and the Senate
of the principal restraint:
Committee on Finance, United States Senate, March 17, 1886.

Dear Sir: Will you please advise the Committee on Finance whether or not there
are any papers or charges on file reflecting against the official or moral character of
——, late collector of internal revenue for the first district of ——, suspended?
If there are any such papers or charges will you please communicate their nature
and character to the committee?

Very truly, yours,

JUSTIN S. MORRILL.

Hon. Daniel Manning,

Secretary of the Treasury.

March 19, 1886.

Sir: Your communication on behalf of the Finance Committee of the Senate,

dated March 17, 1886, asking whether or not there are any papers or charges on file
reflecting against the official or moral character of ——, late collector of internal
revenue for the first district of ——, suspended, is received.
In reply thereto I have the honor to state that, so far as this inquiry relates to a
suspension from office, I feel bound by the rules laid down in the President’s recent
message to the Senate upon the general subject of such suspensions.
But in order that I may surely act within the requirements of the statute relating
to the furnishing by this Department of information to the Senate, I beg leave to
remind the committee that the office referred to has no fixed term attached to it,
and to further state that the President is satisfied that a change in the incumbency
of said office will result in an improvement of the public service, and that the policy
of the present administration will be better carried out by such change.
Except as the same may be involved in these considerations, no papers
containing charges reflecting upon the official or moral character of the suspended
officer mentioned in your communication are in the custody of this Department.

Respectfully, yours,
D. MANNING, Secretary.

Hon. Justin S. Morrill,

Chairm’n of the Senate Com. on Finance.
 But whether this be true or not, this is not the forum in which this
controversy is to be ultimately decided. The Executive is not on trial
before the Senate; the Senate is not on trial before the Executive; but
both, as to the sincerity of their professions and the consistency of
their actions, are on trial before that greater, wiser, and more
powerful tribunal—the enlightened conscience of the people, from
whose verdict there is neither exculpation nor appeal.
 THE GREAT TARIFF CAMPAIGN OF 1888.

The views which point to the tendency of the Democratic party in

the direction of Free Trade, at least to their antagonism to the theory
of Protection for protection’s sake, are well given in the special
message of President Cleveland, given elsewhere in this work. A wing
of the Democratic party, headed by Samuel J. Randall, of
Pennsylvania, dissented from this view, and opposed both the
Morrison and the Mills bills. For the purpose of illustrating the views
of this class of Democrats, as well as because of the distinction of the
speaker, we append