October 28, 1917, when a masked mob seized Prof. Herbert S. Bigelow,
a prominent citizen of Cincinnati, Ohio, tied him to a tree in the
woods and horse-whipped him for advocating the constitutional rights
of American citizens.
The manner in which terrorism was carried out is well illustrated by
events in New York City. Bazaars were everywhere held in aid of the
cause of army and navy and the associated governments, and committees
scoured the city for subscriptions and support. Among the events
organized for this ostensible purpose was the Army and Navy Bazaar.
The sum of $72,000 was taken in, but only $700 went to Uncle Sam’s
soldiers and sailors. The rest went for commissions and expenses.
This affair was used to terrorize German Americans on a large scale
in order to press money out of them. An investigation brought out
evidence, supplied by William S. Moore, secretary of the Guaranty
Trust Company, who was treasurer of the bazaar, that “German citizens
and citizens of German descent had been threatened with accusations
of disloyalty by collectors of the bazaar.” An evening paper stated:
“He admitted to the prosecutor that during the preparations for the
bazaar several complaints that New Yorkers of German blood had been
solicited, with the threat that they would be reported for internment
if they refused to contribute, had been made to the bazaar officials.”
Samuel Gompers, head of the American Federation of Labor, during the
war declared that 600 liberal periodicals had been interfered with
by the Post Office Department under the power given the Postmaster
General to censor the American press. A large number of papers were
harrassed, their editors arrested, some charged with treason or other
high crime; and a few--a very few--were indicted. One effectual way
of putting a stop to a publication which, though no grounds existed
for its suppression, yet proved offensive by its outspoken defense
of American principles, was to cancel its second-class mailing
privilege. Under this privilege a paper enjoys a pound-rate postage,
instead of being obliged to pay one cent or more for every copy
mailed.
This was the course pursued toward the weekly, “Issues and Events,”
which, with “The Fatherland” (now Viereck’s “American Monthly”),
was started in 1914 to combat the pro-Ally campaign under Lord
Northcliffe. After some five or six issues were stopped from going
through the mails, the paper taking steps to reincorporate, became
“The American Liberal,” but after only four issues was denied the
second-class mailing privilege, and was forced to suspend.
The issue of March 23, 1918, was stopped for printing Theodore
Sutro’s plea before the Senate Committee as attorney for the
German-American Alliance, which was having its charter canceled by
a bill introduced by Senator King, of Utah. The issue of April 6,
1918, was stopped. It contained a compilation of the outrages against
German Americans in all parts of the country under the heading, “A
Reign of Terror.” The issue of April 13 was stopped. It contained a
quotation from Carl Schurz on the freedom of speech and press, and
a statement of Abraham Lincoln on reverence for the law; also an
article on the seizure of a list of 40,000 subscribers to the German
war bonds by the then attorney general of New York.
The next number to be stopped was the issue of May 11, containing
an article, “The Right of Free Speech Defined by a Distinguished
Federal Judge to Roosevelt and by Judge Hand to the Jury Trying
‘The Masses’ Case,” and an article showing that the Germans had
subscribed a larger amount to the Liberty Loan than any other group
of foreign-born citizens.
The June 1 issue was next stopped. It contained the address of
Melville E. Stone, general manager of the Associated Press, before
the St. Louis Commercial Club, in which he denied the truth of the
stories of Belgian atrocities after a personal investigation of
numerous cases in France and Belgium. The June 8 issue also was
stopped. The offensive material obviously consisted of extracts from
a pamphlet issued by the National Civil Liberties Bureau, “The Truth
About the I. W. W.” It presented a compilation of extracts from the
works of industrial investigators and noted economists, and was
printed as a matter of news with no idea of propagandizing the cause
of the I. W. W.
The paper was rapidly losing its footing under this heroic treatment
of the Post Office censorship, although no notoriety was attached
to the course. On June 22 the first issue of “The American Liberal”
appeared, in which an attempt was made to avoid anything that could
give excuse for interference, the chief desire being to protect the
stockholders and creditors. But after the fourth issue a peremptory
order canceling the second-class mailing privilege put an effectual
stop to further efforts to continue the uneven struggle.
Immediately after, the affairs of the paper became a subject of
serious concern in various secret service branches of the government.
A raid was made on a prominent citizen in the town of Reading and
letters were found showing that he had at one time aided the paper
in the sum of $100. This was heralded as evidence of some sinister
conspiracy to destroy the government. A raid was made on the office
of the paper and every letter on file was seized to discover proof of
fraud and bad faith on the part of certain employes of the office,
and to establish some connection with German plotters. Investigations
were instituted; the daily papers were supplied with information
that contained one part fact and nine parts suggestion, innuendoes
and insinuations. Lawyers who examined the reports said they were
vicious, but just within the law--that action for libel would
probably not stick. And that was obviously the purpose of the raids.
The prominent citizen of Reading was allowed to go the even tenor of
his ways, and the seized documents in the office of the paper were
returned in due season and pronounced harmless. The public had been
lashed into a feverish state of indignation against some imaginary
plotters, a legitimate enterprise had been ruined, all the employes
of the paper had been turned into the street, some filth had been
flung at the head of the editor, and the country was saved!
The paper was instrumental, after its suspension, in raising
sufficient money to satisfy an indebtedness of more than $600 due a
private benevolent institution in which it had placed a large number
of children of distressed aliens affected by the rigorous legislation
of Congress against alien enemies, and the Mount Plaza Home, which
it had started for the same purpose, took care of between 800 and
900 children during the season of 1918 with its own resources. This
charity had formed a special object of attack and suspicion.
Even more drastic was the treatment accorded Viereck’s “American
Monthly,” though for reasons which need not be detailed here, it was
not interfered with by the Post Office Department. The principal
cause for the inquisition, which kept the daily press well supplied
with Monday morning articles of sensational interest, was Mr.
Viereck’s connection with German propaganda before our entrance
in the war. The inquisition was conducted by Assistant State’s
Attorney Alfred Becker, then a candidate for Attorney General, who
was apparently making political capital for himself out of the
investigation. Later Senator Reed showed that Becker’s associate in
the investigation was an individual named Musica, an ex-convict, who
with a number of associates had, also under Mr. Becker’s auspices,
sought to “frame up” William Randolph Hearst with Bolo Pasha, the
press being furnished with statements that Mr. Hearst, Bolo Pasha,
Capt. Boy-Ed and Capt. von Papen had foregathered over a supper at a
prominent New York hotel for some undefined evil purpose. The whole
story was shown to be a fabrication.
The daily press teemed with headlines like this: “Letters Seized
by Millions in Raid--Alleged Seditious Matter Taken After Over 300
Search Warrants Are Issued Secretly--Anti-War Bodies on List.”
(New York “Times,” August 30, 1918.) “Teuton Propaganda Board Now
Known--Attorney General Promises that Names of Americans Involved
Will be Made Public--Kaiser’s Machine Worked Under the Cloak of
the German Red Cross;” “Teuton Propaganda Paid for by Rumely--Gave
Hammerling $205,000 in Cash for Space in Foreign Language
Newspapers--Germans Planned $1,500,000 Good Will Campaign, Expecting
U-Boats to End War in June, 1917;” “‘Charity’ Millions a Propaganda
Fund--Becker Exposes Fraud of German Agents Here--Deputy Attorney
General Says He Expects to Implicate ‘Journalists’ Among Others;”
(New York “Evening Post,” August 19, 1918); “Propaganda Hunt by
Federal Agents--Homes and Offices Searched in Cities Wide Apart Under
Government Warrants--Visit Plants in Reading--Correspondence and
Documents of Dr. Michael Singer Seized in Chicago,” etc.
All books bearing on the European struggle, written long before our
entrance into the war, many of them of a sociological character,
others dealing with historical subjects, were placed in an index
expurgatorious. Books discontinued the day we entered the war were
sent for by reputable persons in the hope of obtaining evidence
of violation of law against those issuing them. Indiscriminately,
everywhere, names of well-known citizens of German descent, many
of them native-born, were bandied about in the newspapers as spies
and plotters, their homes and offices were raided, their papers
seized--and there matters ended. Among the books described as
seditious were works by Prof. John W. Burgess, Frank Harris, Prof.
Scott Nearing, Frederic C. Howe, W. S. Leake, Sven Hadin, Theodore
Wilson Wilson, Arthur Daniels, E. G. Balch, Capshaw Carson, E. F.
Henderson, Roland Hugins.
The reaction came when before the Overman Senate Committee a list of
“suspects” was given out by an agent of the Department of Justice. It
was headed by Miss Jane Addams. People began to realize that if the
efforts of this great American woman, actuated in her philanthropic
work by the most impartial and benevolent motives, could be
impudently pronounced those of a German plotter and propagandist,
the indictment against every other person on the list must be of
uncertain consistency. By slow degrees it became apparent that
certain officials had blundered. When “The Nation” had an issue held
up for criticizing Samuel Gompers, the zealous Solicitor for the Post
Office Department, William H. Lamar, was suddenly overruled by the
President. In addition, Lamar made a bad impression by excluding “The
World Tomorrow,” representing the Fellowship of Reconciliation, of
which Jane Addams is president. It was practically ordered to cease
publication. By the President’s order it was restored to its rights.
DeWoody, in charge of the Federal investigations in New York,
resigned and disappeared from public notice. Bielaski, head of the
secret service at Washington, resigned. Many of the officials had
been handsomely advertised but had failed to effect convictions. They
had been principally occupied in loading odium on American citizens
who had acted wholly within their rights.
Much blame fell to them that attaches legitimately to the American
Protective League, the National Security League and other voluntary
spy organizations, whose members did not know the difference between
testimony and evidence and were continually embarrassing the federal
officers with over-zealous efforts to convict people, so that
ultimately Attorney General Palmer, on succeeding Gregory, issued
notice repudiating these private organizations.
A fatal blunder was made on a certain day in New York; thousands of
young men were halted on the streets by men in khaki and publicly
dragged to a station as “slackers.” Attorney General Gregory
repudiated all responsibility and soon after retired from office.
The principal agent in keeping the excitement at fever heat in
New York City was Deputy Attorney General Alfred L. Becker, and
much of his activity was due to his candidacy for the position of
Attorney General of the State. His “revelations” were all timed
with his eye on the primary election, to take place September 3,
1918. When the United States entered the war he helped to draft the
radical “Peace and Safety Act,” and took charge of investigations
under its authority. A campaign pamphlet issued by him, entitled “A
Brief Account of the Exposure of German Propaganda and Intrigue by
Deputy Attorney General Alfred L. Becker, Candidate for Attorney
General at the Republican Primary,” cites the following cases having
come under his investigations: Bolo Pasha, Joseph Caillaux, former
Premier of France; Adolf Pavenstedt, Hugo Schmidt, Eugen Schwerdt,
German ownership or affiliation of two great woolen mills placed
under control of the Alien Property Custodian; German secret codes,
Dr. Edward A. Rumely’s ownership of the New York “Mail;” German
and Austria-Hungarian war loan subscribers, George S. Viereck,
Dr. William Bayard Hale and Louis Hammerling, and he dwelt on his
efforts toward “fearlessly exposing the activities of the above and
many others =who sought to keep the United States out of the war=.”
Among the subjects investigated by him were enumerated the following
offenses: “Praising German ‘kultur’;” “defending Germany against
the charge of instigating the war;” “cursing England and Japan and
sneering at Italy;” “advocating war with Mexico;” “whining that
France was ‘bled white’;” “hypocritical appeals for German peace;”
“preaching that Germany was sure to win.” The pamphlet carried
the endorsement of Col. Roosevelt: “I am heartily in favor of the
nomination of Mr. Becker because as Deputy Attorney General in charge
of investigating war conspiracies, he has done more to expose and
stamp out German propaganda than any other city, state or federal
official.”
When Becker’s unscrupulous methods were exposed by Senator Reed
before the Overman Committee of the United States Senate and it was
shown that he had been employing a number of ex-convicts parading
under assumed names as his assistants, in order to procure evidence
on which to convict men summoned before him, his star began to set.
In the primaries he was decisively defeated and shortly after he
retired to private practice as a lawyer.
=England Threatens the United States.=--On September 7, 1916, some
remarkable statements were made in the Senate by Senator Chamberlain,
of Oregon, and later replied to by Senator Williams.
The moment for war had not arrived, the Presidential election was
still two months off. Senators were speaking their minds concerning
the arbitrary acts of England against the United States, and Senator
Chamberlain, representing the great salmon and other fishing
interests of the Northwest, told how they were being destroyed by the
Canadian railways and other agencies. “How?” asked Mr. Chamberlain,
“not by any act of Parliament of the Canadian Government, but by
orders in council, pursuing the same course in Canada that the
British Government pursues in England and on the high seas for the
purpose of destroying not only the commerce of our own country
but the commerce of any other neutral country that it sees fit to
destroy.”
The Senator said: “There is absolutely too much Toryism in the
Congress of the United States, both in the House and in the Senate.”
In the course of his speech, he reviewed in detail England’s
aggressions and diplomatic victories over the United States, and it
developed that in the most high-handed manner England was actually
threatening us. Senator Jones, of Washington, being conceded the
floor by his colleagues, said:
“I read the other day an extract from a letter I received from the
Acting Secretary of State, in which he said this:
“‘On July 12 the department received an informal and
confidential communication from the British Ambassador
stating that the Canadian Government has requested him to
say that =the passage of the House Bill 15839 would affect
the relations of the two countries, and might cause the
Canadian Government to enact retaliatory legislation=.’”
Nominally a question of issue between this country and Canada, the
part that England was prepared to play in the matter was shown by the
fact that the British Ambassador was acting as the agent of Canada, a
British colony.
Senator Chamberlain resumed his speech, saying:
“It is the same old threat that is always made when America
undertakes to assert her rights against the British
Government. We do not want to get into trouble with Great
Britain, nor any other country, but we do want to protect
our own rights; and if in order to do it we must suffer
retaliation in some other line or at some other place, why,
Mr. President, let us at whatever cost make the effort to
protect ourselves and let these retaliatory measures come
whenever and wherever they see fit to bring them.
“Why, there are some of our friends so tender-footed and
so fearful of offending the majesty of Great Britain
that they do not want to retain any of these so-called
retaliatory provisions in this bill; and, yet, in violation
of every treaty obligation, we find that Great Britain has
not only been interfering with our commerce but is doing
the very things that this measure is intended to relieve
against; not only blacklisting our merchants but opening
and censoring our mails. Only a few days ago I got a letter
from a constituent of mine inclosing a letter from his
good old mother in Germany, who wrote him that she had not
heard from him for months, and yet he has been writing to
her every week. Why? Because on the plea of military or
other necessity Great Britain is invading the mails of the
United States even when addressed to neutrals or neutral
countries, and taking from the mail pouches private letters
and every other kind, except such as may be protected not
by international law--because they violate international
law--but by special agreement between that country and
this; not only letters but drafts and money and papers and
everything else. I have letters from a prominent man in
Pennsylvania who tells me that letters containing orders
to his house from neutral countries are opened, the orders
taken out and sent to British manufacturing establishments,
and there filled; and the Government that has done these
things has the impudence, as suggested by the letter
addressed to the Senator from Washington, to insist that
if we enact such legislation as that proposed and which
we deem necessary to protect our people and our country,
she will retaliate in some way. She can not retaliate
any worse than she has done, Mr. President, without law,
without authority, and in violation of every national and
international right.
“I know that there are Senators here who do not agree with
me. I heard a distinguished gentleman say tonight that
Great Britain was fighting our battles. If that be true,
does she find it necessary, in fighting our battles, to
destroy our commerce, to rifle our mail sacks, to take our
money, to prevent our intercourse with neutrals, and to do
everything or anything to our injury, whether sanctioned by
the laws of nations or in spite of them?
“I get tired of hearing this, Mr. President. Until the
United States has the courage that Great Britain has always
had to assert her rights and dare maintain them, the United
States may expect to be imposed upon. One of my reasons
for advocating preparation for self-defense was to let
the world know that from this time on the United States
expected to protect her citizens and her country and her
country’s interests at all hazards; and the very fact
that she is prepared to assert those rights when occasion
requires and demands is all that it will be necessary to
do. She will never have to utilize her resources for war.
“Mr. President, I serve notice on the Senate now that I
propose to introduce a bill at the next session of Congress
embodying the provision under consideration and try to
call it to the attention of the Senate, and, if necessary,
to the attention of the country, and to show the country
who is responsible for this base surrender of our rights
to the demands of the Canadian Government. =I want to
protest as loudly as I can against Sir Joseph Pope or any
other Canadian official or the representatives of any
other foreign Government coming over here, either to the
Executive Chambers or to the Department of State or to any
other department of the Government, unless duly accredited,
and interfering with the enactment of laws by the American
Congress that the American people feel are necessary for
their protection and the protection of their commerce. I
think if any American citizen ever dared to enter upon such
a course without an invitation, there ought to be some way
found to punish him for attempting to interfere with the
legislation proposed by a foreign government in its own way
and for its own purposes.=”
Was the Senator, in the closing sentence, referring to any particular
American citizen--to a citizen acting as the attorney for a foreign
government and sustaining close relations to a distinguished member
of the Cabinet?
On September 7 Senator Williams, of Mississippi, undertook to defend
the Canadian Government, and incidentally described a hypothetical
condition which eventually became a reality as to the German
element--that of their children killing the children of their kin,
against which, as to Canada, Williams forefended with religious
protestations.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, there is just one thing that
even my friend George Chamberlain cannot do. He cannot
create war between us and the men and the women and the
children of Canada. =We are too near akin to one another
in blood and in language and in literature and in law and
in everything else that makes men and women akin to one
another for that.=
=The greatest crime that the world could possibly witness
would be a war between the people of the United States
and the people of Canada. It is unthinkable from a sane
man’s standpoint, no matter what happens, no matter what
occurs....=
The Senator says that we assert and we dare to maintain
our rights. Of course we do. =So do they assert and so do
they dare maintain their rights, and they are weaker than
we.= All the more reason why we should be considerate in
our treatment of them, and by God’s blessing we are going
to be. We are not hunting retaliation with Canada, either
from her ports or from ours. We are seeking nothing except
justice in the world.
There is one more thing to be said, Mr. President. A
pathway of commercial retaliation is a pathway of war. In
the long run it means that. It can not mean anything else.
What we want is the old Democratic standpoint of the utmost
free-trade relations with everybody on the earth. The
utmost they grant us we ought to grant them. That spells
peace; that spells amity; that spells friendship. The
opposite course spells war in the long run, and to attempt
to convert these 3,000 miles of boundary between us and
Canada into an area of retaliation and trade hostility is
to convert it ultimately into a relationship of war.
I, for one, have been opposed to it all the time, and I am
opposed to it now. =I can not conceive of a greater crime
than having our children kill the children of the Canadians
or have their children kill our children in an absolutely
useless species of hostility. If we start with trade
hostilities, we will wind up with warlike hostilities.=
Senator Williams was one of the foremost in defending Great Britain
and inciting to war with Germany. Senator Chamberlain had said that
there was entirely too much Toryism in the Senate as well as in the
House; but though he had mentioned no names, the Toryism of which he
had referred stood self-revealed the next day.