facts,—the reputation of the Mother is the child’s richest heritage. The
Mother loved the Red Cross child; the child, the Mother—the slander of
the Mother, dead, is by the individual, not by the Red Cross. The
slander having coiled itself in Red Cross official circles there it
lives, and will live, until scotched by the Red Cross or the American
people.
For slander lives upon succession;
Forever housed, where it gets possession.
The so-called “investigation of charges” against Clara Barton in 1904
was before the Red Cross Proctor Committee. The “Remonstrants” demanded
an investigation, and suggested that Honorable Richard Olney name the
committee. The Red Cross unanimously approved the selection. The great
Ex-Secretary of State named as that committee: U. S. Senator Redfield
Proctor of Vermont; William Alden Smith of Michigan, then a member of
the House and later a member of the Senate; General Fred C. Ainsworth,
of the United States Army, of Washington, D. C. This in fact was a Red
Cross Committee and not, as so-called, a Congressional Committee.
“Congressional Committee to investigate” was a threat to frighten a
timid woman.
In the so-called “remonstrance” (of record) there is by the
“remonstrants,” of whom the “post-mortem accuser” was one, a disclaimer
of
(a) “Any dishonesty on the part of Miss Barton in the administration of
the affairs of the Red Cross.
(b) “Any charge of misappropriation of any property or any money by Miss
Barton; or
(c) “Any improper act or conduct of any kind which involved in the
slightest degree any element of moral turpitude.”
Had there been an official charge at that time of “misappropriation of
any property or any money,” or any other charge involving “in the
slightest degree any element of moral turpitude,” on the part of the Red
Cross Founder, charities would have thenceforward ceased to flow into
Red Cross coffers, the Red Cross would have collapsed, and the
“remonstrants” making such accusation haled into court, on a charge of
criminal libel. The “remonstrants” foresaw that the good name of the
Founder was the one hope of the Red Cross. The disclaimer was
prerequisite to the attainment of the “remonstrant’s” ultimate object,
namely: the coming into possession of a popular organization that
carried political and social prestige.
Mrs. Logan, the Vice-President, threatened court proceedings unless her
name was removed from Red Cross literature, and in consequence it was
removed. Not so, Miss Barton. She at all times wished it removed, at one
time threatened court action, but she dared not risk the possibly fatal
consequences to the Red Cross. She suffered, in heart-aches, because of
such conscienceless fraud on the American people, as she often said,
that the Red Cross might survive. Thus to the very day of her death,
through silent acquiescence in the fraudulent use of her name to secure
legislation and the people’s confidence for the new management, she was
being terrorized, lest by her own word or act her Red Cross child might
come to grief. The _post mortem_ charges are camouflage, a shield to
protect the actors in the “tragedy of 1904;” the game as of the
cuttle-fish in making the waters murky, when being chased by a superior
force;—in this case, that of Truth.
The charges made were:
(a) “That proper books of account were not at all times kept;
(b) “That the property and funds of the Red Cross were not at all times
distributed upon the order of the Treasurer of the Society, as alleged
to be required by the by-laws of the Society; and
(c) “That a certain tract of land in Lawrence County, Indiana, had been
donated to the Society by one Joseph Gardner; that the Society was
reincorporated after such donation, and that such donation was never
reported to the new corporation.”
It was shown at the investigation that no Red Cross money had been
invested in the tract of land referred to; that for reasons the proposed
deal was not consummated, and the title lapsed; that proper books of
account had been kept, and receipts taken for material and money, but
not individual receipts from the sick, the wounded and the dying on
fields of disaster—a system of red-tape impossible consistent with good
service; that also the by-laws had been complied with in making
disbursements through the Treasurer except,—when that too was
impossible—during the stress of active relief work in the field. As her
every field worker, then living that had at any time served under
President Barton, approved her methods in Red Cross work; as the
Washington “Society Remonstrants” had no experience in field work,
manifesting pitiful ignorance as to what was required, the “charges” of
_incompetency_ on the part of the accused received no consideration at
the hands of the Committee.
L. A. Stebbins, of Chicago, Illinois, ex-attorney for the Red Cross, in
July, 1916, in a written report to the Library Committee of the House,
and to which report he makes affidavit, refers to the charges of 1903
and 1904 in words such as follow: “The _only witness_ ever produced to
give testimony;—testimony was wholly unworthy of credit—false and
untrue;—for blackmailing purposes;—clearly indicating blackmail.”
On February 20, 1903, as elsewhere stated, the “remonstrants” certified
in writing (certification of record) as to the “integrity, good name and
fame of Clara Barton.” At the investigation held in the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Room on April 12, 1904, _in re_ the terrifying
twenty-four page “remonstrance” before the Proctor Red Cross Committee,
General John M. Wilson, himself a “remonstrant” and representing the
“remonstrants” on that occasion, among other things said “We do not
charge that anybody has been guilty of malfeasance,” in Red Cross
affairs.
Referring to this very occasion, Major-General W. R. Shafter, Commander
of the American Army in the Spanish-American War, in 1904 while the case
was pending, said: “If the charges made against Clara Barton were true,
no gentleman could afford to be mixed up in the affair, but not one word
uttered against her _is_ true.” Clara Barton, in 1911, referring to that
now historic event, said: “The harvest is not what the reapers expected,
and I suspect if it were all to be done over again in the light of their
newly-gained experience, it would not be done.”
To the credit of man’s respect for historic truth in official decisions,
and his innate American chivalry, since the exoneration in 1904 there is
not, at least of record, by any man an adverse criticism of the Red
Cross Founder. _The perversion of the truth of history, however, by
woman is as injurious to the public weal as such perversion by man, and
through no ingenuous excuse of chivalry for a live woman, and against a
dead woman, should untruth have countenance._ The investigation, for
want of evidence, was _summarily dismissed_, on motion of the Committee
itself. It thus became a mere farcical episode in American history.
The written certification of the Founder’s “integrity,” by the
“remonstrants” in 1903; the oral disclaimer by the “remonstrants” of
_any_ Red Cross malfeasance in office officially proclaimed at the
investigation in 1904, followed by a unanimous decision adverse to the
“remonstrants,” the incident then should have been closed. The
“accusation,” however, of even worse import than that originally in the
_indictment_, by the “remonstrants” of 1903 and of 1904, again comes to
the attention of the public in a semi-official way, from the same “lone
woman accuser,” and is still a living factor in Red Cross policy,—still
coming—still going—never ending—
All slander
Must still be strangled in its birth; as time
Will soon conspire to make it strong enough
To overcome truth.
A certain letter by a Red Cross official, assuming to represent the Red
Cross Society, was mailed from the Washington Red Cross headquarters to
the members of the U. S. Senate and House of Representatives. Said
letter was written to be used, and was used, as the basis of an argument
against the record and fame of Clara Barton before the Library Committee
of Congress. On the letter-head was the following:
The American Red Cross
Pointe-au-Pie
Province of Quebec,
Canada. July 29, 1916.
The letter was signed ... (unofficially).
From that long letter, certain to be in American annals of peculiar
interest as an epistolary curio, are taken the following excerpts:
“Her father died in 1862, leaving property valued at a little more
than $1,000, of which she received a few hundred.”
“I may say individually that previous to the war Miss Barton appears,
according to her statement to have taught school at Bordentown, New
Jersey, where a teacher’s salary was $300 per year. A little later the
records show that she and some other woman occasionally did copying in
the Interior Department.”
“She obtained from Congress in 1866, $15,000 which she said she had
expended of her own money in tracing the missing soldiers. It is
difficult to understand where she obtained this money and also upon
what her income depended in future years, as she stated she never
received any salary or income from the Red Cross and yet she had no
other remunerative occupation that we know of.”
“In the 126 volumes of the War Department records of the Civil War no
mention is made of Miss Barton’s name or services except in a single
letter from her asking information as to prisoners at Annapolis.”
“We have a printed diary of.... This diary was published in 1863.
Though the names of a number of efficient women like Miss Dix and
others connected with the Sanitary Commission are mentioned in a
laudatory way, Miss Barton is never referred to.”
“In many published accounts of the Sanitary and Christian Commissions,
Miss Barton is not mentioned, though hundreds of other devoted women
are given.”
“Just after the Civil War, several gentlemen who had been connected
with the Sanitary Commission organized the first American Red Cross
Society, but as the Senate had not at that time ratified the treaty of
Geneva, this body could hold no official status and shortly went out
of existence.”
“In 1881 Miss Barton who, previously when visiting in Vienna, had
learned of the treaty of Geneva and the Red Cross societies, with a
number of others organized the American Red Cross.”
“The International Committee of Geneva transmitted through her a
letter to the President of the United States requesting the
ratification of the Treaty.”
“Mr. Blaine interested himself in the matter and in 1882 the Treaty
was ratified by the United States Senate.”
“From 1881 until 1904 Miss Barton remained the President of this small
American Red Cross, and sometimes acted also as its treasurer.”
“Financial statements were not made public and it is impossible to say
what funds were received and expended during the 23 years of its
existence.”
“I don’t care to take your time in stating many evidences of the
misuse of the Red Cross relief funds under Miss Barton, but I desire
to mention two or three incidents.”
“She advertised in the Worcester papers for contributions for relief
among the soldiers, but no record was made of what she received or
expended during the Civil War.”
“Certain letters we have seem to show that she occasionally had some
of the contributed funds invested in the West.”
“It is difficult to obtain data regarding the receipts and expenditure
of funds.”
“At the time of the Russian famine in 1892 ... no financial report was
made.”
“Shortly after this time Miss Barton bought real estate in Washington
and Glen Echo....”
“I think I have given, however, sufficient evidence to show why
dishonest appropriation of relief funds for the personal use of Miss
Barton makes the officials of the American Red Cross strongly opposed
to having the memorial of such a woman placed in a building that
stands in remembrance of the noblest, finest and most self-sacrificing
womanhood of America. Should your committee desire me to go to
Washington and lay before it the evidence I have given and more in our
possession, I would be willing to do so.”
... would well become
A woman’s story at a winter’s fire,
_Authorized_ by her grandam.
The “charges,” including detractions, innuendoes and suspicions (of
which the foregoing are only in part), take a wide range, extending from
the time Clara Barton taught her first school at Bordentown in 1836 (80
years previous), down to the Sea Islands hurricane in 1893 (22 years
previous). These “charges” were segregated by a friend of Clara Barton
for the Library Committee. In that form they consist of thirty-one
“charges,” including the accuser’s _personal verdict_, “the dishonest
appropriation of relief funds.” In history the “accusation” will be
referred to as “_The Thirty-One Charges Without a Charge In It._” In
legal circles such affirmations are known as “stale charges,” or by a
worse name; but, even if presented immediately, such “charges” would
have no standing in any court of equity in this country. The “charges”
are further negatived by the admissions of the accuser, “It is difficult
to obtain data regarding the receipts and expenditures;” “It is
impossible to say what funds were received and expended.”
Also, inexcusable ignorance was shown on the part of the accuser of
Clara Barton as to her methods in Red Cross affairs. It is certified to
by the Red Cross (and of official record) that Clara Barton made her
report at the close of every disaster, and in every instance the report
was approved by the Red Cross, and was satisfactory to her government
and the American people. Besides besmirching the history and good name
of the Red Cross and her country, thus to impeach the integrity of the
Founder of the Red Cross and for more than a score of years its
President, is to impeach also her various boards of officers and her
hundreds of other associates, including American Presidents,—all of whom
uniformly approved her methods, her reports and the results achieved,
while “she remained the President of this small American Red Cross and
sometimes acted also as its Treasurer.”
If what the “lone accuser” asserts be true, that “we (Red Cross) have
letters that seem to show that she occasionally had some of the
contributed funds invested in the West,” they are letters, among other
Red Cross effects, that came officially into the possession of the Red
Cross, in 1904, through the pleasure and free-will offering of the
conscientious-and-honest-to-a-fault-concealing-nothing Clara Barton. And
for which also she received a _clearance card_, a “receipt in full.” As
an American citizen and a member of the Red Cross I protest the legal
right, or the moral right, of the Red Cross “accuser” now to incriminate
her whose lips are sealed, or longer to approve of record, _upon what
seems to show_.... The facts _not only seem to show, but do show_, that
if Clara Barton had not accepted as a present from the twin brothers,
Edwin and Edward Baltzley of Glen Echo, Chautauqua, her Glen Echo real
estate, and for a house thereon as a present, the wreckage lumber from
the people of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, in 1889, there would have been no
free-of-rent home for the Red Cross for the last fifteen years of her
Red Cross administration and that of other philanthropies; that, while
the accuser was living in a palace and “rolling in wealth,” the accused
would have been homeless and penniless, living on charity.
The “lone accuser” has no “letters that seem to show,” save and except
such letters be interpreted by an “enemy,” and for an ulterior purpose.
There is no truth in cynicism, or but half truth, which is more untruth
than no truth. There is no truth in “we (Red Cross) have others in our
possession” which the “lone accuser” pretended to have in her
_post-mortem cruise_, in 1916, while trying to thwart the will of the
people as to the proposed Clara Barton memorial tablet in the American
Red Cross Building; and, still worse, trying to blot out forever the
name of the Red Cross Founder. As the sentiment of all the people, but
said by the people of Johnstown just after the flood, in 1889: “Try to
describe the sunshine. Try to describe the starlight. Picture the
sunlight and the starlight, and then try to say good bye to Clara
Barton.”
Truth will come to sight.
_In re_ Memorial to Clara Barton in 1916, the Library Committee of the
House of Representatives, having before them all charges of whatsoever
nature against Clara Barton, but especially those certain _post mortem_
“charges,” wholly ignored each charge, and all “charges,” made by the
“remonstrants” of 1902–4, in their memorial to Congress at that time.
The report of the Library Committee in 1916 was favorable to Miss
Barton, and as disastrous to the cause of the “remonstrants” as was that
of the Red Cross Proctor Committee, in 1904.
From the House Records, in the unanimously approved report by the
Library Committee, are the following excerpts:
“Miss Barton’s life was given up to the work of relieving the distress
in Europe and America, and her place in the affection of her friends and
admirers is secure. None of them is willing to admit that she needs any
special tablet, or stone, or that either is required to keep alive her
memory as a benefactor of all distressed mankind. As one of the women of
the Civil War, and a distinguished one, she also is memorialized in the
Red Cross Building.”
[Illustration:
RICHARD OLNEY
I have always believed in Miss Barton’s merits as a patriot and
disinterested worker in aid of suffering humanity.
RICHARD OLNEY, in 1916.
]
ATTORNEYS FOR THE AMERICAN RED CROSS SOCIETY UNDER THE PRESIDENCY OF
CLARA BARTON
[Illustration:
LEWIS A. STEBBINS
Clara Barton is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of
humanitarians of recent times.
LEWIS A. STEBBINS, in 1922.
]
[Illustration:
WILLIAM H. SEARS
Measured by her achievements, Clara Barton is the greatest woman the
world has yet produced.
WILLIAM H. SEARS.
]
The memorial tablet[8] was not placed in the Red Cross Building, as
requested by the friends of Clara Barton, backed by one and one-half
millions of petitioners to have it so placed, the most forceful argument
being that one of the largest contributors to the cost of the
building—and a friend of the accuser—made objection.
Footnote 8:
As a substitute for the proposed memorial tablet in the Red Cross
building, the statue of Clara Barton, representing American
philanthropy, should be placed in the “Hall of Fame” in the National
Capitol, alongside that of Frances Willard, representing temperance;
and the name of the Red Cross Founder also should be recognized as
President _In Memoriam_ of the American Red Cross, as her name is now
recognized by The National First Aid Association of America.
The foregoing is the authentic record presented to Congress in 1916, and
a complete statement of facts—all the important recorded facts—relating
to the “charges” of 1903–1904, with no official charges succeeding that
date. Nor have I found in many months of examination in the Library of
Congress, consisting of 2,800,000 volumes, or anywhere else of record,
any detraction of early American Red Cross history or the slightest
intimation that the Red Cross Founder was dishonest or a malfeasant in
office, except from the pen of this “lone accuser.”
Every officer, under oath sworn to conduct his office to the best of his
ability, that knowingly conceals “dishonest appropriation” of public
funds becomes _particeps criminis_, in the dishonest transaction. If
true, therefore, as the “lone accuser” asserts over her signature in her
letter to the Members of Congress, that “we (i.e., Red Cross) have
letters that seem to show”—“dishonest appropriation of relief funds”
then, inasmuch as no effort was made to recover from her or her estate
these alleged losses, Clara Barton’s successors as Red Cross executives,
in their capacity as trustees of a public trust, Mrs. John A. Logan, W.
H. Taft and Woodrow Wilson become involved.
“CHARGES”? YES, REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
If not true, what could have been the object hoped for by the accusing
Red Cross official, in her perversion of Red Cross history? Was it that
she might dictate to one hundred millions of people the sentiment of a
government building, known as The American Red Cross Building? It is
somewhat significant that a few months later the United States put four
millions of soldiers in the field, to make “The World Safe for
Democracy.”
Since this chapter was written and in type, there came into the
possession of the author a letter, unsolicited, and relating to the
possible motive. The letter was written by the Honorable Francis
Atwater, the well-known Journalist and Ex-State Senator of Connecticut,
and who for 40 years was Clara Barton’s co-worker and financial adviser.
The letter, sworn to, follows:
October 14, 1921.
Mrs. Marietta B. Wilkins,
359 Boylston Street,
Boston, Mass.
My dear Mrs. Wilkins:
Miss Andrews informs me that —— has been in communication with you in
regard to Miss Barton. I would like to say a few words about ——. About
1900 she became interested as a member of the American Red Cross. Miss
Barton, some fifteen years previous, had founded the association after
years of effort. She furnished the funds for the purpose, as she did
for many years afterward for its support. It became a very popular
institution. Miss Barton was honored by the world as no other woman
had ever been.
—— having great wealth and connected with the social elements of
Washington, coveted Miss Barton’s position and honors. She used her
every endeavor to accomplish this purpose. She visited me in my office
at Meriden, Conn., knowing I had great influence with Miss Barton, and
offered, if I would get her to become honorary president of the Red
Cross, to raise a million dollars for a Red Cross temple to be built
in Washington and Miss Barton could have any sum she chose as an
annuity, expecting, of course, to succeed Miss Barton as president. If
we did not accept her offer she insinuated we would be sorry. Her
proposition was spurned.
From that day she hounded and persecuted Miss Barton until her wicked
design was completed. Since Miss Barton’s death —— has made the most
damaging, slanderous statements, well knowing there is no law to which
she is amenable. If there was we would avenge Miss Barton’s memory
quickly.
I will say that Miss Barton when she died was several thousand dollars
poorer than when she established the Red Cross. She had the friendship
and confidence of every president from Lincoln to McKinley, also Gen.
B. F. Butler, Vice-President Wilson, Charles Sumner, Senator Hoar and
Richard Olney of Massachusetts, the most influential men of the
country, and the crowned heads of the world. Many, like myself, gave
years of our time and paid our own expenses, not for the Red Cross,
but for Miss Barton and humanity. With friends of great wealth who
offered and sent her checks for large amounts to her individual order
to be used as she pleased (I opened many such letters) could any one
imagine that Miss Barton would stoop to steal a few paltry dollars?
If —— persists in vilifying Miss Barton’s character, I wish you would
ask her to make her statements in my presence.
Our Saviour was crucified, but has been remembered affectionately ever
since.
—— is down and out in the Red Cross, which since her removal has
printed much in Miss Barton’s favor.
—— seems obsessed with only one idea, to besmirch the memory of Clara
Barton but, like Abraham Lincoln, who in life was so sadly traduced,
Miss Barton’s name will be blessed more and more as the years pass by,
while —— will pass away practically unknown and unmourned.
Yours truly,
(Signed) FRANCIS ATWATER.
_AFFIDAVIT_
Personally appeared before me Francis Atwater, and made oath that the
facts set forth in the above statement are true to the best of his
knowledge and belief.
(Signed) _Edward B. Whitney_.
Notary Public.
Meriden, Conn., Oct. 21, 1921.