Red Web - Blair Coan



Introduction

One of these days the inarticulates of the qualified American electorate are going to awaken from their lethargy and find voice. When they do they are going to get sufficiently aroused to go to the polls on an election day and in a strikingly emphatic manner repudiate every politician afflicted with liver complaint, softening of the brain or flexibility of the spine. The result of this will be a new quality of leadership, patterned after an old one once revered; distinguished for intestinal stamina, frankness and dependability, and exemplified in word and deed by such men as Washington, Lincoln, Webster, Harrison, Cleveland, McKinley, Knox, Sherman, etc., etc.

This accomplished, the recent frame-up against the government and the people of the United States of America by the reds, the pinks and the yellows of domestic and imported politics may, perhaps, be atoned. But in the meantime, to talk about our phenomenal prosperity; to harangue about our position as leader among the nations of the world; to discourse on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to sing about the red, white and blue; to celebrate the Fourth of July and Constitution Day, and to offer reverently quoted excerpts from the writings and addresses of George Washington, the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln, may be, in some instances, a thankless though high-minded task, but in most instances is nothing more than a lot of tommyrot.

It is time, right now, to get down to cases about this thing we hear called "the red menace." In doing so, about the first thing to be said is that the one real menace is a lot pinker than it is red; the pinks—parlor, bedroom, bath and bathless—are a greater peril to the national security of the American republic and its people than the reds; and even the pinks would not be so very menacing were it not for the yellows, the pussy-footers, the treadeasies, the oh-I-wouldn't-do-that-ers of American politics—the men in high places, official and otherwise, who fear to perform the duty they owe the patient and inarticulate majority because to do so means a bean-shooting barrage from the noisy and organized minorities who specialize in open letters, telegrams, resolutions, and cheap oratory about the "downtrodden peepul" whom they neither love nor represent, either in theory or in fact.

Armistice Day, 1918, had scarcely passed into history; American troops at the front in France were not yet on their way back to native soil; the treaty of peace with the foreign foe was yet to be negotiated, drafted and signed, when the frame-up, of which this book is the story, had its beginnings. From time to time since then, the United States has had its taste of civil war—abortive, to be sure,—but war none-the-less, and the sponsors and promoters of it have not yet acknowledged themselves wholly beaten. Whether they are or are not entirely and permanently subdued now depends upon how far and how long the American people may be disposed to go in their toleration of soft tactics, pussy-footing and compromise on the part of politicians and public officers occupying positions of dominance in national and international affairs.

If the people of the United States are not yet fully awake to the frame-up perpetrated against them and their government, they are sure to be awakened to it sooner or later, and when this comes the reds and pinks most conspicuously implicated will not be alone in the morgues for the politically deceased, because the mangled political remains of a notable galaxy of liverless Republicans and over-bilious Democrats will occupy slabs in the same or very proximate oblivion.

The pages of this book, the reader will find, state plain things plainly, not merely about the reds, but about the pinks and the yellows who have lent themselves, consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or unknowingly, to one of the most colossal plots against a government and a nation's people since the world began to put its history on record. These pages, the reader will find, are many of them shocking, some of them thrilling, not a few of them next to incredible, but all of them are loaded with facts in support of this demonstrable truth: that the people of the United States, their government and their Presidents, since the war "to make the world safe for democracy" was fought, have been deliberately and unconscionably tricked by the mob-minded apostles of that very "democracy," aided, abetted, goaded and, in some instances, financed by the red oligarchy of Moscow and its American adepts and dupes.

Herein is told the story of the attempt to assassinate Mitchell Palmer, Attorney General in the Cabinet of Woodrow Wilson; the record of the facts in the relentless assault upon Harry M. Daugherty, Attorney General in the Harding and Coolidge Cabinets, and the attempted crucifixion of Harlan F. Stone, Mr. Daugherty's successor. But it is not said or argued that Mr. Palmer was framed, or that Mr. Daugherty was framed, or that Mr. Stone was framed. These men—Palmer, Daugherty, Stone—were, so far as they were individually concerned, figures solely incidental. It was President Wilson who was framed—and President Harding and President Coolidge; it was the American government that was framed—and the American people, and the public press of the country upon which the American people depend for the truth they seek as the basis for the formulation of intelligent opinion.

The inspiration for this frame-up was criminal; the soul of it was alien-fed treason; some of the engineers of it were ex-convicts, and others were criminals not yet apprehended and convicted; but it has to be admitted that the most of those concerned were dupes, misled tools and sycophants in mentally delicate health.

There was a time, in the course of American post-war history, when the red menace was indeed a menace, when the red web might have been, when seen, something at which to shudder. But today the red web is pink, and only the threads of its origin are red.



From Moscow To Mexico To Montana

Mexico is today, was yesterday, and will be tomorrow the most fertile incubator of Bolshevik revolution on the American continent. For this and one other reason I choose it as the scene for the prologue of this story of an intrigue that had, and still has, for its ultimate goal the overthrow of republican government in the United States of America. The other reason is that it was in Mexico, in the spring time of 1922, that I learned what I know with greater certainty now than then; it was in Mexico that I learned that which, incredible, perhaps, in 1922, became obvious with time and realization.

When I went to Mexico in the spring of 1922, the subject matter of this book, or of this chapter of it, was furthest from my mind. While I had spent some fifteen years of my life as a newspaperman, and had acquired a pretty good knowledge of humankind in general and of men who make governments or endeavor to unmake them, the government of Mexico and the politics of Mexico were merely of incidental interest to me. I was not concerned with newspaper stories that had been written or with any that I might write, and the only investigation I had on my program was of a strictly business character. I went to Mexico as a representative of the Essanay Film Company. The purpose was to find a market for the motion pictures which the Essanay Company was manufacturing. The mission was a failure. There was no market, at any rate no safe or profitable market, for them, and of course the details of the prospective enterprise are of no concern here.

So, although I went to Mexico to get motion picture contracts and came back to the United States empty-handed in that respect, yet I did bring back what I thought was a pretty good newspaper story. For, however far a newspaperman of experience may stray from the profession of his first choosing, he is bound to see newspaper stories along the way even if they are furthest from his intent. The story I got never saw the light of print until two years afterward, my efforts in its behalf with editors of my acquaintance proving of no avail, and I'm obliged to admit that the full import of the story had not percolated my own intellect until those two years had passed.

My story was that the red hand of Moscow was not only concerned with manipulations for control of certain of the big labor organizations of the United States and, with the promotion of strikes, sabotage and various forms of violence for the disruption of industry, but that the intellects controlling it had conceived a way in which to make this same red hand influentially felt in the American congressional elections of 1922. In short, my story was that reds and pinks with red sympathies would be candidates for congressional office in a number of states where radical theories had acquired a foothold of some strength, and that a number of these, masquerading either as Republicans or Democrats, stood a very good show of being elected.

"Somebody has been kidding you," said one Chicago newspaper editor of my acquaintance, when I explained the information I had come upon and sought an arrangement for the publication of an article or a series of articles bearing upon the question.

"And anyway, even if the story is true," another told me, "it would be folly to print it at this time. Nobody would believe it."

He was probably right, as to this last statement. I know well enough now how slowly the truth of it is dawning upon the minds of some very brilliant men in politics, both Democrats and Republicans, even now when every prophetic phase of the story stands forth in the light of subsequent events,

On March 4, 1922, I was in New Orleans, and bound for Mexico. An old friend of mine there was the port captain whom I had known while employed on the staff of the Picayune. It was at his suggestion that I made the trip to Tampico aboard an empty tanker.

"You'll enjoy the experience," he said, and I thought I would—and did, since the port captain arranged for me the luxuries of the captain's cabin aboard ship.

Tampico! The second port in America, second to New York City, it had been, because of the vast shipments of Mexican oil. But what I found upon this visit was little short of an intolerable stench pot. Unless the place has been cleaned up since then, which is not at all likely, it is either the dirtiest hole in the world or in second place for that distinction at any rate.

The odor of Tampico smote my nose before we were within six miles of port. The captain of the tanker laughed at my comments about it, and said:

"The worst is yet to come, son. Wait till you get ashore."

And between then and the time I got ashore I profited by his advice on what to do when we made port.

"There is nothing but graft there," he said. "I know you're no greenhorn, but watch your step or they'll take all you've got away from you before you get to your hotel."

My first trouble was at quarantine. I had my samples of films with me. The customs officer told me the duty on the films would be $180.00.

"For forty pesos ($20.00) I let them in for you duty free," he eagerly informed me, and at once I sensed the itching palm.

"Nothing doing," said I. "When I get to Mexico City and show these pictures, the authorities might take them away from me. I'll have to have the regular custom's receipt."

"That cost you 360 pesos, but you may be plenty safe to take these films along with you without any receipt. That cost you only forty pesos."

I refused. I insisted upon a duly executed receipt for $180.00, preferring not to have my films later confiscated and myself, perhaps, lodged in jail on a charge of smuggling. My preference was a source of much chagrin to the grafting customs officer.

The tanker docked about three miles from the passenger docks. For twenty pesos I got my baggage conveyed in a motorboat to the docks for passengers. Aboard the tanker I had been warned,

"Don't attempt to take your own grip to your hotel. If you do, when you get there it will be taken away from you in all likelihood and mutilated if not destroyed. These bolsheviks, who run these Mexican labor unions, tolerate no scabbing against the baggage-smashers."

I went to the Imperial Hotel, a couple of blocks from the docks. My single piece of hand baggage was carried to the hotel by a native for a charge of a peso and a half. Another carried my trunk there for three pesos. That was the union scale of wages, I was informed, and I learned subsequently that it is a rule of the union that baggage carried by the owner thereof shall be and of right ought to be confiscated and destroyed.

Of course these incidents, just referred to, are of small importance so far as this story is concerned, but they are instances of the general condition of petty graft and open robbery in a place where the apostles and disciples of bolshevism and communism hold sway—where, as I learned, agents and tools of the Red Internationale were dominant, both popularly and officially.

It was at the Imperial Hotel that I first met Smith, an American of Scandinavian nativity or extraction. It was a natural acquaintance, because both of us were from "the States". And, of course, we hadn't been together a great while when Mexico became the topic of conversation.

"Who runs things in this town, anyway?" I asked him.

"We do."

We? This was not exactly clear. I pressed him for enlightenment.

"Why, we, the workers—the proletariat," he proclaimed with some show of eloquence.

Ah, how interesting! Here was a reminder of an old newspaper acquaintance of mine in Chicago who required little or no provocation to be sent into flights of oratory about the woes of the proletariat and the wonders of socialism. I wondered if Smith was like that. No, he was not. But I saw soon enough that he wouldn't object to converting me to something if he got the slightest encouragement.

"Of course, I'm a Communist," he informed me with evident pride, and explained that he was engaged in Mexico in the promotion of communism, and that Tampico at the time was virtually controlled by the revolutionists of that faith. He talked a great deal about communist principles, the Russian revolution, the soviet government of Russia, Karl Marx, Lenin, Trotzky, and other popular heroes of the modern world radical movement, not overlooking Debs, Sinclair, Foster, "Big Bill" Dunne, Ruthenberg and sundry others whose names are familiar to the initiated.

This man called Smith had come from Mexico City to Tampico, as he frankly revealed to me, on a mission connected with the organization of railroad workers. Speaking almost as though he thought I ought already to be aware of what was going on in the world along this particular line, he told me about the destruction of the Tampico railway station which had then but recently occurred.

"All the lesser oil operators have been driven out of this section now," he said, "and we'll be getting rid of the big fellows, too, in time. It's already costing them so much to operate they can't make any money that amounts to anything."

Interesting indeed, thought I!—and my new acquaintance was the soul of frankness. He delivered himself so eloquently of the Russian government and of the great organization for propaganda of the Third Internationale, I concluded, with the hope of influencing me toward his millenial hopefulness, but his connection with actual violence there in Tampico seemed to me to be nothing about which to boast so openly.

"Oh, I'm perfectly safe," he told me. "When you belong to the majority, you're safe enough down here. Besides, if they send any troops down here from Mexico City, we'll probably convert them, too."

A new railroad station was in course of construction in Tampico while I was there. Not long after I left, it was destroyed as was the old one, and troops, which Obregon did send there to maintain order, joined the rebels, helped burn the station, and participated in a subsequent celebration of the event.

My acquaintance with Smith was resumed and improved later on in Mexico City. His "mission" to Tampico had not been concluded when I left there. Upon my taking leave of him, he gave me a bit of advice on traveling. It was to this effect:

An upper berth is rather to be chosen in a sleeping car in Mexico than a lower berth. Bullets are too frequently penetrating the glass windows, before which the lower berths are laid out. It's much safer in an upper berth.

So, taking Smith's tip, I traveled to Mexico City in an upper. There were two day coaches, a sleeper and a special car for soldiers escorting the train. From Tampico to Mexico City was a 48-hour run. The speed limit was 12 miles an hour. It was one of the trains on one of Mexico's government owned, government operated railways.

Arriving in Mexico City I found a station porter already firmly attached to my hand luggage. My trunk, roped and sealed by a government agent, I ordered sent to the Regis hotel. The porter tossed my grip into a taxicab and directed me peremptorily to enter. I did so and was driven to the hotel—by two taxi drivers.

Curious thing about these taxicabs, I found out, in Mexico City. They are all Fords, but that is not the curious thing. It is this: Each cab has a driver and an assistant driver. This makes robbery of a visiting foreigner so much more simple. Driving foreigners out upon the plateau to rob them, and not infrequently to murder them, appears to have been a flourishing side-line in the "union" of taxicab drivers. At any rate, when I was there protests had been received by the Obregon government from foreign countries whose subjects had been robbed, murdered, or both, so the Mexican president decreed the taxicab drivers and their assistants would be required to register with the police. They refused, and announced there would be a "general strike" (favorite bolshevik weapon) if any attempt was made to enforce the decree. The decree was withdrawn, and a new one issued. Under its terms, the drivers must obtain "good conduct cards," have their pictures taken for identification purposes and make solemn pledges not to engage in lawlessness. Again refusal by the drivers. Obregon insisted. Defiance from the taxicab banditti.

The Mexican congress was in session. Obregon was making a speech to the congress. The taxicab drivers and assistant taxicab drivers, 400 or 500 in number, marched in a body to the capitol, tore up cobblestones from the street and proceeded to hurl them through the windows. The legislators did not seem to mind this so very much, but when one of the stones hit Obregon on the nose it incensed him and a squad of soldiers under command of a sergeant was dispatched to disperse the rioters. An attempt was made by the troopers to disperse the crowd without the use of firearms, but this failed, and one of the taxicab drivers was shot. Then there was a real riot, and the soldiers came out second best, with the commanding sergeant placed under arrest on a charge of murder. He was awaiting trial on the charge when I left Mexico City.

The funeral of the dead "comrade" was a spectacular event. He was given full bolshevik honors. Carried to the grave on a truck, his casket was draped with a red flag, and his comrades marched in a long and noisy procession, with shouts of "Long live Lenin and Trotzky! Long live the Communist Internationale!" Down the Avenue de Juarez went the procession until the headquarters of the governor of the federal district was reached. Here a halt was called. The governor was called upon to make a speech of eulogy of the dead. He refused. But he was dragged from his office to the street in short order and made the speech, whether he liked it or not.

By order of the chiefs of the taxicab drivers' organization, traffic was commanded to be suspended during the funeral, but somehow traffic seemed not to halt, and 200 policemen were detailed to stop the procession instead. This move was equally unsuccessful, for the police got the worst of it, and the dead "comrade's" funeral cortege proceeded, not peacefully but victoriously,

Most of the facts here stated I got from Olson himself.

Olson? Yes. His name was Smith in Tampico, but in Mexico City it was Olson.

I had been in Mexico City but a few days when I was stricken with a fever and confined to the hotel. The food in that insanitary hole, Tampico, had evidently knocked me out—as it had many another foreigner who has tarried there. I ran into Smith in the Regis hotel while I was convalescing. He now told me his name was Olson. To some of his "comrades" he introduced me, and I made mental note of the fact that sometimes he was referred to by them as neither Smith nor Olson, but Redfern. Of course, as I have found out since, this was not a mere isolated case of bolshevik use of several names for one individual. Among the comrades it is an accepted part of the system of operation, and a great convenience—for use of one name indicates one thing, use of another something else, and use of another something else again. At the time, I made no attempt to get from my acquaintance an explanation of his abundance in nomenclature. It was my impression that such curiosity might not be considered good form. So, in Mexico City we shall know him as Olson—the name he gave me on better acquaintance, and probably the name he was born with.

Having now become quite chummy with Olson, arguing with him to draw him out, conceding to him by way of encouragement to his confidence, I seemed to have inspired him to discuss things with me in ever greater frankness than he had down in Tampico. He told me the new railway station at Tampico had been destroyed, that the railroad workers' organization had been responsible for it, that he had been in Tampico in the interests of that organization and that the organization was controlled by the Communists and that they and he were well supplied with funds which came to them from Russia.

The Communists were belaboring the Obregon government on every occasion. Olson told me the railroad strikes were financed with money from Moscow.

"It is only a question of a few months when de la Huerta will have control of this government," are almost the exact words of Olson.

"But," I said, "how did you induce the railroad workers and the waterworks employes to strike so you would get this hold upon the country you were aiming at?"

"Easy enough," was the reply. "We promised them more money, and kept the promise by giving it to them." He laughed, and said in a half-confidential manner: "Let the poor fish have the money for a while. We'll take it away from them."

I suppose I must have had at least twenty conversations with Olson. He had no hesitancy about telling me he was one of the many agents of the Moscow government in Mexico, regularly employed and well paid. Russia, in seeking recognition of foreign governments, lays a great deal of stress upon the claim that the soviet government should not be confused with the Third Internationale—that what the Third Internationale does the soviet government of Russia can not be held accountable for. But the personnel of the two are the same, and anyone who knows anything at all about either is aware that the difference between them is a sham and a pretense.

"We've got this country now," this agent of Moscow told me, referring to Mexico. "It's only a question of time, and maybe the time is not so remote, either, when we'll have the same control, in effect, across the Rio Grande. We're going into the elections this year in the United States for all we're worth. We've got to get the right sort of representatives elected to Congress."

Remember this was in March, of 1922, a congressional election year.

"Our campaign is in the Western states," he said, "where we can work on the farmers as well as on the industrial workers. Montana is an especially promising state. We are going to get men into Congress, if we can, with the courage to show up the conditions in the government under the capitalist system."

Now, I was not at all familiar with Montana politics, and Olson's particular mention of Montana carried no special meaning to me at the time. Had he mentioned names of prospective candidates they would have meant little to me then. Had he mentioned any other state than Montana, it would have had as much meaning to me then. But the point is, he did mention Montana particularly, and the significance of that statement becomes vivid in the light of a prophecy later bearing the appearance of having been realized.

Olson told me there already were a number of men in the American Congress favorable to "the cause"; that whenever and wherever possible, "the cause" was being carried into the American labor organizations, the pacifist groups, the universities, the women's clubs, the churches and the schools; that a great fund was available for the promotion of "the revolution" among the youth of the nation and for the conduct of schools for spreading the communist doctrine among children; that the program of operation was of Russian origin, and that the financial support for it came in no small measure from Moscow.

Now, I could tell you a lot about my personal experiences in Mexico, of personal views of revolutionary outbreaks, of conditions prevailing in this land of chaos, but adventures of travelers in Mexico are more or less passe. I've told what is of present importance—these prophetic confidences of my communist friend, Olson, alias Smith, alias Redfern.

There was a direct connection between those prophetic confidences and subsequent history both in Mexico and in the United States. Olson predicted the overthrow of the Obregon government, and the ascendancy of de la Huerta. The prediction, from the bolshevik viewpoint, was a bit over-optimistic. But Huerta's revolutionary coup, although a failure, did take place only two years later. And when Huerta's success became evidently impossible, the reds, including the Moscow agents, turned to Calles, and Calles became president of Mexico. The attempted crucifixion of Calles by the bolsheviks who helped to place him at the head of the Mexican government is current history.



First Petters of the Snake

There are those who have openly charged or conveyed the impression that President Woodrow Wilson brought bolshevism to the United States, but this is an unjust accusation. Whatever the fault, so far as President Wilson is concerned, it may be laid against every other petter of the bolshevik snake in America during Mr. Wilson's time and since. It is not too charitable to say that Mr. Wilson's part in bestowing altruistic lovepats upon the slick back of the reptile was due to the war, the President's professedly indiscriminate love for all mankind, his colossal inability to discern the difference between sheep and wolves in sheep's clothing, and his own misfit and un-American political philosophy.

The same ignorance that inspired Mr. Wilson to utter such plain and unadulterated nonsense as "to make the world safe for democracy," in stating the reasons for the entry of the United States into the World War, was no doubt responsible for his saying, early in 1918, when the Russian bolsheviks were preparing to betray their own country and the Allies at Brest-Litovsk, that they were working "in the true spirit of modern democracy," that they were the "voice of the Russian people," and that the voice was giving utterance to ideas of right "with a largeness of view, a generosity of spirit, and a universal human sympathy which must challenge the admiration of every friend of mankind."

The quotation is from Mr. Wilson's address to Congress, January 8, 1918. The Brest-Litovsk treaty between the Russian bolsheviks and Germany was made on the 3rd of March, 1918. There already had been ample evidence before the world that while the czarist overthrow of March, 1917, opened the way for a genuine participation in the war against Germany, under the Kerensky government, the subsequent counter-revolution under Lenin meant the end of Russia as a factor in the defeat of the Central Powers. Long before Brest-Litovsk, it was clear the bolshevik rule of Russia was almost anything but "democracy"; it was plain that, in fact, it was the most determined sort of autocracy. But when these bolsheviki accomplished their triumph in November, 1917, it was hailed by no less a person than Mr. Wilson as a manifestation of "the new day." And yet, when Mr. Wilson's vision had been somewhat cleared in September, 1918; when he had been able to see the error of his earlier conclusions with regard to the bolsheviki, and had been obliged to admit that the rule of the bolshevists was a "campaign of mass terrorism," he remained too blind to see that love pats on the slick back of a snake tend not to subdue it or make it gentle or harmless.

In the early days of the peace conferences at Paris and Versailles, the red snake of Russia was admitted to what became known as the Prinkipo conference. To this conference President Wilson appointed, as his representative, one George D. Herron.

"We have become accustomed during these past six years," said Nicholas Murray Butler of this appointment, "to the President's fondness for surrounding himself with intellectual and political midgets; but we have heretofore been spared anything so shocking as this appointment."

. . . which Dr. William A. Quayle, Bishop of the Methodist Church, referred to as "the most disreputable appointment ever made in the United States." Herron was an avowed apostle of world revolution, a socialist who had said: "I have no expectation that the present kind of civilization can be amended—it can only be ended . . . It is already too late to reform society in America. It is no longer a question whether you will have a socialistic revolution. It is only left to you to decide what kind of revolution you will have."

Mr, Herron may not have been, exactly, representative of American traditions and ideals, but his was a soul not out of harmony with those of two others of Mr, Wilson's commissioners of the time, Messrs. Lincoln Steffens and William C. Bullitt.

Nothing came of the Prinkipo conference, of course, except further assurance that the bolsheviks were bent not upon peace, but upon world revolution. The World War had ended, and peace was the purpose of the great statesmen foregathered in Europe. But that peace was not the purpose of the bolsheviks, the Prinkipo fiasco made conclusively clear. Upon President Wilson, however, the bolsheviks continued to look as their advocate, and he had so many reds and pinks gathered about him as his personal advisers both during the war and during the period of peace discussions that it is small wonder they did so look upon him.

Notwithstanding the bolshevik offensive against Poland; notwithstanding Lenin's bold words, "Germany forms the important link in the revolutionary chain, and the success of our world revolution depends to the greatest degree upon Germany"; notwithstanding the bolshevik chaos visited upon Hungary; notwithstanding the bolshevik propaganda drives already started and bearing fruit in Asia; notwithstanding innumerable evidences that the oligarchs of Russia were engaged in a determined effort to spread discontent and sow the seed of class rule in all countries; who but President Wilson made a tour of Europe, and, to the delight and the cheers of the emotional mobs that greeted him, delivered himself of such glittering "democracy" speeches as to make the wild-eyed apostles of world revolution chuckle with satisfaction?

Italy, subsequently saved from wreck and ruin and bolshevik chaos only by the stern hand of the Fascisti, was fertile ground for the bolsheviks when President Wilson appeared there on his speech-making expedition. The hotbed of socialism in Italy was Milan, and it was there that President Wilson reached the heights of his popularity abroad when he said:

"Here in Milan, where I know so much of the pulse of international sympathy beats, I am glad to stand up and say that that pulse beats also in my own veins." The working classes, he had just told his hearers, "by their consciousness of community of interest and spirit, have done more, perhaps, than any other influence to establish a world which is not of nations, but is the opinion, one might say, of mankind."

President Wilson may not have meant precisely what they thought he meant, but he was talking internationalism as against nationalism, and that was what they wanted to hear. The bolshevik doctrine, the socialist doctrine, is one of internationalism, and the hope of its triumph rests upon the destruction of nationalism.

President Wilson, in his ignorance—an ignorance constantly nurtured by the pinks and red sympathizers who were his advisers, men like Herron, Steffens, Bullitt, Norman Hapgood, Charles Edward Russell, George Creel and innumerable others—was an unconscious ally of bolshevism abroad during his speech-making expeditions in Europe, for he was repeatedly appealing to the emotions of the crowd, inevitably appealing to the people as against their governments, endlessly prating about "democracy" and "internationalism," and constantly enthroning "peoples" and deprecating governments. He was one of the first and foremost petters of the bolshevik snake.

Unwittingly, perhaps; doubtless misled by his radical-minded advisers, the advance agents of the new socialist revolution and the new program of the pinks in the United States, Mr. Wilson's vision was so obscured that, to him, the true character of the head the bolshevik monster was then preparing to raise in America was invisible. In his blindness, therefore, and prompted by his own misconceptions of the spirit of America, President Wilson was the outstanding bolshevik dupe of his time, and contributed a share, proportionate with his prominence, in granting to bolshevism the toehold that later became a foothold and, soon thereafter, only short of a stranglehold upon the government of the United States.

"He (President Wilson) was as helpless to meet the menacing situation in America as he was to meet the appalling disaster which he had invited in Europe," says Ernest W. Young, LL.M., in a chapter on "Russia and Bolshevism," in his book The Wilson Administration and the Great War.

"Originating," Dr. Young continues, "in the perversion of the developing revolution in Russia which he had failed to recognize in its real character, it (Russian bolshevism) swept eastward and southward into farther Russia and Asia, sank Hungary in the slough, grasped Italy in its tentacles, struck at Poland, sought Germany, aimed at France and England, and reached out toward America.

"The attempt to starve and freeze Winnipeg to its knees; the attempt to overthrow civil government in Seattle; the plan to starve the people of the United States in the "outlaw" railroad strike and to freeze them into submission in the coal strike; the steel strike, directed by a horse-shoer who had never worked at a steel plant; the planned dynamiting of the home of the Attorney General of the United States and many others in nine eastern cities at one time; the constant demand for higher wages among highly-paid employes regardless of the burden it placed upon the shoulders of those outside of their particular class; the fostering of class spirit, particularly of the obstructionist or destructionist kind—these were symptoms manifested during President Wilson's incumbency that never had been seen before in like manner in the history of America. Its blow was aimed at so-called capitalism and at the very foundations of civil government itself."

It is to be noted, at this point, that Mr. Wilson himself became alarmed over the consequences to which he had been no puny contributor.

"Let us be frank about this solemn matter," he said in a message to Congress in December, 1919. "The evidences of the world-wide unrest which manifest themselves in violence throughout the world bid us pause and consider the means to be found to stop the spread of this contagious thing before it saps the very vitality of the nation itself."

But Mr. Wilson yet held to the view that to make a snake behave one must deliver oneself of soft words in the ears of the reptile, pat it gently on the top of its flat head, and pretend that the milk of human kindness is the food that makes it tame and harmless. Compromise and concession continued to be his policy; he called conferences and settled industrial disputes without settling anything; he dickered with reds, counselled with pinks, agreed with yellows and pussy-footers, and evidently reached the end of his career firm in the belief that he was himself a true apostle of "the new freedom," an inspired agent in advance of the millenium.

Duped and intimidated by organized radicals, through the Department of Labor where Louis F. Post was their outstanding champion, as well as through other channels, President Wilson had lent himself to prevent the execution of the dynamiter, Mooney; he had tolerated the notorious communist and revolutionary propagandist, Robert Minor, son of a Texas federal judge, as representative of George Creel on a mission to Russia in 1918; he had not interfered when, by some strange processes operating in Washington in 1919, this same Minor was permitted to escape punishment for intrigues with Lenin and Trotzky following his arrest by American military intelligence officers after a French secret service officer had interrupted a confab he was having in a Paris cafe with Lincoin Steffens, one of President Wilson's advisers and confidants.

The effrontery of Ludwig C.A.K. Martens, unrecognized but none-the-less officially designated representative of the Lenin-Trotzky government in the United States with credentials signed by the soviet foreign minister, George Tchicherin; his opening of headquarters in New York City with a large official staff, and his public appearances as a frank advocate of sovietism, were precedent to Mr. Wilson's appearance before Congress in December, 1919.

[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

HON. A. MITCHELL PALMER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.


Throughout his incumbency, both before and after his address to Congress in December, 1919, President Wilson maintained a peculiarly inconsistent attitude with respect to the intrigues of the red radicals and to other forms of disloyalty and anti-Americanism. There were occasions when he gave encouragement to stern and uncompromising methods of dealing with the menace, but usually such occasions were followed by a yielding to the counsels of his pink and pussy-footing advisers and to the clamor of organized groups engaged in the correlated "causes" of pacifism and radicalism. Mitchell Palmer's bold stand against the reds, after he had become Attorney General in 1919, had little if any sympathy or actual encouragement from his chief in the White House. Newton D. Baker's softness of heart toward the reds and disloyalists, while Secretary of War, was as well known as his seemingly inherent pacifism; and William G. McAdoo's vast following of the sundry shades of red and pink, to whose support he looked in his fight for presidential nomination in 1924, was won for him by his subservience as a dupe of the radical movement while serving as director general of the railroads.

While strikes and threats of strikes in the steel, coal and transportation industries were bringing the country to the brink of that state of stagnation which makes bolshevik power possible, and while the agents and disciples of Lenin and Trotzky were boldly and brazenly carrying on their propaganda in press and public gatherings, even within the very shadow of the White House and the Capital, President Wilson found himself almost inextricably embarrassed by his own utterances and actions, so that he could not take a firm stand with conviction and, as is ever the case, he could not dispel the menace with soft words. Of these first petters of the snake, Ole Hansen, in his Americanism versus Bolshevism, published in 1919, very aptly said:

"The government started, stopped, started again, conciliated, pandered, and generally pursued a skimmed-milk policy. Argument was tried, kindness, public statements appealing to patriotism, and this to a class of men who know but one argument, force; who think kindness is weakness, and who have no patriotism."

"Listen to me carefully," Trotzky said to Colonel Raymond Robins, before the Central Powers had been brought to the end of their string in 1918. "Follow me step by step. We have started our peace negotiations with the Germans. We have asked the Allies to join us in starting peace negotiations for the whole world on a democratic basis—no forcible annexations, no punitive indemnities, and a full acceptance of the principle of selfdetermination of all peoples. The Allies have refused to accept our invitation. We still hope, of course, to compel them."

Compel them? The phrase was a bit strong, thought Colonel Robins, and when he gave voice to his curiosity on this point, Trotzky replied:

"By stirring up the comrades in France and in England and in America to upset the policy of their governments by asserting their own revolutionary socialist will."

An obvious and frank confession that not only England and France, but the United States, were honeycombed with "comrades" of the Russian red dictators, and that it was the business of these "comrades" to do the will and wish of the bolshevik oligarchs of Russia. It may be true that they overestimated their power then; it may be true that they overestimated their power in the years that followed; it may be true, also, that they overestimated their power to carry out so grand a coup as they hoped for in the United States in 1924. But the purpose, nevertheless, is evident, or should be evident, to the thinking mind. If the bolsheviks aspired at the outset to bolshevize the world, which they did; and if they have not given up that aspiration, which they have not, then they have been striving assiduously from the cutset to bolshevize the United States.

It was long the boast of the I.W.W. that the bolshevik revolution in Russia was planned in Seattle, Washington, United States of America, when Lenin and Trotzky were in that city en route to Russia. This boast may or may not be true. But whether or not it is, what is true is that the bolshevik activities in the United States were very definitely organized and in operation almost simultaneously with the ascent of Lenin and Trotzky to power in Russia. This was during the Wilson administration.

"We still hope, of course, to compel them," said Trotzky to Colonel Robins, as quoted above.

"How?

"By stirring up the comrades in France and in England and in America to upset the policy of their governments by asserting their own revolutionary socialist will."

To upset the policy of their governments! Certainly. Not merely in its relation to the World War or to the peace that followed it, but ever and thereafter until such governmental policies have been so upset or so weakened as to make the international socialist revolution possible and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" a subsequent actuality!



The Base in Moscow

The overthrow of Czar Nicholas II, of Russia, occurred on the 15th of March, 1917. Upon the abdication of Nicholas, authority was vested in a provisional government constituted by the Duma. The overthrow of Nicholas was not the result of a red revolution. It was rather pink than red. It came about very largely because of the failure of Russia, under the Czar, to meet its responsibilities in carrying on the war "to make the world safe for democracy." The Russian armies had been driven out of Poland and Galicia in 1915, for want of ammunition. The apostles and disciples of "democracy" were stirred by these disasters. General Brusilov's drive in 1916, eased the situation somewhat. But the premier, Boris V. Sturmer, a hater of "democracy" and a pro-German, began negotiations for a separate peace with Germany, which again stirred the elements of revolt, and the "pink" revolution of March, 1917, was the result

Prince Lyov became premier, and the Cabinet was composed of Constitutional Democrats, with the exception of Kerensky, the minister of justice, who was a Moderate Socialist. The new government set out at once to bring about the recovery of Russia's position as a force in support of the allied cause against the Central Powers, but in doing so it also endeavored to put into practice such democratic policies as free speech, the right to strike, universal suffrage, general amnesty for all political prisoners and exiles, and various other reforms on the program of the pink revolutionaries. The bolsheviki, whose leaders were not for reform but for complete socialist revolution, at once were at war with the new government and took full advantage of the privileges and liberties extended by the pinks.

Instead of meeting the machinations of the bolshevik leaders with a firm stand, the pinks entered upon a policy of compromises which weakened their government and made its fall inevitable. Kerensky became minister of war, in the progressive deepening of pink toward red; the exiled bolshevik leader, Lenin, returned from exile, by way of Berlin; disgust, despair and disloyalty became prevalent in the army. Kerensky sought to handle the army with persuasion, but the bolsheviks had beaten him to it, and he realized too late that soft words do not tame tigers and that caresses on the flat head of a poisonous reptile do not make the fangs of the snake less poisonous.

With the Duma abolished by the All-Russian Congress of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates, meeting in Petrograd, Kerensky found himself virtually abandoned by his fellow pinks, and as premier he sought to meet the chaotic situation by showing a firmer hand. The realization of his and his colleagues' mistakes, however, was too late.

President Wilson, meanwhile, had sent his special mission to Russia, headed by Elihu Root. The mission reported back to Washington August 12th, and George Creel's Committee on Public Information informed the public that the mission "was able to announce firm hopes of a speedy restoration of internal harmony and military efficiency" on the part of Russia. It is to be noted that the Root mission included a galaxy of American reds and pinks, chosen by President Wilson at the suggestion of other reds and pinks.

The "firm hopes" had begun to fade within three weeks. Kerensky and the military leadership were at odds early in September. Another three weeks, and a democratic congress, called by the Central Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates, met in Moscow, demanded a "Temporary Council of the Russian Republic" to act until the constituent assembly should meet in December and made other demands which Kerensky felt himself obliged to reject. As the weeks passed, the Russian army continued to meet defeat after defeat in the field, while the following of Lenin grew stronger and stronger in its influence. Kerensky's fall and flight occurred on November 7th, less than three months following the "firm hopes" report from the Root mission. Lenin, who had been in Berlin, and Trotzky, who had been sojourning in the United States, carrying on a revolutionary propaganda campaign with headquarters in New York City, were now in control as leaders of the bolshevik, or red, revolution.

There appeared in the New York Times, November 18, 1917, a summary of Lenin's views on government, based on a pamphlet by him written in the form of a catechism.

"We represent the class-conscious proletaries, hired laborers and the poorer portion of the rural population," said Lenin. "We stand for socialism. The workmen's councils must at once take the necessary practical steps for the realization of the socialistic program. They must immediately take over the control of the banks and capitalistic syndicates, with a view to nationalizing them; that is, making them the property of the whole people . . ."

"We advocate a republic of councils of workmen, soldiers, peasants, etc. All the power must belong to them. . . . Should the peasants immediately take possession of the private lands? Yes; the land must be seized immediately . . . What color is our flag? Red, for the red flag is the flag of the universal proletarian revolution."

It has been noted that Lenin had been in Berlin during the latter part of his exile from Russia. But to say that, upon his return to Russia, he acted as a German agent in behalf of victory for the Central Powers over the Allies is to state the case inaccurately. Lenin was not interested in the defeat of Germany. Unquestionably he spoke truly when he said: "We took German money to make a Russian revolution. Then we will take Russian money to make a German revolution." The attempt to make good on this prediction subsequently took place, and to deny that the bolsheviks had an important part in the fall of the Central Powers before the Allies is to deny them the credit—ii you want to call it that—that is their due.

The treaty of Brest-Litovsk was made between Germany and the bolshevik government of Russia March 3, 1918. The German revolution began early in November. It did not run the full course Lenin had expected or hoped, to be sure, but that was no fault of his, nor of Karl Leibknecht, nor of Rosa Luxemberg. And Zinoviev, president of the Communist Internationale, says now:

"Turn now to Germany. Take the years of 1918-23. The German proletariat in that period fought for revolution. The fight went on, not in a steady, rising line, but with interruptions, severe losses and so on. Taking the European labor movement as a whole, the severest losses were suffered by the German proletariat during this time. But what do we observe today in Germany, a country passing through the zone of a certain stabilization of capitalism? . . . Considerable sections of the working class of Germany have retained their courage, have not lost stamina and under most difficult conditions unhesitatingly are following the Communist party."

The German revolution of November, 1918, opened a series of rapidly-moving events of vast importance. The German kaiser abdicated and fled the country. The Germans agreed to an armistice, and this began on the 11th of November. The subsequent course of events, so far as Germany and the peace negotiations are concerned, bears no special importance to this volume, and so I pass from it to other matters. But not without making note that what happened in Germany, with the part played therein by the bolsheviks, also happened in Austria and Hungary, and in Bulgaria; and that the part the bolsheviks played was in conformity to well-laid plans for the promotion of the "world revolution,"—plans that have since been greatly extended and have not, in purpose, been altered, no matter what changes in method have taken place.

Exiled like Lenin from Russia, Trotzky went first to Berlin, then to Switzerland, then to France, then to Spain, coming thence, by way of Cuba, to the United States. January, 1917, finds him in New York City. The revolution in Russia was then in the making. While in New York Trotzky published a socialist newspaper and engaged, otherwise, in socialist propaganda and in activities in furtherance of the international "working class revolution." Associated with him were the left wing socialists of the United States.

The United States entered the war against the Central Powers April 6, 1917. That month witnesses an especial impetus in the activities of the left wing socialists. The right wing socialists, the chief difference between which and the left wing is that they are of the parlor type who hate the inside of jails, determined to "stand by the government." By that they meant not to oppose the government, openly at any rate, in the war against the Central Powers. In cooperation with Trotzky, then unquestionably working in complete harmony and understanding with Lenin and the bolshevik organization and program, the left wing functioned during the early months of American participation in the war, and when Trotzky had gone back to Russia to join Lenin in carrying out the coup of November, 1917, the work he had helped to get under way in the United States continued throughout the remainder of the war. Almost simultaneous with the German revolution of 1918, which precipitated the armistice, a communist propaganda league was formed in Chicago. Subsequently there resulted, in New York City, February, 1919, a definite organization of the left wing section of the socialist party, with an ultra radical platform, which was adopted by many of the locals of the socialist party and all of the Slavic federations in the country.

In March, 1919, the Communist party of Russia had issued a call for an international congress to organize a new Internationale—now known as the Third Internationale. The left wing socialists of the United States sent S.J. Rutgers as their delegate. A Russian convention, designated, "the Convention of the Russian Socialist Federations in America, or the Fifth Regular Convention of Federations of Russian Branches of the Communist Party of America," was held in Detroit, Mich., in August, 1919. The convention adopted resolutions of greeting to the communist convention, called to convene in Chicago in September, that year. Simultaneously, then, there were organized in Chicago the Communist Labor party and the Communist party of America, subsequently merged and now the illegal, underground foundation of the Workers' party and sundry related organizations whose operations and connections will be explained further on in the pages of this volume.

"In the period prior to 1917," said Zinoviev, addressing the 1925 meeting of the enlarged executive committee of the Comintern in Moscow, "the working class in each country fought isolately. Not in a single country during that period was a single more or less decisive victory of the proletariat recorded. What is the position today? Today, the international proletariat has achieved more or less conclusive victory in one country. I mean the Union of soviet socialist republics, representing a sixth part of the globe."

Whereupon he goes on to explain that in every other country the bolshevik organization has been extended, and that the operation of the international organization are achieving conspicuous results.

The quotation is from a translation of the address of Zinoviev, printed in the June, 1925, issue of the Workers' Monthly, official organ of the communists in the United States, published in Chicago.

So, while "the working class in each country fought isolately" in the period "prior to 1917," subsequent to that time, and even before the red revolution in Russia under Lenin although to far greater extent since, the "class war" evolved into definite international proportions, with a clearly defined system of coordination.

"It is of extreme importance," quoting again from Zinoviev's address, above referred to, "that the international working class fighting against the world bourgeoisie, have a base, have a sort of revolutionary rear."

This base, as Zinoviev somewhat superfluously explains, is Russian, with staff headquarters in Moscow. The battlefronts are many,—notably the Far East and the Near East, the Balkans, Mexico, but also Germany, France, England, other continental countries, not excluding the United States.

How this "class war," this international socialist revolution, is being waged we shall see. How it has been waged in the United States since the establishment of the base, with general staff headquarters in Moscow; how it has succeeded and wherein it has failed, the readers of this book want to know. Their curiosity shall be fully satisfied.



Temporizing With Terrorism

Discussing what he called "the widespread condition of political restlessness in our body politic," President Wilson, in his message to the first regular session of the Sixty-sixth Congress in December, 1919, said:

"The causes of this unrest, while various and complicated, are superficial rather than deep-seated. Broadly, they arise from or are connected with the failure on the part of our government to arrive speedily at a just and permanent peace permitting return to normal conditions, from the transfusion of radical theories from seething European centers pending such delay, from heartless profiteering resulting from the increase in the cost of living, and lastly, from the machinations of passionate and malevolent agitators. With the return to normal conditions this unrest must rapidly disappear."

One of the outstanding suggestions as a remedy for "this unrest," offered by the President in this same address to Congress was "genuine democratization of industry." In making it, Mr. Wilson but repeated the suggestion that it is that of the bolsheviks themselves, and but echoed the essence of his attitude toward economic problems as set forth in his "The New Freedom," a collection of addresses to which the radicals of the country have gone for ammunition from the day it came off the printing presses. What the President proposed as the remedy, in addition to "the return to normal conditions,"—a circumstance at once impossible with "a genuine democratization of industry," as soviet Russia so eloquently testifies today,—was what the reds had been clamoring for. It was nothing more nor less than sovietism, the evolutionary steps from which can be nothing short of industrial mobocracy first, and finally industrial autocracy.

The particular "condition of political unrest" to which President Wilson referred consisted of the manifestations of that year, 1919. The year was just drawing to a close. It had been a particularly auspicious year for the promoters of violence in behalf of the "working class revolution." Mr. Wilson's administration was in virtual panic over the situation. By turns it had been temporizing with the radicals, on the one hand, and using "strong arm" methods, on the other, but if there was any one policy the more generally adhered to, it was the policy of temporizing, vaporizing, coaxing, promising, compromising and petting. This was so because it was the natural inclination of Mr. Wilson throughout his administration to be as pink as possible, and because the President had surrounded himself, all during his presidency, but more particularly during the war and immediately thereafter, with a crowd of advisers that was as fine a collection of reds, pinks and yellows for which the most optimistic boosters of revolution in the United States could hope.

There were occasions, to be sure, when President Wilson seemed to get a flash of the proportions and proximity of the menace of red radicalism, and on these occasions he grew petulant, impatient, downright enraged, and did something to make the bolshevik reptile strike at him directly. On such occasions, a modern Mirabeau might very justly have said to him: "You have turned loose the bull, and now complain that he gores you."

While the administration, at the close of this hectic year of 1919, was in a state bordering on palpitant panic, the public, too, was in a state of sweat. Men whom other men called "alarmists" expressed the fear that the United States was "on the brink of a class war." But, in fact, these alarmists were far too mild. They didn't know, at least they didn't begin to tell, the half of it. We were not "on the brink" at all. We had been "on the brink" for quite a time, but the brink had long since been passed, and "class warfare" was on in earnest, with nearly all the heavy artillery and almost all the generals familiar with the trench and poison gas methods of attack on the side of the bolsheviks.

This war had not even waited for the World War to cease, to state the truth of the matter, when our own and imported bolshevik allies in the cause, with Moscow the base of operations and the seat of the general staff, were doing their full share throughout the final year of the World War. The field of operations was the world, and 1918 was not by any means free from sanguinary engagements on that battlefront that was and still is the United States of America. But in 1919, when the bolsheviki had accomplished much to their liking in Hungary, in Germany, in Italy, and on sundry other battlefronts, and when they had almost put down counterrevolution in Russia, thus giving them more time, energy and money to give to the job of revolting in the United States, we experienced in this country what might be termed a banner year and a full crop of red flag warfare of the most violent character.

Since there is not a year in which strikes of some greater or less magnitude do not figure in American industry, it would not be true to say that bolsheviks and bolshevik sympathizers were at the bottom of all the strikes that occurred in the United States during the year 1919. But it is in perfect harmony with truth to charge that a great many of them, some of very large proportions, were of bolshevik origin; that bolsheviks and soviet-lovers participated in and agitated every one of them, and that whenever and wherever possible, agents, dupes and tools of the Russian oligarchs capitalized, exploited and promoted them in the interests of the so-called working class revolution.

The day Victor Berger, the Milwaukee socialist leader, was convicted, January 9, 1919,—although this is no related coincidence, particularly, the strike of the marine workers at the port of New York was begun. The general strike at Seattle, to support striking shipbuilders, took place on the fourth of February. The nation-wide strike in the building trades began two days later. The New England telephone workers went on strike April 20th. On May 14th there took place the Chicago milk-drivers strike—a strike the milk-drivers won within two days and after a precarious condition developed, particularly in hospitals and among the infant population of the city. Strike riots in Toledo, Ohio, resulted in two deaths and many injuries on the third day of June. Commercial telegraphers in the south-east struck June 5th. The strike of Detroit car-men occurred on the eighth of June. Two days later there took place the general strike of telegraphers, of which the walk-out of June 5th was the prelude. The street-car men of Boston went on strike on the 18th of July. Surface and elevated car-men in Chicago struck eleven days later.

August first marked the beginning of the strike of the railroad shop workers, and five days later fourteen railroad unions made demands for wage increases. Car-men in Brooklyn went on strike August sixth. New York actors struck the day following, and less than a week later the actors' strike had spread to Chicago. New York traction workers went on strike August 17th. The next few days were marked by especially violent riotous demonstrations, notably at Hammond, Indiana, and Cudahy, Wisconsin, to which places troops had to be sent. The 24th of August the Pacific coast railways were tied up by strikes. Transportation strikes had become so serious that President Wilson, August 25th, ordered wage increases to the shopmen, and issued an explanatory statement to the public pleading for an industrial truce. The President's wage proposal and his appeal for a "truce" were both spurned by the railway shopmen's chiefs.

On the same day that three men were killed in strike riots at Hammond, Indiana, where troops had been sent, because the police had been unable to control the situation, the unionized police force of Boston went on strike. State troops were called to Boston the next day, when seven persons met death in riots due to the strike of policemen. On the day the great steel strike began, September 22nd, two persons were killed and many others were hurt in riots which the reds precipitated in the Pittsburgh region. Many newspapers and other periodicals were forced to suspend publication in New York city October first because of the strike in the printing trade.

The pay office of the Anaconda Copper Mining Company, at Butte, Montana, was dynamited in July, and in August the home of Oscar Lawlor, former United States attorney, of Los Angeles, and the colliery of the Lehigh and Wilkesbarre Company, at Wilkesbarre, Pennsylvania, were wrecked by bombs.

Serious strike riots occurred at Gary, Indiana, in connection with the steel strike October fifth, and the next day federal troops were sent to Gary, East Chicago and Indiana Harbor. The New York harbor was completely tied up by strikes by October tenth. Four days thereafter came forth the order, effective November first, for the nation-wide strike of soft coal miners. The order came on the heels of President Wilson's summoning of the conferees for his subsequently famous but futile industrial conference, from which the "labor bloc,' socalled, withdrew when it found it impossible to dominate the conference. The conference very quickly thereafter dissolved.

Pleadings, temporizings and compromisings, resorted to by the government, were of no avail against the coal strike threat, the coal miners' union chiefs declining any and all offers. Experiencing one of his periodical lapses from an attitude of patience and tolerance for the bedevilments at the hands of radical agitators, who were playing no minor role in the warfare in the coal industry, President Wilson became so enraged on October 25th that he denounced the proposed coal strike as "a crime," and said the government would use every means to frustrate it.

[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

U.S. SENATOR SMITH WILDMAN BROOKHART OF IOWA.


While the international congress of working women and the international labor conference—sideshows of the league of nations—were taking place in Washington, and innumerable red and pink delegates thereto were chuckling with satisfaction every time they passed the White House, the President was wrestling with "this condition of political unrest." He was striving to keep up with his Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, who, notwithstanding the limitations put upon him by administration policy, had been sufficiently active in defending the country from the "machinations of passionate and malevolent agitators," of which Mr. Wilson so petulantly complained later on, that pink apologists for red tactics and the "liberal" press of the country denounced him as a "labor baiter." Of course, to a pink or a "liberal," anyone who indicates anything more militant than molly-coddling towards bolsheviks, particularly, and the industrial blight generally, is a "labor baiter." However, the red agitator knows much better.

As per schedule, and crime or no crime, the coal strike began November 1st, the day after the government had obtained before Judge Anderson, of the federal court, at Indianapolis, an injunction forbidding it. On the 8th of November, Judge Anderson ordered the miners' leaders to call off the strike by November 11th. The next day the executive committee of the American Federation of Labor pledged its "full support" to the strikers. The strike order was cancelled, as per Judge Anderson's order, November 11th, but the strike did not end, nevertheless, and the end of November found President Wilson both panicky and chagrined because the administration's efforts to end the strike by negotiation had completely failed and the strikers' chiefs had refused to return to work at wages which had been increased fourteen percent. Fuel Administrator Garfield, in consequence, began functioning as in wartime on the first of December, simultaneously with the opening of a second "industrial conference."

The second conference accomplished an armistice in the "class war" as manifested in the coal strike, and in the middle of December it was announced, on behalf of President Wilson, that "the coal strike is settled as the government wanted it settled." But it was a long, long way from being a settlement. As a treaty of peace, it was of less subsequent authority than the World War armistice, for it failed to settle anything. In fact, the peace is yet to be made, not merely in the coal industry, but in the "class war" as a whole.

Let it here be noted, that the Department of Justice, all this time, was the most abused branch of the government. Congress was bombarded with protests from organizations big and little and of all shades of red, pink, yellow and peagreen—protests against this "labor baiter," Palmer, and against the courts whose decisions in cases tallied with the contentions of the Department of Justice whenever and wherever prosecutions were undertaken, How the reds, the pinks and the putty-colored protagonists of "the new freedom" hated Palmer, and Judge Anderson, and Judge Landis!—and the sundry others who stepped forth to perform their public duties without apology to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Burglars, Pickpockets and Bomb Tossers— hated them and plastered them with abuse, just as later, for the same reason, they hated, abused and harassed Judge Wilkerson, Daugherty, Stone and, now, Sargent. Attorney General Palmer may not have nursed any wounds inflicted by the missles of the reds and their sympathizers, but he must have been peculiarly well armored if the abuse heaped upon him in the Senate and House—not for his inhumanity toward the reds, but for his "softness"—did not hurt, when he was forever conscious of the fact that whatever of softness did mark the conduct of the Department of Justice in this respect was the sign of the hand of Wilson and not that of the hand of Palmer.

Palmer was down on the lists for destruction, along with many others, in the bomb plots that were a part of the "condition of political unrest" in 1919. On the second of June, the Attorney General's home in Washington was blown up with a bomb, fortunately without damage to Mr. Palmer, himself. Two reds who had planted the bomb were themselves blown to such small bits that identification was impossible. The same day, the home of Representative L. W. Powers, of Newtonville, Mass., was wrecked by a bomb; destruction of the rectory of Our Lady of Victory, Philadelphia, was attempted, and a bomb placed at the Frankfort arsenal failed to explode; in Pittsburgh, houses were damaged by bombs intended to exterminate Judge Thompson and Police Inspector Sibray; the home of Judge C.C. Nott, in New York City, was wrecked, and two persons were killed by the explosion; the home of Justice A.F. Hayden, Boston, was bombed, and an attempt to wreck the home of Mayor H.L. Davis, of Cleveland, failed. At Paterson, N.J., and East Orange, N.J., minor bomb explosions occurred.

Subsequent to these outrages, William Gibbs McAdoo, whom the radicals of the country strove in 1924 to make the Democratic nominee for President, was quoted in the press as having excused the bomb plots as due to "ignorance of Americanism." He said later his remarks had been "misinterpreted" — an alibi that is familiar in all newspaper offices.

At Franklin, Mass., dynamite had been planted at the American Woolen Mills, in March. Four men were killed in this explosion. In January, at Philadelphia, bomb outrages had occurred; the homes of justice Van Moschzisker, Acting Superintendent of Police Mills, and others being wrecked. The conviction of the forty-six I.W.W.'s in Sacramento, Calif., for the dynamiting of the home of Governor Stephenson, had occurred in January. The Brownsville, Pa., municipal building had been wrecked by a bomb May second, this date and May first —the bolshevik "May Day" holiday—marking a number of bombing operations on the part of the makers of revohition.

The mails also had been used for the dissemination of missives of violence for the defenders of the "old order" against that of the "new." This system was a part of the May Day program. A bomb intended for Attorney General Palmer at that time was intercepted in the mails, as were bombs mailed to Ole Hanson, of Seattle; to Senator Overman, Senator King and F.R. Nebeker. Senators Overman and King had been particularly strong in their demands for Senate investigation of bolshevik propaganda and activity, and were active in having such an investigation made. Mr. Nebeker had prosecuted the Chicago gang of I.W.W.'s before Judge Landis. The bombs intercepted had been held up in the mails because of insufficient postage. One sent to ex-Senator Hardwick reached its destination, exploded, and wounded Mrs. Hardwick and her daughter.

Between the occurrence of the outrages of the first part of May and those of a month later, Frederick C. Howe, President Wilson's immigration chief at New York City, presided at a "Justice for Russia" meeting in New York, where denunciation of the United States government was as vociferous as the pleas for "justice" for the bolsheviki were fulsome.

Generally soft, but not always, the Administration, in February, had made a gesture toward ridding the country of alien enemies of the bolshevik stripe, when fifty-four reds apprehended in the West were ordered deported. An immediate howl against this "injustice" was raised by the radical and "liberal" crowds. Radical factions in the International Association of Machinists were joined by other organizations in a fight in behalf of the deportees.

Some of them were, in due time, deported, but others were released on parole as a result of the bombardment of protests from reds and pinks, and twelve of them later were released unconditionally, everyone of them returning to the ranks of the red army of propaganda and violence from which they had been taken.

Among the loudest of the protesters was Louise Bryant, wife of the communist and soviet agent, John Reed, and Albert Rhys Williams, an officially designated propagandist for Soviet Russia in the United States. They held in Washington but one of the innumerable pro-soviet mass meetings held all over the country—meetings of praise for the new saviors of mankind and champions of liberty, Lenin and Trotzky, and of denunciation of the United States and of all Americans who failed to perceive the virtues of the radical gentry and the system of government they headed and dominated.

Taking it all in all, the year 1919 was a great year for strikes, "class war" violence, bomb outrages, and bolshevik propaganda; it was the year Glenn E. Plumb, pro-soviet counsel for the railroad brotherhoods, presented his famous plan—the Plumb Plan — for nationalization and "democratization" of the railroads, a plan which he subsequently expanded with the proposal for its application to all industries in the United States. It was the year the railroad brotherhoods and the railway department of the American Federation of Labor sought to impose this socialistic scheme upon the country by strikes and threats "to tie up the railways so tight that they will never run again."

It was the year the notorious Ludwig Christian Alexander Karlovich Martens, born in Russia of German parentage and confessedly a lifelong revolutionist engaged in that profession in both Russia and Germany before coming to America, was appointed soviet "ambassador" to the United States, established headquarters at 110 West Fortieth Street, New York City, and installed an extensive staff of American and alien reds. It was a banner year for "the widespread condition of political restlessness in our body politic," as President Wilson described it as the year drew to a close.

The President told Congress that the causes were "superficial rather than deep-seated." It is possible he was only whistling to keep his courage up, but it is more probable that his conclusion was that of a peculiarly superficial mind or the result of an ostrich-like disinclination to look disturbing actualities in the face.

Superficial? The Sub-committee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, directed by the Senate to "investigate the status and activities of one Ludwig C.A.K. Martens, claiming to be a representative of the Russian Socialistic Soviet Republic," brought out a wealth of proof to the contrary.

"Revolution, not reform," was Lenin's message to his agents in the United States and elsewhere. "Organize the workers of the world, including the American, in one fraternal union; crush all resistance, using terror if necessary."

Lenin admitted to Colonel Raymond Robins, who testified to the fact before the Senate Committee, that it was his ambition to overthrow the United States government. Solicitor Lamar of the Post Office Department, submitted to the committee a memorandum in support of the charge that a plot existed among the various radical groups in the United States to overthrow the American government and establish a bolshevik republic, and alleged the Department of Justice was in possession of evidence that more than 8,000 labor unions in the country were controlled by red radicals pledged to give aid to the revolutionary program.

Albert Rhys Williams admitted to the committee of the Senate, when called to the witness stand, that he was a soviet agent, and that he had been sent to the United States by the red chieis of Russia to promote soviet propaganda, and that 25,000 ex-residents of the United States were office-holders in the government of the bolsheviki in Russia. John Reed, who died later in Russia, where the reds erected a monument to his memory, admitted to the committee that he, too, was in the employ of the soviet government and that he had planned a propaganda bureau—he called it an "information bureau" —to be financed with money raised among wealthy American women whose names appear in the bolshevik "sucker list."

"Ambassador" Martens first came to the United States in January, 1916. A short time before the United States entered the World war, Martens joined Leon Trotzky in New York City. Trotzky and Gregory Weinstein were the editors of the Russian socialist paper, "Novy Mir," and Martens was a contributor and a member of the editorial board of the paper which was one of the organs of the Socialist party of the United States. These facts came from the lips of Martens, himself, when he was examined by Senator George H. Moses before the Senate sub-committee investigating his status and activities.

"The paper belonged to a society," said Martens, "the so-called Russian Socialist Publication Society, and I was a member of this Society and was elected on the editorial board of the paper."

Both Martens and Weinstein remained with the publication after Trotzky left New York to join his comrade, Lenin, in Russia to carry out the coup which resulted in the overthrow of the Kerensky government and the establishment of the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat." When Martens established "the soviet bureau" and began publication of another weekly paper, an official publication of the "bureau," called "Soviet Russia," in January, 1919, Weinstein became his personal secretary and general office manager. Weinstein, as well as Martens, was a Russian citizen. Another Russian, Santeri Nuorteva, was secretary of the "bureau," and his assistant was Kenneth Durant, an American, whose prior employment was with George Creel on the staff of ,the American Committee on Public Information.

Abraham Heller, of Russian birth, a New York manufacturer, a director of the Rand School of Social Science, which George Herron, President Wilson's representative and eulogist, had established with the Widow Rand's money, was director of the commercial department of the soviet "bureau." Owing to his connections and activities later on, when "Comrade" Martens had been obliged to depart the shores of the United States—particularly as bearing upon events in 1922,— "Comrade" Heller will appear as a figure in a later chapter of this book. Evans Clark, organizer of the Labor Bureau, Inc., and a vice president of the League for Industrial Democracy, born in New Jersey, was "Comrade" Martens' director of information and publicity. Another of George Creel's former deputies, an Englishman, Wilfred E. Humphries, was associate director of the publicity department. He had been in Russia in 1917-18 with the Y. M. C. A. International Committee, and delivered lectures from February until! December, 1919, favorable to the "new freedom" inflicted upon Russia and the world by the bolsheviki.

Morris Hillquit, who added to his own fame and detracted nothing from the fame of Messrs, Robert M. Lafollette and Burton K. Wheeler when he became one of their campaign managers in the presidential campaign of 1924, was the director of the legal department of the soviet "bureau." The managing editor of the "bureau's" house organ was an American, Jacob W. Hartman, an instructor in languages and history in the College of the City of New York from 1901 to 1919, who subsequently collaborated with Caleb Harrison and others in organizing the "Friends of Soviet Russia." Of Hartman, Harrison and the "Friends" we shall hear more in chapters dealing with events of a later period.

"Ambassador" Martens, revealing the names of the tnembers of his official staff during his testimony before the Senate committee, said the staff was thirty-five in number. Those just mentioned were the principal ones of those who names figured in the evidence. The cost of maintaining the "bureau," Martens told the committee, was about $10,000.00 a month, the money being supplied, he testified, by the Russian government which transmitted it "mainly by couriers from Russia."

We are still talking about that hectic year, 1919, which President Wilson referred to as a "widespread condition of political restlessness," the causes of which were "superficial" rather than "deep-seated"—that year of bomb outrages, of strikes twice as numerous and many more times as riotous and as serious otherwise as ever before in American history; that year of the Plumb plan for "industrial democracy" and of radical railway labor leaders' threats to force it upon the country; that year of "Ambassador" Martens and the official soviet "bureau"; that year of strenuous effort at crystallization and coordination of revolutionary forces within the United States to act with the same forces in other countries for the achievement of "revolution, not reform," quoting Lenin, "using terror if necessary."

This was the year of the first congress of the Communist (Third) Internationale, the call for which, released by "Rosta," official telegraph agency of the bolsheviki, February 24th, contained invitations to various organizajions throughout the world, including the I.W.W. of America, the Socialist Labor Party of America and the "left wing" faction of the Socialist Party of America. The Socialist Labor Party of America, represented by one Boris Reinstein, gave its sanction to the issuance of the call, "Comrade" Reinstein attaching his signature on one of the dotted lines under that of "Comrades" Lenin and Trotsky.

"The present is the period of destruction and crushing of the capitalistic system of the whole world," read the call, "and it will be a catastrophe for the whole European culture should capitalism with all its insoluble contradictions not be done away with. The aim of the proletariat must now be immediately to conquer power. To conquer power means to destroy the governmental apparatus of the bourgeoisie and to organize a new proletarian govermmental apparatus."

"The dictatorship of the proletariat must be the occasion for the immediate expropriation of capital and the elimination of the private right of owning the means of production, through making them common public property. . . . the establishment of a workmen's government and the concentration of economic functions in the hands of the organs of the proletarian dictatorship are the most essential aims of the day. In order to protect the socialist revolution against external and internal enemies, and to assist the fighting proletarists of other countries, it becomes necessary to entirely disarm the bourgeoisie and its agents and to arm the proletariat."

"The most important task of the present moment for the conscious and honorable workmen of all countries," said a manifesto from the congress, addressed to the "proletariat" of all lands, "is to strengthen the soviet, to increase their authority, and to imitate the government apparatus of Russia."

"The Great Communist Internationale was born in 1919," said a May Day proclamation from the executive committee of the Internationale. "The Great Internationale Soviet Republic will be born in 1920."



The Reptile Changes Its Spots

"The Great International Soviet Republic will be born in 1920!"

Such was the hope expressed in the bolshevik May Day proclamation in 1919. Realization of the hope fell considerably short. The campaign of violence, by which revolutionary mass action was hoped for in the United States—a nation which the bolsheviki call the one remaining bulwark of capitalism—failed to accomplish its purpose.

Notwithstanding the wobbling and temporizing of the Wilson Administration, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer continued to kindle the fires of hatred for himself among the reds by his relentless warfare upon the forces of radicalism which had made the year 1919 well-nigh a nightmare for orderly government in the United States.

"During the latter part of 1919," said Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes, summarizing a bit of history in his report of sensational facts submitted to the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations of the Sixty-eighth Congress, "the Department of Justice submitted to the Department of Labor a large amount of evidence on the Communist Party of America. This resulted in the issuance of a large number of warrants of arrest for deportation hearings. The cases were based upon the theory that the Communist Party of America advocated the overthrow by force and violence of the government of the United States and, therefore, its officers and members who were aliens, were subject to deportation as being members of an organization proscribed by the immigration laws."

"The situation had become so acute and the spread of ultra-radicalism so broad," continued Secretary Hughes, "that by the end of 1920 most of the states had passed laws against anarchy, criminal syndicalism, sabotage, red flag demonstrations, and organizations advocating the use of force or violence in a political or economic program."

Of course the most notable of the cases at the time was that of the soviet "ambassador" Martens, against whom a mass of evidence had been obtained by the Department of Justice which turned it over to the Department of Labor. The sub-committee of the Senate committee on Foreign Relations of the Sixty-sixth Congress, whose investigation of bolshevik propaganda was touched upon in the preceding chapter, had continued its hearings in 1920, and the result of these hearings was a recommendation that Martens, instead of being recognized by the government, be deported as an alien engaged in the promotion of propaganda and activities subversive to orderly government in the United States. The deportation order was issued in December, 1920. The Russian government, meanwhile sensing defeat of its efforts to foist itself upon the United States as a government and obtain the recognition of Martens as its "ambassador," issued orders "withdrawing" Martens and closing the "embassy" in New York City.

Among the first personages of prominence to arise, in the face of the overwhelming mass of evidence of the subversive purposes of Martens and the crowd he had assembled about him, and to protest against the deportation order, was United States Senator Joseph I. France, of Maryland, who had made a trip to Russia and came back primed to join with the reds in their demand for recognition by the State Department of the soviet government of Russia and of Martens as the Russian envoy to the United States. Senator France had been elected to the Senate as a Republican. In the Senate he was one of Senator Robert M. LaFollette's supporters and admirers, and was a member of the national council of the People's Legislative Service, the LaFollette propaganda bureau directed by the radical, Basil M. Manly. Of the People's Legislative Service we shall hear considerably more later.

Throughout 1920, as well as in 1919, the government faced an onslaught of appeals for the recognition of Russia under bolshevik rule and of abuse for the failure to heed the appeals. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers were insistent that the bolshevik government be recognized and that Martens be received on a diplomatic plane. According to evidence presented to the New York State Legislative Committee investigation of red activities in New York, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers' organization was linked with the Communist Party of America.

The Socialist party of the United States went on record as demanding the recognition of Russia by the American government, as did the Committee of Forty-eight, headed by J.A.H. Hopkins, another organization and individual occupying conspicuous parts in events of subsequent interest and importance. The national convention of the Socialist Party, held in May, 1920, delivered itself of lusty cheers for the Russian soviets, and nominated Eugene V, Debs—then in the Atlanta federal prison—as its candidate for the presidency. Debs responded to the bestowal of this honor by declaring his party should support "the revolution" with all its power. Recognition of Martens by the State Department was "demanded" by the New York State Socialist party in July, 1920, and radical organizations of all shades joined in the cry for the recognition of Russia and its "ambassador" and participated in the demand for the scalp of the "labor baiter," Attorney General Palmer.

"Victory" for the proletarian cause in the United States in 1924 was the prediction of Debs, as the Socialists sent a special mission to Russia in 1920. "Recognition of the soviets," was the cry of the radical factions controlling the International Association of Machinists, whose President, William H. Johnston, a socialist, was secretary-treasurer of Senator LaFollette's People's Legislative Service, and became the leading spirit in the Conference for Progressive Political Action and its campaign of 1924 to make LaFollette and Wheeler President and Vice President.

[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

HON. HARRY M. DAUGHERTY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.


A particularly bitter attack upon Attorney General Palmer for the raids and arrests directed by the Department of Justice against the reds in 1920 was made by the National Popular Government League early in 1921, as the Wilson administration was drawing to a close. This organization, sponsored, among others, by Jackson H. Ralston, whose connection with the attempted impeachment of Attorney General Daugherty in 1922 will be discussed later, subsequently promoted the circulation of a book, The Deportation Delirium of 1920, by the radical assistant Secretary of Labor in the Wilson Administration, Louis F. Post.

Ralston had appeared for Assistant Secretary of Labor Louis F, Post in an investigation of Attorney General Palmer by a sub-committee of the House Committee on Rules in 1920, an investigation that fell flat, and then presented to a sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, in January, 1921, the charges preferred by the Popular Government League. In the conduct of these proceedings, Senator Thomas J. Walsh, of Montana, enacted the role of "prosecutor" of the Attorney General and ate a considerable quantity of fire in his endeavor to make a case against Mr. Palmer. By the time the Attorney General got through with his accusers, who had charged him with violations of law in the conduct of his campaign against the reds, it appears that he had them on the run, and this investigation fell as flat as the earlier one.

Attorney General Palmer, however, submitted to a Senate Committee a report in defense of the Department of Justice that was so loaded with evidence of red revolution, with its pink and yellow approval and applause, that his conduct of warfare against bolshevik propagandists and plotters was fully justified in the eyes of patriotic American citizens.

When the Harding administration came into power in March, 1921, the Communist Party of America, operating under strict supervision of and discipline laid down by the Communist Internationale headquarters in Moscow, was functioning and had been functioning illegally, or "underground," as the communists are inclined to characterize the operations. To quote Secretary Hughes' explanatory communication, accompanying the mass of evidence he submitted in 1924 to the sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations:

"There was in existence during that period of time within the Communist party certain factions, but for all practical purposes the Communist movement was united in its ultimate aims and ends, the differences that existed being limited largely to personal leadership. The Communist Internationale was finally moved, by the differences existing among the various factions, to pass upon the question of unity and to cement the communist movement within the United States in 1920 and 1921."

As the result of and in compliance with orders from Moscow, a unity convention was held in May, 1921, unity of the factions within the Communist party itself accomplished, and a revised program and constitution adopted. The revision of the program recognized and confessed the blunders of 1919, which led to retaliatory measures on the part of the Federal Department of Justice and the legislatures of the various states. The recognition of these blunders, the realization that a program almost exclusively devoted to violence could lead nowhere, particularly with the Wilson administration supplanted by one less afflicted at the top with pink sympathies, tolerance and "watchful waiting," prompted the formulation of plans for a change of tactics,

Heretofore, political or parliamentary action on the part of the Communist movement itself had been scoffed at, and every effort devoted to organization for revolution by force and violence. Now, however, it had been determined that, although forceful overthrow of the American government should be the ultimate aim, it was necessary first so to weaken the government by a process of "boring from within" that operations of a violently revolutionary character might be carried out with less resistance by the government itself. The new scheme of operations, then, became one that subordinated force and violence to political or parliamentary revolution.

Said the revised Program and Constitution of the Communist Party of America:

"The proletarian revolution comes at a moment of economic crisis precipitating a political crisis. The politicoeconomic crisis causes a collapse in the capitalist order.

"The proletarian revolution is a long process. It begins with the destruction of the capitalist state and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and ends only with the complete transformation of the capitalist system into the communist society. . . . "

"Every class struggle is a political struggle. The object of the class struggle which inevitably develops into civil war, is the conquest of political power. . . ."

"The Communist party of America recognizes that the revolutionary proletariat must use all means of propaganda and agitation to win over the exploited masses. One of these means is parliamentary activity. . . . "

"The American bourgeois state was quick to recognize the communist parties in America as its historic and deadly enemies. It employed all its power in a vicious onslaught against them. Being outlawed, the communist parties reorganized as underground, illegal parties. Thus, for the present, the Communist Party of America, is prevented from participating in the elections under its own name. . . . "

"The Communist Party of America will support with all its power every movement for the liberation of the oppressed colonial peoples of the United States. The Communist party will fight against the economic aggression of American capitalists upon the populations of the weaker American republics. . . . "

"In the United States of North America, where, on account of historical circumstances, there was lacking a broad revolutionary movement even before the war, the communists are still before the first and simplest task of creating a communist nucleus and connecting it with the working masses," said Lenin, Radek, Bukharin, Trotzky, Zinoviev and Kamenev in their Theses on Tactics, submitted to the third congress of the Comintern. (Communist Internationale.) "The present economic crisis, which has thrown five million people out of work, affords a very favorable soil for this kind of work. Conscious of the imminent danger of a radicalized labor movement becoming subject to communist influence, American capital tries to crush and destroy the young communist movement by means of barbarous persecution. The Communist party was forced into an illegalized existence under which it would, according to capitalist expectation, in the absence of any contact with the masses, dwindle into a propagandist sect and lose its vitality. The Communist Internationale draws the attention of the Communist party of America (unified) to the fact that the illegalized organization must not only serve as the ground for collecting and crystallizing the active communist forces, but that it is the party's duty to try all ways and means to get out of the illegalized condition into the open, among the wide masses. It is the duty of the party to find the means and forms to unite these masses politically, through public activity, into the struggle against American capitalism."

The Communist party of America, therefore, to carry out the mandate of the Comintern to form a so-called legal political organism in the United States, organized what was known as the American Labor Alliance in the summer of 1921. This organization soon afterward became what is now known as the Workers' party. This transformation led to another split in the leadership of the organization which required the further services of the Central Executive Committee of the Comintern to straighten out.

For the guidance of the reorganized and re-unified communist movement, now destined to practice a dual system of operations—one illegal and "underground", the other in the open—the Comintern transmitted from Moscow a program bearing the title, Concerning the Next Tasks of the Communist Party in America.

A few quotations from this "thesis" prepared by the executive committee of the Comintern are both interesting and enlightening:

"In order to assist the American comrades in working out and formulating their line of action, the Executive Committee of the Communist Internationale proposes for their examination, the following main points: . . .

". . . The general elections in which hundreds of thousands of workers take part, cannot be rejected as being merely a peaceful movement with which the communists will have nothing to do. Further, certain mass organizations which not only are not communistic, but are not proletarian in composition, must be utilized by communist strategy for the benefit of the proletarian class struggle. As for instance, the existing mass movement of small farmers (who are, in a sense, semi-proletarian), and even movements of middle class farmers under some circumstances. . . ."

. . . . The fighting proletarian is to be led from one stage to another in the revolutionizing process by means of suitable slogans, . . . ."

". . . . Communist demands for immediate concessions to the workers are formulated, not to be 'reasonable' from the point of view of capitalism, but to be reasonable from the point of view of the struggling workers, regardless of the state's power to grant them without weakening itself. Thus, for instance, a demand for payment out of the government treasury, of full, unionstandard wages for millions of unemployed workers, but damaging from the point of view of the capitalist state and the capitalist wage competition which the state demands."

"We suggest a few examples of the type of demands that may be made. . . . "

"Favoring a close alliance between the United Mine Workers of America with the Railroad Brotherhoods and all other unions for common action to raise the standard of living of all workers in both industries. . . . "

"For the immediate recognition and unrestricted trade with Soviet Russia. For the reestablishment of postal agreement with Russia."

And so on.

Advising the communists to participate in all general election campaigns, municipal, state, congressional and presidential; counseling that they conceal their underground apparatus to better advantage and develop it more effectively "within the outer framework" of legal campaign organizations and election activities; suggesting that "of course, the Communist party can develop upon labor organizations" and can "even launch a legal revolutionary Labor party; declaring that "a legal press" and "organized groupings of sympathizers within the trade unions" are imperative, the "Thesis" from Moscow continued:

". . . . The government of the United States will not now permit a 'Communist party' to exist but it is compelled to permit 'parties' to exist in an otherwise almost unrestricted variety, for the purpose of its own preservation. . . . The state attempts, wherever it can, to exclude a truly proletarian revolutionary party from this public field. It attempts first to exterminate the revolutionary party, if possible, or second, to terrorize and corrupt the revolutionary party into subservience to capital law which makes revolution impossible, or third, at least to confine the revolutionary party's operations to the narrow sphere that can be reached secretly."

"A Communist party must defeat all these attempts. It must not be exterminated. It must unequivocably refuse to obey capitalist law, and must urge the working class to the violent destruction of the entire legal machinery."

"Destruction of the entire legal machinery!" That is something for the reader to remember.

The Communist, official organ published "underground" by the Communist party, had this in its issue for September, 1921:

"Comrades, conditions known to all of us and at present beyond control make it impossible for us to go into an elaboration of the details involved in our plans. . . Suffice it to say that our Central Executive Committee is not pledged to any iron-clad formula as to our machinery for country-wide work. We frankly recognize that the form is a matter mainly dependent upon the prevailing party and outside conditions."

And in another place, same issue:

"The Communist party of America has now reached a point where a change of tactics (the change noted above) is an absolute necessity. This change is vital not only to the party but to the progress of the entire American labor movement. The mountain did not go te Mahommet, so Mahommet must go to the mountain. The masses do not and will not come to our underground organization, so we must organize above and carry our agitation on on a legal basis."

In December, 1921, the first convention of the Workers' party, built upon the foundation laid by the American Labor Alliance and organized to function as the "open" or "legal" branch of the illegal and underground Communist party of America, was held in New York City. "The resumption of trade relations with Russia, and the recognition (by the United States government) of the Soviet Republic," continued to be a foremost and vital plank of the party program.

This gathering marked the preliminary preparations for the participation by the red radicals in the congressional elections of 1922,



A Bulwark Of Orderly Government

As has been already quite clearly indicated, the thorn in the side of bolshevism in the United States throughout 1919 and 1920 was the federal Department of Justice under the generalship of A. Mitchell Palmer. To discredit and cripple the Department of Justice were imperative to whatever degree of success the red radicals hoped to attain, for the simple reason that the breakdown of orderly government in all of its functions is surely the natural consequence of a breakdown of that arm of the government the function of which is the maintenance of domestic tranquility by the enforcement of law and the safeguarding of order which laws and law enforcement are intended to insure.

"Destruction of the entire legal machinery," was the communist aim, as set forth in the "thesis" from the Comintern, quoted in the previous chapter. To be sure, the word "destruction" was preceded by the word "violent," in the advice to the American reds transmitted to them from Moscow, but demoralization must necessarily precede destruction, whether the destruction be accomplished by violence or by milder means.

Now, let it not be understood by the reader that the writer of these pages has it in mind, for a single instant, to suggest that anyone other than the criminal bolshevik agents themselves entertained the thought or desire to promote violent revolution in the United States.

United States Senator Joseph I. France, of Maryland, spoke at a mass meeting in New York City early in January, of 1921, in protest against the ousting of the soviet "ambassador," Martens; later in that month he bitterly assailed Mr. Palmer's conduct of the federal Department of Justice; after the Harding administration came into power and Harry M. Daugherty became Attorney General, he participated in a debate in Carnegie Hall, New York, with Senator King, of Utah, a staunch opponent of the reds, and advocated United States recognition of soviet Russia, and so stirred up did the reds attending the debate become that they rushed the stage from which the debate was delivered.

But it is unthinkable, of course, that Senator France at any time entertained any thoughts in common with the bolshevik program for civil war against constituted authority in the United States. Wholly regardless of his consciousness of the fact, however, and wholly regardless of whether he ever realized it afterwards, the Senator from Maryland was giving aid and comfort to enemies of the American republic— enemies who had no scruples of any kind against the overthrow of the American government and the establishment, in its stead, of a reign of bolshevik chaos by any means at all possible to them.

The same is to be said of Senator Thomas J. Walsh, of Montana, who "prosecuted" Attorney General Palmer before the sub-committee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The same is to be said about the many others who figure prominently in this narrative because they have enacted roles as "dupes" of red radicalism since the bolsheviks mastered Russia, and of innumerable others equally misled but too inconspicuous to warrant identification.

It is perhaps well for Mr. Palmer that his obligations to his country, as the chief law-enforcing officer of the federal government, came to an end with the termination of the Wilson administration, What would surely have been his fate, had not a change of administration come to his rescue, fell to the lot of another man.

President Harding had no sooner selected and installed the Attorney General of his Cabinet, Harry M. Daugherty, than the guns that had been bombarding Palmer were turned and levelled upon his successor, Mr. Daugherty. This would have been true, had the appointee to the Attorney Generalship been any other man fit and big enough for the job. It would have been true had the man been anyone but a mollycoddle or a Morris Hillquit—and, of course, had it been the latter the bombardment would have been from another quarter.

The guns were turned, sighted and levelled at Daugherty, but the bombardment, at any rate that of the heavy artillery, did not begin at once. There was considerable sniping throughout 1921, and at frequent intervals the "resignation rumor" was put into circulation as a sort of feeler of the new Attorney General's sense of security. The quality of Daugherty was not so very well known outside of Ohio, at first; and it was not known for a certainty among the natural enemies of the Department of Justice that he was not something of a mollycoddle upon whom mild tactics might have sufficient influence to make the use of poison gas and high explosives unnecessary. So that, except for the sniping and bush-whacking and minor attempts at intimidation, the heavy artillery destined ultimately to open up on him remained virtually inactive. The first few months of the new administration were notable chiefly for the propaganda use that was made of a "general amnesty" campaign directed at both President Harding and the Attorney General.

The "amnesty" campaign was, of course, nothing more or less than a propaganda campaign in the interests of the radical movement. The prime factors in General Defense Committee, functioning in Chicago, and the American Civil Liberties Union, headquarters in New York City, were then and are now far less concerned, sentimentally, with the fate of individual "political prisoners" than they were and are in the establishment of a principle which they always call "free speech" but which is, in fact, freedom to advocate destructive revolutionary acts without danger of unpleasant consequences to the advocators.

Prof. Paul Frederick Brissenden, formerly of the faculty of the University of California, later of the faculty of Columbia University, described as having "traveled extensively through the industrial regions of the country as a special agent for the United States Department of Labor," and the author in 1919 of a book entitled The I.W.W.; a Study of American Syndicalism, wrote a pamphlet for distribution by the General Defense Committee after the "amnesty campaign" had been waged for a time upon the Harding administration. Justice and the I.W.W. was the title of it. One of the professor's arguments in behalf of the I.W.W. was that "its members would stack up not unfavorably with 'the Founding Fathers' who, as is well known, urged the unlawful destruction of property by the destruction of tea and by the burning of stamped paper." What the professor overlooked, however, was the fact that the "Founding Fathers" were quite aware that discovery and arrest at the hands of the officers of King George would involve highly unpleasant consequences, of which they were not only cognizant but which they were entirely prepared and willing to experience. It is quite probable, in fact, that Nathan Hale, for one, would have scoffed at even the suggestion of amnesty or of the organization of a defense committee in his behalf.

The pamphlet referred to, extensively circulated by the General Defense Committee, which also staged a number of demonstrations in Washington and brought delegations of "pickets" to do duty at the gates of the White House, contained, in addition to the animadversions of the distinguished professor, a particularly vitriolic attack upon the Attorney General, reprinted from the New York Call, a socialist newspaper.

As already suggested, the reds who were the most passionate and industrious workers for the professed objects of the General Defense Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union were interested considerably less in obtaining freedom for so-called "political prisoners" than they were in using the "amnesty campaign" as a smokescreen for their agitation of class warfare. Had President Harding issued a decree of general amnesty, releasing at one swoop the entire mob of criminals whose freedom from the federal jail houses was demanded by the amnesty campaigners, the props would have been knocked completely from under the campaigners in this particular line. But even that would not have quieted them. They would simply have concentrated their energies in some other direction for the demoralization of government, particularly the legal branch of it.

The fact that some of the prisoners on their lists were released by the President, upon recommendation from Attorney General Daugherty, was gall and wormwood to them. Particularly was their hatred of Attorney General Daugherty kindled by the release, in December, 1921, of Eugene V. Debs, and nothing angered them more than the magnanimous attitude of the Attorney General in his consideration of the case of Debs. For Debs in jail, reasoned they with not a little merit, was a far greater revolutionary propagandist himself, dressed in his cloak of "martyrdom" and "suffering" for the cause of the proletariat, than he ever had been or ever could be running at large. At heart, the reds would greatly have preferred that none of their "martyred comrades" received compassionate consideration by the Attorney General or the president. President Harding commuted the sentences of twenty-seven "politicals" on Christmas Day, 1921, but there remained in prison 114 others, for which the reds among the amnesty campaigners were truly grateful because, so long as there was one still in jail, they and their campaign had legs to stand on.

It was not long after the coming in of the Harding administration that the reds, and the misled pinks and parlor bolsheviks, who indulged them with both moral and financial support, encountered the reality that the Attorney General was no mollycoddle and that, furthermore, unlike Mr. Palmer, he had the full and unqualified support of his President. So, as in the case of Palmer, they began working upon the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue—the Capitol end—finding sympathetic ears among "dupes" that had served their purposes in the previous administration and among bollweevil politicians more concerned with the promotion of partisan and personal interests than in either honesty in government or ethics in politics.

Among those selected as a medium through which to bombard the Department of Justice, by way of the United States Senate, was Senator William E. Borah, of Idaho, who had played a sort of second fiddle to Senator Walsh, of Montana, during the investigation of the complaints of the National Popular Government League against Attorney General Palmer, and who, also, had revealed some sympathetic tendencies with respect to the soviet government of Russia. Senator Borah was the recipient, early in February, of a telegram from Harry Feinberg, I.W.W. journalist and lawyer, representing the General Defense Committee, charging Attorney General Daugherty with using the federal Department of Justice as "a center for anti-labor propaganda." Although this telegram in itself may not have got anywhere in particular, it served admirably as a wedge, full advantage of which was taken in due time, and Senator Borah as a public advocate of the "cause" of the "politicals" was exploited by the General Defense Committee along with Rep. George Huddleston, vice-chairman of LaFollette's People's Legislative Service, the public utterances of both being published in pamphlet form for distribution as part of the continuation of the "amnesty campaign."

The "amnesty campaign" continued, by the way, long after other campaigns of a more direct character had been instituted against the Harding-Coolidge administration of the government generally and the Department of Justice particularly, and when the propaganda had been "sold" to the press of the country and all but thirty-two of the so-called "politicals" had been released, the New Republic, highbrow journal of the pinks and parlor bolsheviki, observed:

"The act of amnesty by which President Harding released twenty-seven political prisoners serving sentence under wartime laws will be received with satisfaction tempered with indignation. What two years ago would have been a bold and generous declaration of good will appears now as a delayed, grudging and rather cowardly measure of reparation. The President has bowed for two years to the truculence of the American Legion and the malevolence of his Attorney General. . . . The campaign must go on."

The propagandist basic purpose of the "amnesty campaign" became the more apparent when fifty-two members of the I.W.W. had declined to make application for individual clemency. These men were serving terms in the federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. Subsequent to the filing of a petition with President Harding by the General Defense Committee in July, 1922, the prisoners attached their signatures to "an open letter" to the President, the letter being, of course, not so much for the enlightenment of the President as for the purpose to which it was put—namely, publication as a pamphlet for circulation on a large scale as part of the general radical campaign of propaganda against the government and, particularly, against the Department of Justice.

"Freedom of speech," as viewed ever by the red radical, is freedom to advocate, without limit of any kind whatsoever, any doctrine that is, on the face of it, subversive to existing government and subservient to any and all causes inimical to "capitalist society" regardless of how violently destructive such doctrines may be. It is that "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" which led to the conviction of the communist, Gitlow, whose sentence was recently upheld by the United States Supreme Court, and which led to a great many other arrests, convictions and prison sentences of equally dangerous reds whose fate has met with the approval of the American courts which have made it clear that there is, after all, at least a slight distinction between "freedom" and "license."

"We feel we owe it to the loyal men and women outside of these walls who still believe in freedom of speech, assemblage and the press, to remain steadfast and uphold these ideals even at the cost of continued incarceration," said the martyred ones in their "open letter" to President Harding. "We can not do otherwise than refuse to recant. We must continue to refuse to beg for a pardon which in common justice ought to have been accorded to us long ago. . . ."

"Because of Mr. Daugherty's action in giving out false information about our cases (any and all information given out by the Attorney General being labeled as "false" by the amnesty campaigners) we have little confidence in his motives or of those in the Department which he heads. Frankly, we are fearful that applications for clemency would give the Attorney General an opportunity to make a gesture of fairness, by releasing some of us and holding the rest to serve out the savage sentences imposed by the courts."

"It is pretty generally known that to intelligent wage-workers and to students of social science that the Industrial Workers of the World is a labor union, and not a mere anti-war nor anti-militaristic organization. Its avowed object is to create among the disinherited workers a spirit of solidarity similar to that enjoyed by the employing class, which at present owns and controls practically all of the earth and the machinery of production.

"The purpose of this solidarity, as stated in the preamble of the I.W.W., is 'to enable the workers to carry on the everyday struggle with the employing class and to carry on production when capitalism is overthrown, . . . We believed in 1917, and we believe now, that the present social and economic order is wasteful, planless, chaotic and criminal. We are frankly dissatisfied with this arrangement of things, which we call capitalism. We seek to replace it with a well-ordered and scientifically managed system in which the actual producers will own, democratically control and have access to the earth and machinery of production of goods for the benefit of the many instead of the enrichment of the few."

Continuing, the prisoners held themselves up as "martyrs" to the "White Terror," a name given by the Russian bolsheviki to all forms of opposition to the "Red Terror" which they imposed upon Russia and now seek to impose upon the whole world; and concluding, they declined in any way to repent or to recant their adherence to and continued participation in the so-called "working class revolution" for the overthrow of capitalist society and of existing government in the United States.

During all this period, during a period of actual crises far more potentially perilous to the stability of the American republic than the mass of patriotic citizens of these United States have so far been brought to realize, the bulwark of orderly government was, as is always the case when the country is presumably upon a peacetime footing, the Federal Department of Justice. When the Federal Department of Justice does not or can not function efficiently, with the interests of its client, the government, foremost in the mind of its chief officer, the country is in peril. If the importance of the Department of Justice to national stability ever was demonstrated, it was in the year 1922, the history of which it is the purpose of the writer to review in some detail. But before that, let us turn back a bit, once more, and have another look at 1921 and some political events of that year that are significant in their relationship to history that unfolded afterward.



Birds of a Feather

There can be no better place than right here to impress a point that is important in reaching an understanding of a relationship which the Left Wing of radicalism, that is to say the Moscow-managed faction marching unreservedly under the banner of the Third (Communist) Internationales, bears to the Right Wing. The Right Wing has the same objective but with a presumably less violent program for accomplishing it. There are factions, of course, within each of these so-called "wings,"—factions frequently at odds with one another both as to tactics and as to personnel of leadership,—but with these we need not be concerned, any more than we "are ever concerned with factions within either the Republican or Democratic parties when such factions remain faithful to the fundamental principles and precepts outlined in the respective party programs or platforms.

As the Socialist party of America, now professing to be the Right Wing, and therefore more or less viewed with contempt by the Left Wing, has always had its factional fights which have made national conventions of the party more or less tempestuous until one faction or another was able to mobilize support sufficient to obtain for it control of the party machinery, so also has the Left Wing, made up of the Communists, the I.W.W., the Socialist Labor Party and defections from the Socialist Party, had its series of factional fights since the ascendancy of Sovietism in Russia. Attention already has been called to the fact that the Comintern of Moscow has heretofore been obliged to take a hand in ironing out these factional troubles, and such is the case again as this is written.

The Communist organization that was unified during the political campaign of a year ago, 1924, has since split into two factions, one headed by William Z. Foster, and the other led by Charles Ruthenberg. While this is being written, there is in the United States an emissary of the Communist Internationale whose business it is to reunite these two factions and once more set the Communist U-Boat fleet upon a more definite course of destruction. But, notwithstanding factional controversies within either of the "wings" of the radical movement, and notwithstanding the differences existing between the two "wings," differences due as much to jealousy of power felt among leaders as to controversy over tactics,—what is important to understand is that the objective of both "wings" and of all factions of either of them is a common one.

There are two major political parties in the United States, the Republican party and the Democratic party. Fundamentally, the differences between these two parties are not great. Notwithstanding these differences, and whether great or negligible, the common objective of both of them is the administration of government in the United States in conformity to civilized standards of good order and in compliance with the provisions of the federal Constitution.

There are two principal minority organizations, to one or other of which a number of lesser ones adhere with a greater or less degree of loyalty. There are the Workers, or Communist, party (Left Wing) on the one hand, and the Socialist party (Right Wing) on the other. The differencts between the two are even less than the differences between the Republican and Democratic parties, and the objectives of each of them are the same as those of the other, namely, the overthrow of capitalism, and the destruction of the republican form of government provided by the federal constitution, the termination of private property rights, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the establishment of the international socialist commonwealth. These are statements of fact that are incontrovertible, statements of fact irrevocably established by socialist textbook explanations of socialism and by the entire history of the socialist movement since the "Communist Manifesto" of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Any avowed socialist, whether he be of the "Left Wing" or the "Right Wing," who disputes these statements of fact or attempts to equivocate concerning them in either a hypocrite and a liar or he is not a socialist by conviction and hasn't even a freshman's knowledge of socialist theory or of socialist history.

As set forth in a previous chapter, it was in the summer of 1921 that the Communists determined upon a change of tactics, decided to "come into the open" and participate in a parliamentary political program.

A gathering of the leaders of the Socialist party was held in April, 1921, in Chicago, at which meeting public announcement was made of the endorsement of the Third (Communist) Internationale and the soviet government of Russia by the socialists. The national convention of the socialist party was held in Detroit in June, of the same year, and at this convention there were stormy debates over the question of officially affiliating with the Comintern. The convention voted not to affiliate, but it refused to repudiate party members favorable to and giving their endorsement to the Comintern.

Morris Hillquit, of New York, who had been officially connected with the bolshevik "embassy" in New York under "Ambassador" Ludwig C.A.K. Martens, and who subsequently became one of the campaign managers for Senators La Follette and Wheeler in their campaign for the presidency and vice-presidency, introduced a resolution providing for the first step on the part of the socialist party toward a coalition of radical revolutionary forces for political action. The introduction of this resolution which was passed by the Detroit convention, was subsequent to the similar step taken by the Communists in contemplation of their program for political action. Whether this was mere coincidence, I am not prepared to say, but it seems a bit difficult to believe that minds bent upon achievement of an ultimate and common objective should run in very much the same direction, each entirely unconscious of the proximity of the other.

"The task of reconquering and maintaining our civil rights and liberties and securing substantial measures of economic relief can be accomplished only through the united and concerted action of all progressive, militant and class-conscious workers, industrial and agricultural, in the United States," said the Hillquit resolution as reprinted in the socialist newspaper, the New York Call, June 28, 1921.

"Be it Therefore Resolved, that the Incoming National Executive Committee be instructed to make a careful survey of all radical and labor organizations in the country, with a view of ascertaining their strength, disposition and readiness to cooperate with socialist movement upon a platform not inconsistent with that of the party and on a plan which will preserve the integrity and economy of the socialist party."

"Resolved, that the National Executive Committee report its findings with recommendations to the next annual convention of the socialist party."

The broad inclusiveness of the resolution—"All radical and labor organizations" denotes its scope—made it imperative that the National committee take into account the "Left Wing" organizations (Communists) as well as those of the "Right Wing." Had it then been intended not to cooperate with or not to seek cooperation from the communists, it would appear certain that the resolution should have given expression to exceptions to that effect.

At any rate, the "survey" by the National Executive Committee of the Socialist party presumably was made during the months following, for a coalescing of radical forces in conformity with the plan indicated by the Hillquit resolution soon took place. The representatives of "progressive, militant and class-conscious workers" of the "industrial" group assembled in Chicago in February, 1922, and almost simultaneously there assembled in Chicago also representatives of the "progressive, militant and class-conscious workers" of the "agricultural" group.

William H. Johnston, long known as a socialist and as a socialist candidate for political office, was there to mobilize the "industrial" group. He was and is president of the International Association of Machinists; had been a lecturer in the radical Rand School of Social Science, New York; was a member of the National Advisory Committee, National Labor Alliance for Trade Relations with the Recognition of Russia; was a member of the National Council, League of Industrial Democracy (formerly the Intercollegiate Socialist Society); was secretary and treasurer and a member of the executive committee of the La Follette People's Legislative Service; was vice-president of the People's Reconstruction League; was a member of the board of directors of the labor Publication Society; was a member of the Executive Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union, and was a soviet sympathizer who took an active part in the movement to obtain official recognition of "Ambassador" Martens by the United States and to prevent the deportation of the distinguished and officially designated representative of the soviet government.

The mobilization of the "agricultural group" was in the hands of Benjamin C. Marsh, Managing Director of the so-called Farmers' National Council; Managing Director of the People's Reconstruction League, and press agent for the Plumb Plan League.

While the "industrial" and "agricultural" groups were mobilized separately, when they had been assembled they combined and held their conference jointly. Leading spirits in the conference were "Comrades" Morris Hillquit, Victor Berger, Otto Bramstetter, Bertha Hale White and Daniel W. Hoan, all conspicuous personages in the socialist movement. The gathering was marked by a number of highly inflammatory speeches, denunciatory of the American government, and larded with fulsome praises for the virtues of the soviet regime in Russia. A political program was determined upon, providing, among other things, for a scheme of "boring from within" the Republican and Democratic parties, and avoiding as far as possible, for strategic reasons, too much use of the words socialist and socialism. It was a socialist program that was contemplated, but it was agreed that expediency demanded its being carried out under a different name.

Pending another conference to be held later, a committee of fifteen was named to carry on the affairs of the coalition. Besides Hillquit, Johnston, Marsh and others on the committee, there was Jay G. Brown, of Chicago, whose name is mentioned here particularly that it may be remembered by the reader when the communist connections of this committee-man are gone into later.

This was the termination of "isolated action" by the socialists and other red radicals. It was the beginning of the Conference for Progressive Political Action, of which we shall, of course, see and hear a great deal more in due time.

In the meantime, the Federal Department of Justice, under the generalship of Harry M. Daugherty, had further enraged the reds and stirred up the sympathetic protests of the pinks, first by instituting in February, 1922, an inquiry into the conduct of Russian famine relief, and second by issuing, in March, a warning against acts of violence instigated by the reds during the coal strike which was then in progress.

Evidence was developed by the investigation of Russian famine relief by the Department of Justice, and subsequently made a part of the record of the hearings of the sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Sixty-eighth Congress, purporting to reveal the true character of an organization known as "Friends of Soviet Russia," ostensibly organized to help finance relief for famine sufferers in Russia; but, in fact, according to the evidence uncovered by investigators, engaged mainly in financing and conducting bolshevik agitation and Propaganda in the United States.

It is, of course, beyond dispute that the soviet government of Russia and the Third Internationale were then and still are engaged in a very real and entirely manifest warfare upon the United States government, as upon many other governments, and that the purpose of this warfare is to overthrow the constituted government of this country and supplant it with a socialist government to be made a part of the contemplated international socialist federation under the dictatorship of the proletariat. So that, by its very name—Friends of Soviet Russia"—the organization in question was composed of individuals who were pro-soviet and, therefore, by the very nature of things, anti-American.

"Ambassador" Martens before his enforced departure from our shores, had established a publication called Soviet Russia, and this "house organ" of the bolshevik embassy in New York City became the subsidized organ of the Friends of Soviet Russia. Later the name was changed to Soviet Russia Pictorial. The publication became the official organ of the Friends of Soviet Russia in February, 1922, and has been the medium for probolshevik and anti-American propaganda ever since.

At the time of the investigation by the Department of Justice, the list of officers and directors of the Friends of Soviet Russia included such well known communists as Elmer T. Allinson, Dennis E. Batt, Ella Reeve Bloor, Jack Carney, William F. (Big Bill) Dunne, Max Eastman (recently excommunicated), J. Louis Engdahl, William Z. Foster, Caleb Harrison, Ludwig Lore, Alfred Wagenknecht (alias A. B. Martin), Robert Minor, Edgar Owen, Upton Sinclair, Rose Pastor Stokes, Hewlett M. Wells, H.M. Wicks, and Albert Rhys Williams. But in addition to these, others were J.O. Bentall, veteran of the Socialist party of America; Jay G. Brown, a member of the "committee of fifteen" previously referred to in connection with the formation of the Conference for Progressive Political Action; Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, notorious I.W.W. and socialist agitator; H.W.L. Dana, former Columbia University professor, active in the American Civil Liberties Union and the League for Industrial Democracy; Helen Keller, the deaf and blind woman, long a radical writer and agitator; Charles P. Steinmetz, "electrical wizard," long active as a socialist; Paxton Hibben, a captain in the Officers' Reserve Corps and secretary of American Relief Committee for Russian Children, and a well known admirer of Soviet Russia and a public advocate in its behalf and in its defense.

According to general report found among other documents bearing upon activities of the Communist party, of which the 'Friends of Soviet Russia' was, in fact, an arm, thousands of locals of all the important labor unions in the United States were officially affiliated with the Friends of Soviet Russia, and also affiliated with the central labor bodies—Central Labor Councils and Federations of Labor —in Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, Tacoma, Minneapolis, Portland, Ore., Trenton, N.J., Denver, Ogden, Utah, Mansfield, Ohio, Richmond, Va., Bedford, Conn., Binghampton, N.Y., Rockford, Ill, San Diego, Cal., New York City, and Washington, D.C.

The machinations of the avowed bolsheviks in the coal strike, their promotion of violence and the destruction of mining machinery, were exposed by investigations made by the Federal Department of Justice. The red campaign against the Department of Justice became more and more militant and defiant in character. The red campaign against this branch of the administration of government was not merely defended by the pinks and the new political coalition, originated by the Socialist party and brought into definite form as the Conference for Progressive Political Action, but it was applauded and echoed and helped in every manner possible. The program of violence, in which the Communists were the most active factors, had the moral support of the leading spirits in the "Right Wing" of the radical forces aligned against the government, and the political program of the "Right Wing" had the moral and active support of the leading spirits in the more inflammatory "Left Wing."

The reds were preparing to use the pinks for their own ends, and the pinks were only too willing to use the reds for theirs.

After the "coalition" of February, 1922, under the name "Conference for Progressive Political Action," in which radicals of many shades from deep red to ripe pink were marshalled, the "committee of fifteen" functioned with fine effect. First among the organizations to affiliate in this coalition were the "Big Four" Railroad Brotherhoods; the railroad crafts, including the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and Railway Shop Laborers, the International Association of Machinists, the International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths and Ilelpers, the Steel Metal Workers, the Brotherhood of Railway Electrical Workers, the Brotherhood of Railway Car Men, the International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, the International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen and Oilers, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signal Men.

Other affiliations were from the United Mine Workers, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, the Farmers' National Council, the Non-Partisan League and elements of the Farm-Labor party which subsequently became the Federated Farm-Jabor party under almost complete dominance of communist leadership. A.C. Townley, the famous Non-Partisan leaguer, who was imprisoned in Minnesota for seditious utterances, was instrumental in obtaining the Non-Partisan League affiliation, and he was one of the prime movers in bringing about the "coalition." It was the Townley system of stealing party names and "boring from within" which the communist, William Z. Foster, borrowed and used with such good effect in the labor unions, that the Conference for Progressive Political Action adopted. The system was one of well known fruitfulness to Senator Robert M. La Follette in Wisconsin, and to the pink politicians of North Dakota and elsewhere.

An affiliation not to be overlooked was, of course, that of the People's Legislative Service, which Senator La Follette had organized and set up in Washington to be "On Guard for the People", as the motto of this pink institution for uplift expresses it. The director of this organization was and is one Basil M. Manly, a socialist and for years a radical lobbyist in Washington, and the author of literature sufficiently red to warrant circulation by the Rand School, New York City. Senator La Follette was the chairman of the executive committee; Congressman George Huddleston, of Alabama, the vice chairman; William H. Johnston, secretary-treasurer, and W. G. Lee, Warren S. Stone, Mabel C. Costigan, other members. This same William H. Johnston, as secretary-treasurer of the People's Legislative Service, and the president of the International Association of Machinists, was the one who took the job of "mobilizing" the "industrial" groups for the "coalition" of radical forces for political action in accordance with a program laid down by the Socialist party under the provisions of the Hillquit resolution of June, 1921. The versatility of William H. Johnston, as an office-holder in the radical groups, has already been indicated, but special attention to two or three of these official connections may well be directed at this time.

As a member of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union "Comrade" Johnston was an associate and co-worker with such well known communists, socialists and reds as Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, William Z. Foster, Helen Keller, Scott Nearing, Seymour Stedman, Norman Thomas, and Roger M. Baldwin, the last named being the director of the "Union" and himself an ex-convict, having been convicted and imprisoned for draft-dodging during the war. As a member of the National Council of the League for Industrial Democracy, formerly the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, we find "Comrade" Johnston at work with as fine a collection of communists, socialists, reds and pinks as any one organization could wish to boast of, including the I.W.W. apologist and defender, Professor Paul E. Brissenden, heretofore quoted; Evans Clark, who had served as one of "Ambassador" Martens' press agents; Upton Sinclair, Morris Hillquist, Alexander Trachtenberg, Prince Hopkins, Norman Thomas, and the Hapgood Brothers, Norman and William.

As the Conference for Progressive Political Action controlled from beginning to end by socialists, and originating from the initiative of the socialist party, as expressed in the Hillquist resolution, was the direct link of alliance between the "Right Wing" reds and pinks of the La Follette organization, the People's Legislative Service, so the People's Legislative Service was the direct link of the radical "coalition" of the reds and the pinks with the Legislative branches of the United States government, the Senate and the House of Representatives. William H. Johnston, secretary-treasurer of the People's Legislative Service and co-worker with some of the country's best known communists and socialists in the American Civil Liberties Union and the League for Industial Democracy, became the directing head of the Conference for Progressive Political Action which was organized to carry out a Socialist party program in 1922, that by the oddest coincidence—if such it was—ran almost directly parallel with the program of altered tactics determined upon by the Moscow directed communists through the medium of their "legal" Workers' Party.

The People's Legislative Service supplied an imposing personnel of active workers within the Council of the Conference for Progressive Political Action, as put into operation in 1922. For, besides "Comrade" Johnston and "Comrade" Manly, there were Warren S. Stone, grand chief of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Joseph A. Franklin, president of the International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America; former Congressman Edward Keating, editor of the extremely radical weekly paper, "Labor" published across the street from the Capitol in Washington; E.J. Manion, president of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers; Frederick C. Howe, President Wilson's radical immigration commissioner at New York and long known as a radical propagandist, I.W.W. defender and apologist, and a special writer for the daringly red news service, the Federated Press; and sundry others.

With Senator Joseph I. France's connection with the People's Legislative Service and his pro-soviet utterances, the reader is already familiar. At the time under discussion, Senator Wheeler and Senator Brookhart, later to become members of the Executive Committee of the People's Legislative Service, were not members of that organization, but Senator Ladd, of North Dakota, and Senator Norris, of Nebraska, were members of the National Council of the People's Legislative Service, as was Senator David I. Walsh of Massachusetts, and these members of Congress, Joseph D, Beck, Wisconsin; Edward E. Brown, Wisconsin; William J. Burke, Pennsylvania; Ross A. Collins, Mississippi; James A. Frear, Wisconsin; Oscar E. Keller, Minnesota; James M. Mead, New York; John M. Nelson, Wisconsin; Edward Voigt, Wisconsin.

It would be getting ahead of the story, somewhat, to discuss the Labor Defense Council now, an organization of communist origin, but it ought here to be mentioned—with further details held in reserve for a later chapter—because the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Conference for Progressive Political Action and secretary-treasurer of the People's Legislative Service, which organizations have just been under discussion, was so closely associated with the chief actors in the Labor Defense Council. For one thing, one of the members of the Executive Committee of the Conference for Progressive Political Action—none other than Jay G. Brown, twice mentioned heretofore—was chosen for the National Committee of the Labor Defense Council, serving with such other close associates of chairman Johnston in other organizations, as Roger Baldwin, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Paxton Hibben. Other members of the National Committee of the Labor Defense Council were Eugene V. Debs, later a highly distinguished figure in the Conference for Progressive Political Action, and the Detroit communist editor and writer, Dennis Batt; and cooperating with the Council were four leading communists, Earl R. Browder, William F. (Big Bill) Dunne, William Z. Foster and Charles E. Ruthenberg. The National Secretary of the Council was William Z. Foster, and cooperating, also, were some of the country's most justly renowned pinks and parlor reds, such as the Reverend John Haynes Holmes, the Reverend Percy Stickney Grant, the Reverend Norman Thomas, Mary Heaton Vorse, Francis Fisher Kane, etc., etc.

Verily, it doth seem strange that, if these birds were not of a feather, they should have flocked so frequently together.



Birds of a Feather

There can be no better place than right here to impress a point that is important in reaching an understanding of a relationship which the Left Wing of radicalism, that is to say the Moscow-managed faction marching unreservedly under the banner of the Third (Communist) Internationales, bears to the Right Wing. The Right Wing has the same objective but with a presumably less violent program for accomplishing it. There are factions, of course, within each of these so-called "wings,"—factions frequently at odds with one another both as to tactics and as to personnel of leadership,—but with these we need not be concerned, any more than we "are ever concerned with factions within either the Republican or Democratic parties when such factions remain faithful to the fundamental principles and precepts outlined in the respective party programs or platforms.

As the Socialist party of America, now professing to be the Right Wing, and therefore more or less viewed with contempt by the Left Wing, has always had its factional fights which have made national conventions of the party more or less tempestuous until one faction or another was able to mobilize support sufficient to obtain for it control of the party machinery, so also has the Left Wing, made up of the Communists, the I.W.W., the Socialist Labor Party and defections from the Socialist Party, had its series of factional fights since the ascendancy of Sovietism in Russia. Attention already has been called to the fact that the Comintern of Moscow has heretofore been obliged to take a hand in ironing out these factional troubles, and such is the case again as this is written.

The Communist organization that was unified during the political campaign of a year ago, 1924, has since split into two factions, one headed by William Z. Foster, and the other led by Charles Ruthenberg. While this is being written, there is in the United States an emissary of the Communist Internationale whose business it is to reunite these two factions and once more set the Communist U-Boat fleet upon a more definite course of destruction. But, notwithstanding factional controversies within either of the "wings" of the radical movement, and notwithstanding the differences existing between the two "wings," differences due as much to jealousy of power felt among leaders as to controversy over tactics,—what is important to understand is that the objective of both "wings" and of all factions of either of them is a common one.

There are two major political parties in the United States, the Republican party and the Democratic party. Fundamentally, the differences between these two parties are not great. Notwithstanding these differences, and whether great or negligible, the common objective of both of them is the administration of government in the United States in conformity to civilized standards of good order and in compliance with the provisions of the federal Constitution.

There are two principal minority organizations, to one or other of which a number of lesser ones adhere with a greater or less degree of loyalty. There are the Workers, or Communist, party (Left Wing) on the one hand, and the Socialist party (Right Wing) on the other. The differencts between the two are even less than the differences between the Republican and Democratic parties, and the objectives of each of them are the same as those of the other, namely, the overthrow of capitalism, and the destruction of the republican form of government provided by the federal constitution, the termination of private property rights, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the establishment of the international socialist commonwealth. These are statements of fact that are incontrovertible, statements of fact irrevocably established by socialist textbook explanations of socialism and by the entire history of the socialist movement since the "Communist Manifesto" of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Any avowed socialist, whether he be of the "Left Wing" or the "Right Wing," who disputes these statements of fact or attempts to equivocate concerning them in either a hypocrite and a liar or he is not a socialist by conviction and hasn't even a freshman's knowledge of socialist theory or of socialist history.

As set forth in a previous chapter, it was in the summer of 1921 that the Communists determined upon a change of tactics, decided to "come into the open" and participate in a parliamentary political program.

A gathering of the leaders of the Socialist party was held in April, 1921, in Chicago, at which meeting public announcement was made of the endorsement of the Third (Communist) Internationale and the soviet government of Russia by the socialists. The national convention of the socialist party was held in Detroit in June, of the same year, and at this convention there were stormy debates over the question of officially affiliating with the Comintern. The convention voted not to affiliate, but it refused to repudiate party members favorable to and giving their endorsement to the Comintern.

Morris Hillquit, of New York, who had been officially connected with the bolshevik "embassy" in New York under "Ambassador" Ludwig C.A.K. Martens, and who subsequently became one of the campaign managers for Senators La Follette and Wheeler in their campaign for the presidency and vice-presidency, introduced a resolution providing for the first step on the part of the socialist party toward a coalition of radical revolutionary forces for political action. The introduction of this resolution which was passed by the Detroit convention, was subsequent to the similar step taken by the Communists in contemplation of their program for political action. Whether this was mere coincidence, I am not prepared to say, but it seems a bit difficult to believe that minds bent upon achievement of an ultimate and common objective should run in very much the same direction, each entirely unconscious of the proximity of the other.

"The task of reconquering and maintaining our civil rights and liberties and securing substantial measures of economic relief can be accomplished only through the united and concerted action of all progressive, militant and class-conscious workers, industrial and agricultural, in the United States," said the Hillquit resolution as reprinted in the socialist newspaper, the New York Call, June 28, 1921.

"Be it Therefore Resolved, that the Incoming National Executive Committee be instructed to make a careful survey of all radical and labor organizations in the country, with a view of ascertaining their strength, disposition and readiness to cooperate with socialist movement upon a platform not inconsistent with that of the party and on a plan which will preserve the integrity and economy of the socialist party."

"Resolved, that the National Executive Committee report its findings with recommendations to the next annual convention of the socialist party."

The broad inclusiveness of the resolution—"All radical and labor organizations" denotes its scope—made it imperative that the National committee take into account the "Left Wing" organizations (Communists) as well as those of the "Right Wing." Had it then been intended not to cooperate with or not to seek cooperation from the communists, it would appear certain that the resolution should have given expression to exceptions to that effect.

At any rate, the "survey" by the National Executive Committee of the Socialist party presumably was made during the months following, for a coalescing of radical forces in conformity with the plan indicated by the Hillquit resolution soon took place. The representatives of "progressive, militant and class-conscious workers" of the "industrial" group assembled in Chicago in February, 1922, and almost simultaneously there assembled in Chicago also representatives of the "progressive, militant and class-conscious workers" of the "agricultural" group.

William H. Johnston, long known as a socialist and as a socialist candidate for political office, was there to mobilize the "industrial" group. He was and is president of the International Association of Machinists; had been a lecturer in the radical Rand School of Social Science, New York; was a member of the National Advisory Committee, National Labor Alliance for Trade Relations with the Recognition of Russia; was a member of the National Council, League of Industrial Democracy (formerly the Intercollegiate Socialist Society); was secretary and treasurer and a member of the executive committee of the La Follette People's Legislative Service; was vice-president of the People's Reconstruction League; was a member of the board of directors of the labor Publication Society; was a member of the Executive Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union, and was a soviet sympathizer who took an active part in the movement to obtain official recognition of "Ambassador" Martens by the United States and to prevent the deportation of the distinguished and officially designated representative of the soviet government.

The mobilization of the "agricultural group" was in the hands of Benjamin C. Marsh, Managing Director of the so-called Farmers' National Council; Managing Director of the People's Reconstruction League, and press agent for the Plumb Plan League.

While the "industrial" and "agricultural" groups were mobilized separately, when they had been assembled they combined and held their conference jointly. Leading spirits in the conference were "Comrades" Morris Hillquit, Victor Berger, Otto Bramstetter, Bertha Hale White and Daniel W. Hoan, all conspicuous personages in the socialist movement. The gathering was marked by a number of highly inflammatory speeches, denunciatory of the American government, and larded with fulsome praises for the virtues of the soviet regime in Russia. A political program was determined upon, providing, among other things, for a scheme of "boring from within" the Republican and Democratic parties, and avoiding as far as possible, for strategic reasons, too much use of the words socialist and socialism. It was a socialist program that was contemplated, but it was agreed that expediency demanded its being carried out under a different name.

Pending another conference to be held later, a committee of fifteen was named to carry on the affairs of the coalition. Besides Hillquit, Johnston, Marsh and others on the committee, there was Jay G. Brown, of Chicago, whose name is mentioned here particularly that it may be remembered by the reader when the communist connections of this committee-man are gone into later.

This was the termination of "isolated action" by the socialists and other red radicals. It was the beginning of the Conference for Progressive Political Action, of which we shall, of course, see and hear a great deal more in due time.

In the meantime, the Federal Department of Justice, under the generalship of Harry M. Daugherty, had further enraged the reds and stirred up the sympathetic protests of the pinks, first by instituting in February, 1922, an inquiry into the conduct of Russian famine relief, and second by issuing, in March, a warning against acts of violence instigated by the reds during the coal strike which was then in progress.

Evidence was developed by the investigation of Russian famine relief by the Department of Justice, and subsequently made a part of the record of the hearings of the sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Sixty-eighth Congress, purporting to reveal the true character of an organization known as "Friends of Soviet Russia," ostensibly organized to help finance relief for famine sufferers in Russia; but, in fact, according to the evidence uncovered by investigators, engaged mainly in financing and conducting bolshevik agitation and Propaganda in the United States.

It is, of course, beyond dispute that the soviet government of Russia and the Third Internationale were then and still are engaged in a very real and entirely manifest warfare upon the United States government, as upon many other governments, and that the purpose of this warfare is to overthrow the constituted government of this country and supplant it with a socialist government to be made a part of the contemplated international socialist federation under the dictatorship of the proletariat. So that, by its very name—Friends of Soviet Russia"—the organization in question was composed of individuals who were pro-soviet and, therefore, by the very nature of things, anti-American.

"Ambassador" Martens before his enforced departure from our shores, had established a publication called Soviet Russia, and this "house organ" of the bolshevik embassy in New York City became the subsidized organ of the Friends of Soviet Russia. Later the name was changed to Soviet Russia Pictorial. The publication became the official organ of the Friends of Soviet Russia in February, 1922, and has been the medium for probolshevik and anti-American propaganda ever since.

At the time of the investigation by the Department of Justice, the list of officers and directors of the Friends of Soviet Russia included such well known communists as Elmer T. Allinson, Dennis E. Batt, Ella Reeve Bloor, Jack Carney, William F. (Big Bill) Dunne, Max Eastman (recently excommunicated), J. Louis Engdahl, William Z. Foster, Caleb Harrison, Ludwig Lore, Alfred Wagenknecht (alias A. B. Martin), Robert Minor, Edgar Owen, Upton Sinclair, Rose Pastor Stokes, Hewlett M. Wells, H.M. Wicks, and Albert Rhys Williams. But in addition to these, others were J.O. Bentall, veteran of the Socialist party of America; Jay G. Brown, a member of the "committee of fifteen" previously referred to in connection with the formation of the Conference for Progressive Political Action; Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, notorious I.W.W. and socialist agitator; H.W.L. Dana, former Columbia University professor, active in the American Civil Liberties Union and the League for Industrial Democracy; Helen Keller, the deaf and blind woman, long a radical writer and agitator; Charles P. Steinmetz, "electrical wizard," long active as a socialist; Paxton Hibben, a captain in the Officers' Reserve Corps and secretary of American Relief Committee for Russian Children, and a well known admirer of Soviet Russia and a public advocate in its behalf and in its defense.

According to general report found among other documents bearing upon activities of the Communist party, of which the 'Friends of Soviet Russia' was, in fact, an arm, thousands of locals of all the important labor unions in the United States were officially affiliated with the Friends of Soviet Russia, and also affiliated with the central labor bodies—Central Labor Councils and Federations of Labor —in Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, Tacoma, Minneapolis, Portland, Ore., Trenton, N.J., Denver, Ogden, Utah, Mansfield, Ohio, Richmond, Va., Bedford, Conn., Binghampton, N.Y., Rockford, Ill, San Diego, Cal., New York City, and Washington, D.C.

The machinations of the avowed bolsheviks in the coal strike, their promotion of violence and the destruction of mining machinery, were exposed by investigations made by the Federal Department of Justice. The red campaign against the Department of Justice became more and more militant and defiant in character. The red campaign against this branch of the administration of government was not merely defended by the pinks and the new political coalition, originated by the Socialist party and brought into definite form as the Conference for Progressive Political Action, but it was applauded and echoed and helped in every manner possible. The program of violence, in which the Communists were the most active factors, had the moral support of the leading spirits in the "Right Wing" of the radical forces aligned against the government, and the political program of the "Right Wing" had the moral and active support of the leading spirits in the more inflammatory "Left Wing."

The reds were preparing to use the pinks for their own ends, and the pinks were only too willing to use the reds for theirs.

After the "coalition" of February, 1922, under the name "Conference for Progressive Political Action," in which radicals of many shades from deep red to ripe pink were marshalled, the "committee of fifteen" functioned with fine effect. First among the organizations to affiliate in this coalition were the "Big Four" Railroad Brotherhoods; the railroad crafts, including the United Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes and Railway Shop Laborers, the International Association of Machinists, the International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths and Ilelpers, the Steel Metal Workers, the Brotherhood of Railway Electrical Workers, the Brotherhood of Railway Car Men, the International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, the International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen and Oilers, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signal Men.

Other affiliations were from the United Mine Workers, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, the Farmers' National Council, the Non-Partisan League and elements of the Farm-Labor party which subsequently became the Federated Farm-Jabor party under almost complete dominance of communist leadership. A.C. Townley, the famous Non-Partisan leaguer, who was imprisoned in Minnesota for seditious utterances, was instrumental in obtaining the Non-Partisan League affiliation, and he was one of the prime movers in bringing about the "coalition." It was the Townley system of stealing party names and "boring from within" which the communist, William Z. Foster, borrowed and used with such good effect in the labor unions, that the Conference for Progressive Political Action adopted. The system was one of well known fruitfulness to Senator Robert M. La Follette in Wisconsin, and to the pink politicians of North Dakota and elsewhere.

An affiliation not to be overlooked was, of course, that of the People's Legislative Service, which Senator La Follette had organized and set up in Washington to be "On Guard for the People", as the motto of this pink institution for uplift expresses it. The director of this organization was and is one Basil M. Manly, a socialist and for years a radical lobbyist in Washington, and the author of literature sufficiently red to warrant circulation by the Rand School, New York City. Senator La Follette was the chairman of the executive committee; Congressman George Huddleston, of Alabama, the vice chairman; William H. Johnston, secretary-treasurer, and W. G. Lee, Warren S. Stone, Mabel C. Costigan, other members. This same William H. Johnston, as secretary-treasurer of the People's Legislative Service, and the president of the International Association of Machinists, was the one who took the job of "mobilizing" the "industrial" groups for the "coalition" of radical forces for political action in accordance with a program laid down by the Socialist party under the provisions of the Hillquit resolution of June, 1921. The versatility of William H. Johnston, as an office-holder in the radical groups, has already been indicated, but special attention to two or three of these official connections may well be directed at this time.

As a member of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union "Comrade" Johnston was an associate and co-worker with such well known communists, socialists and reds as Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, William Z. Foster, Helen Keller, Scott Nearing, Seymour Stedman, Norman Thomas, and Roger M. Baldwin, the last named being the director of the "Union" and himself an ex-convict, having been convicted and imprisoned for draft-dodging during the war. As a member of the National Council of the League for Industrial Democracy, formerly the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, we find "Comrade" Johnston at work with as fine a collection of communists, socialists, reds and pinks as any one organization could wish to boast of, including the I.W.W. apologist and defender, Professor Paul E. Brissenden, heretofore quoted; Evans Clark, who had served as one of "Ambassador" Martens' press agents; Upton Sinclair, Morris Hillquist, Alexander Trachtenberg, Prince Hopkins, Norman Thomas, and the Hapgood Brothers, Norman and William.

As the Conference for Progressive Political Action controlled from beginning to end by socialists, and originating from the initiative of the socialist party, as expressed in the Hillquist resolution, was the direct link of alliance between the "Right Wing" reds and pinks of the La Follette organization, the People's Legislative Service, so the People's Legislative Service was the direct link of the radical "coalition" of the reds and the pinks with the Legislative branches of the United States government, the Senate and the House of Representatives. William H. Johnston, secretary-treasurer of the People's Legislative Service and co-worker with some of the country's best known communists and socialists in the American Civil Liberties Union and the League for Industial Democracy, became the directing head of the Conference for Progressive Political Action which was organized to carry out a Socialist party program in 1922, that by the oddest coincidence—if such it was—ran almost directly parallel with the program of altered tactics determined upon by the Moscow directed communists through the medium of their "legal" Workers' Party.

The People's Legislative Service supplied an imposing personnel of active workers within the Council of the Conference for Progressive Political Action, as put into operation in 1922. For, besides "Comrade" Johnston and "Comrade" Manly, there were Warren S. Stone, grand chief of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Joseph A. Franklin, president of the International Brotherhood of Boiler Makers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America; former Congressman Edward Keating, editor of the extremely radical weekly paper, "Labor" published across the street from the Capitol in Washington; E.J. Manion, president of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers; Frederick C. Howe, President Wilson's radical immigration commissioner at New York and long known as a radical propagandist, I.W.W. defender and apologist, and a special writer for the daringly red news service, the Federated Press; and sundry others.

With Senator Joseph I. France's connection with the People's Legislative Service and his pro-soviet utterances, the reader is already familiar. At the time under discussion, Senator Wheeler and Senator Brookhart, later to become members of the Executive Committee of the People's Legislative Service, were not members of that organization, but Senator Ladd, of North Dakota, and Senator Norris, of Nebraska, were members of the National Council of the People's Legislative Service, as was Senator David I. Walsh of Massachusetts, and these members of Congress, Joseph D, Beck, Wisconsin; Edward E. Brown, Wisconsin; William J. Burke, Pennsylvania; Ross A. Collins, Mississippi; James A. Frear, Wisconsin; Oscar E. Keller, Minnesota; James M. Mead, New York; John M. Nelson, Wisconsin; Edward Voigt, Wisconsin.

It would be getting ahead of the story, somewhat, to discuss the Labor Defense Council now, an organization of communist origin, but it ought here to be mentioned—with further details held in reserve for a later chapter—because the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Conference for Progressive Political Action and secretary-treasurer of the People's Legislative Service, which organizations have just been under discussion, was so closely associated with the chief actors in the Labor Defense Council. For one thing, one of the members of the Executive Committee of the Conference for Progressive Political Action—none other than Jay G. Brown, twice mentioned heretofore—was chosen for the National Committee of the Labor Defense Council, serving with such other close associates of chairman Johnston in other organizations, as Roger Baldwin, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Paxton Hibben. Other members of the National Committee of the Labor Defense Council were Eugene V. Debs, later a highly distinguished figure in the Conference for Progressive Political Action, and the Detroit communist editor and writer, Dennis Batt; and cooperating with the Council were four leading communists, Earl R. Browder, William F. (Big Bill) Dunne, William Z. Foster and Charles E. Ruthenberg. The National Secretary of the Council was William Z. Foster, and cooperating, also, were some of the country's most justly renowned pinks and parlor reds, such as the Reverend John Haynes Holmes, the Reverend Percy Stickney Grant, the Reverend Norman Thomas, Mary Heaton Vorse, Francis Fisher Kane, etc., etc.

Verily, it doth seem strange that, if these birds were not of a feather, they should have flocked so frequently together.



The Conspiracy of 1922

"What shall be done with the railroads?"

This was an engrossing question in the last years of the Wilson administration. William G. McAdoo, as director general of the railroads under wartime governmental control, had made for himself a vast political following in the railroad brotherhoods, but in consequence of the governmental operation of the railways $18,000,000,000 worth of privately owned property was brought to a State bordering on ruin, due to political mismanagement and extravagance. The experience was one of great profit to the employees of the roads, but it was one of tremendous loss to the American public and to the owners of the lines. Government operations in 1918 entailed a loss of no less than $266,000,000, and the loss in 1919 was even greater than that.

The question, "What shall be done with the railroads?" was readily answered by the railroad brotherhoods themselves. Why should they surrender to its owners $18,000,000,000 worth of property that was proving such a boon to themselves?

Whether the general counsel for the organized railway employes, Glen E. Plumb, got his idea from the newly instituted system of running affairs set up by the bolsheviki in Russia, I am not prepared to say. I do not even take the responsibility of hazarding a guess on that point. The idea may have been entirely original with him, and just another of the "coincidences" peculiar to the "trend of the times." However that may be, Representative Everett Sanders, of Indiana, now secretary to President Coolidge, can not have been far wrong when, writing to George W. Greenleaf, secretary of District 72, International Association of Machinists, in October, 1919, said of the Plumb plan:

"This is not government ownership but the Russian soviet system with slight variations. Of course, the nationalization of the railroads would only be the opening wedge. Street railways, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, lumber mills, leather factories, clay plants, and every large industry would have to follow as a natura! law of economics. In fact the proponents of this measure recommended that this nationalization scheme be used as to other like industries whenever the employes desire."

A league to "put over" the nationalization scheme of Plumb, himself a publicly acknowledged admirer of the genius of Lenin et al who had set up sovietism in Russia, had been organized in February, 1919. Throughout that year, when the administration was being bedeviled by agitation, intimidation and violence at the hands of the reds, with plenty of encouragement from the pinks, and in time thereafter the Plum Plan League was an industrious institution, striving with all its might, and with none too particular scruples as to the means employed, to bring about this "opening wedge" to the nationalization of American industry.

Samuel Gompers, in spite of his firm claims to "conservatism" and his denial of susceptibility to "radical influence," received the distinction of being the "honorary president" of the Plumb Plan League. The president was the grand chief of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Warren S. Stone, later destined to become the treasurer of the camouflaged Socialist party, the Conference for Progressive Political Action. The vice presidents of the league were the presidents, acting presidents and other high officials of the various unions of railway employes. Bert M. Jewell, acting president of the Railway Employes' Department of the American Federation of Labor, and J.J. Forrester, grand president of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes, were members of the league's executive committee.

Never before nor since was such pressure brought to bear upon a Congress of the United States as was brought to bear by the railroad brotherhood officials, through the Plumb Plan League and other agencies, to pass the Plumb plan for solving the problem presented by the plight of the well-nigh wrecked railway systems of the country, and this campaign was aided and encouraged by every shade of radical in the country from "new freedom" pinks to communistic reds. The Congress was a Republican Congress, but there were plenty of Democrats, too, who stood forth in strong opposition to the plan. The scheme really didn't have a chance, and President Wilson, whether or not he was privately sympathetic to the proposal, enraged the brotherhod officials, who had been justifiably friendly toward him when, with Director General Hines, McAdoo's successor, he made counter proposals.

"We demand," said an "appeal to the public," issued August 4, 1919, under the signature of Warren S. Stone and other officials, "that the owners of capital, who represent only financial interests as distinguished from operating brains and energy, be retired from management, receiving government bonds with a fixed interest return for every honest dollar that they have invested in the railway industry. We ask that the railroads of the United States be vested in the public; that those actually engaged in conducting that industry, not from Wall Street, but from the railroad offices and yards and out on the railroad lines, shall take charge of this service for the public. These represent all the brains, skill and energy that is in the business."

The very phrasing of the demand would have done credit to the politician, Lenin, or the propagandist, Trotsky, in spite of its lack of grammatical correctness. It reads as well, and is as definitely a socialist demand, as though it had been lifted from a textbook of the Marxist school of political economy.

The officials of the railroad brotherhoods were uncompromisingly for the Plumb plan, and they were for no other. They were for nationalization of the railways, but they were, also, for the nationalization of industry generally—the railroads first, because they were, as the officials of the brotherhoods frankly said in their "appeal" of August 4, "the key industry of the nation." They were for socialism, and against capitalism, as definitely as the communists of Moscow and as clearly as the Socialist party of the United States had been in political campaign after political campaign since Debs was a youth.

"IF CONGRESS ADOPTS THE PLAN PROPOSED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL HINES AND PRESIDENT WILSON, WE WILL TIE THE RAILWAYS UP SO TIGHT THAT THEY WILL NEVER RUN AGAIN."

The quotation is from Bert M. Jewell, of the Railway Department of the American Federation of Labor, a member of the executive committee of the Plumb Plan League, as reproduced in the New York Tribune in its issue of August 10, 1919.

Of course, he and his colleagues never fulfilled this threat and were not then confronted with the test as to whether they could fulfill it, but it was, when uttered, a fair indication of the temper of the organized movement then on foot to sovietize industry in the United States, beginning with the "key industry," the railroads.

"It is plainly a venture into radical socialism that the brotherhood chiefs propose," the New York Times said of the plan; "more than that, it is a very long step toward the principles of Lenin and Trotsky and of soviet government." The plan, according to the Times view, was "so violently at war with all human experience and human reason," that it was the conclusion of that newspaper that the railway brotherhood chiefs entertained no serious hopes of its acceptance but, rather, were using the scheme as an instrument with which, if possible, to coerce Congress into granting wage increases to the amount of $800,000,000 payable out of the taxpayers' contributions to the national treasury.

Since President Wilson was himself perfectly willing thus to be coerced, and his counter-proposal to Congress virtually amounted to a granting of the wage demands at public expense, and in view of the belligerency of the brotherhood officials as indicated by the quotation from Mr. Jewell above noted, it would seem that the brotherhood chiefs were probably much more serious in their demands than the Times suspected. However this may be, the President's proposal was received with as much coldness on Capitol Hill, Washington, as had been the Plumb plan. Congress reminded the President that he already had been vested with sufficient authority to act in the emergency. I do not know what Mr. Wilson thought of this reminder; but, whatever he thought, it is to be noted that Director General Hines took one of the few firm stands against radicalized labor organizations in the Wilson administration, and the result was that neither was the Plumb plan "put over" nor did the railroad brotherhoods "tie the railroads up so tight that they will never run again."

The further history of this particular period is, however, of no great concern to the present narrative, and so I pass on from it to 1922—when the railroads had been returned again to private control, but when the Plumb plan for nationalization had not, by any means, been discarded by the railway brotherhood chiefs from their program for future action.

The hope of sovietization of the railroads had by no means been abandoned by the chiefs of the railroad brotherhoods in 1922. Far be it. The Plumb Plan League had been doing business at the same old stand, and its "campaigns of education" had received valiant support from every radical organization in the country.

It has been shown in an earlier chapter how the Moscow-controlled communist organization of America had determined upon a change of tactics, laying stress upon parliamentary political action and subordinating, somewhat, the program of violence which had been found so futile in 1919 and 1920 as a means of precipitating "working class revolution" in the United States. It should be said, however, that the program of violence was not and has not been abandoned. It was continued, and has continued, and will continue wherever and whenever it is possible to fan an industrial controversy into a flame of industrial warfare, however petty or sanguinary.

The railroad brotherhoods, dominated by radicals of one degree or another in official positions, had tried their hand at essentially coercive methods, too, without success. And they, too, had "come in on" a suggestion for a change of methods, and joining the socialists and "all radical and labor organizations in the country," to quote the Hillquit resolution, had now brought into being the Conference for Progressive Political Action. It should be said, also, in this instance, that adoption of a program for political action did not mean at all the abandonment of that earlier program of coercion operated, however unsuccessfully, upon the American public and the public's representatives in the Congress and in administrative executive positions. Coercion was continued, has been, and will be continued whenever and wherever there is the slightest hope of its getting somewhere, and so long as radical politicians remain the directing influences within well and extensively organized unions of the so-called "working class."

The Conference for Progressive Political Action, of socialist origin, dominated by socialists and depending principally for its existence upon the Socialist party and the railroad brotherhood, had been formed in February, 1922. During the months that followed, the "committee of fifteen," appointed to weld the various organizations and factions into a strong and homogenous unity for political action, set about its job of accomplishing this purpose.

The coal strike was on. Red influences were manifest in outbreaks of violence and the practice of "sabotage." Attorney General Daugherty in March gave warning that the government would be obliged to take stern measures if rioting and other forms of violence were not curbed. There developed instances that the warning was not idle talk on the part of the Attorney General. The "general amnesty" campaign was being continued, with the Attorney General an outstanding mark to shoot at, but his failure to be utterly "soft" in dealing with "class warfare" that put the government itself upon the defensive was the occasion for the hurling of missiles at him from every radical quarter, regardless of the redness or the pinkness of it.

Samuel Untermyer, the financing genius of Senator La Follette's People's Legislative Service, delivered himself of a broadside at the Attorney General and the Departmnt of Justice at a meeting held in Washington under the auspices of the P.L.S. in May, the burden of the attack being that the Attorney General was "the connecting link between the administration and Big Business." Senator Borah introduced in the Senate in May his resolution calling for American recognition of the soviet regime in Russia, which, of course, had no tendency to discourage the reds or to disconcert the pinks.

A month later there were put into circulation rumors that impeachment of the Attorney General was to be sought in the House. The railroad strike, the outstanding event of 1922, was then in the immediate offing, and it was not long afterward that the Attorney General revealed evidences of collusion existing between the promoters of the railroad strike and those of the coal strike.

The railroad strike began the 1st of July. From the very outset, indications of widespread bolshevist influence in the conduct of it were manifest from the prevalence of violence and the character of it, as well as from the evidence of "sabotage" on an extensive scale, revealed by investigations made for the Interstate Commerce Commission. The influence of the bolsheviki and the consequent riots, kidnappings, murders and sabotage, did not have the sanction of the chiefs of the railroad brotherhoods. The strike doubtless was beyond control of its leaders and most prominent sponsors. The explanation, if any, is for them to make; it is not needed from the present writer.

The outstanding fact that the American public was in grave need of the protection of the government was very quickly, emphatically and thoroughly demonstrated. This protection the government proceeded to give. The medium was the Federal Department of Justice and the courts. The agent was the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Daugherty.

The public looked to the government for protection from a manifestation of civil warfare that might have wrecked the nation. It did not look in vain. It got what it looked for.

But in the soil of that protection there was planted the germ of what may very fittingly be called the conspiracy of 1922.



'Get Daugherty!'—Why?

As has already been pointed out, the radicalism that now dominates in Mexico, bringing that country into a state of chaos and bolshevism not far removed from soviet Russia, achieved its power by capturing control of the railway system of the country.

By attempted coercion and by a widespread propaganda, radical leadership in the railroad brotherhoods, and in other sections of the labor movement in the United States had sought to sovietize the railroads of this country by means of the Plumb plan. As heretofore shown, this contemplated capture of control of the "key industry" was intended as only the first step toward application of the same principles to all phases of industry in the United States.

Although I do not say that the decision of the communists to "come into the open" and engage in parliamentary political action, and the decision of the Socialist party to rally all radical and labor organizations for mass political action, and the decision of the chiefs of the railroad brotherhoods to bring about the railroad strike of 1922 were definitely related to one another, I do say that these decisions were reached within a few weeks of one another, in about the order named (in the summer months of 1921); and that if they are coincidences, they are very remarkable coincidences indeed. And although I do not say there was a definite agreement among these three general organizations, at the time of formulating these decisions, either for consolidation of effort in a political program for 1922 or for teamwork in support of the railroad strike of 1922, I do say that there was, indeed, remarkable teamwork among them both in politics and in the railroad strike.

Agreement or no agreement, understanding or no understanding, coincidence or no coincidence, it is almost self-evident hypocrisy for anyone to attempt to deny that the railroad brotherhoods had the whole-hearted support and active cooperation of the left wing communists and the right wing socialists, to say nothing of a galaxy of pinks and parlor bolsheviki, in precipitating and carrying out the railroad strike of 1922. And, as will be shown later, the respective and similar, if not in fact identical, political program—whether by agreement, understanding or coincidence—bore such intimate relationship in the Congressional elections of 1922 that to deny either the appearance or effect of cooperation and fraternity is to indulge in hypocritical quibbling.

When the Wilson administration had been succeeded by the Harding administration, one of the early accomplishments of the new administration was the return of the railways to their rightful owners under the provisions of the Transportation act, which, also provided for a Railroad Labor Board for the adjustment of wages. The return of the railroads to their owners, of course, had been fought without stint by the railroad brotherhoods and by all shades of radicalism in the country, and the establishment of the Labor Board particularly enraged the chiefs of the railroad brotherhoods and Bert M. Jewell, head of the Railway Department of the American Federation of Labor.

"Immediately following the enactment (1921) of the Transportation Act," H.S. Jeffrey, former chairman counsel of the Philadelphia-Camden advisory boards of the Philadelphia branch of the Railway Department of the American Federation of Labor, wrote to Attorney General Daugherty, March 27, 1923, "Mr. Jewell sent for me at his office, then in Washington, and stated that it had been concluded not to go along with the law, but to stage a fight, and desired to know if I could line up all the men in Philadelphia. "

"Later I had many talks with Jewell in Chicago, Columbus, Philadelphia, etc., also with William H. Johnston, president of the International Association of Machinists. Their whole plan was to force the board (Railroad Labor Board) out of business and return to government operation as during the war.

"About the middle of 1921 the strike call on July 1, 1922, was planned. I opposed the same, and the result was that Jewell, Johnston, etc., made most clear to me that I must support them 100 percent or take the consequences. I refused to support their insane policy.

"I could not begin to cite you all the facts that I am acquainted with, but do know that the shopmen strike of July was a conspiracy against our government, and the shopmen today do not know why they went on strike."

Jeffrey took "the consequence," which he declared Jewell and Johnston warned he would have to take. Perhaps the least of these "consequences" was his removal as advisory board chairman-counsel and his deposition from the labor organization of which he had for four years been an official.

The railroad strike took place on July 1, 1922, as the reader already is aware from reading the foregoing quotation from Mr. Jeffrey. In an effort to make the strike effective in every way and to prevent the transportation of coal, food and other necessities, as well as the mails entrusted to the United States government for distribution, the strikers, with the aid of particularly active communist elements and with the support and applause of the whole radical movement of the country, sought every opportunity to damage and wreck the locomotives and rolling stock of the railroads, to make defective the safety appliances which the railroads, under the law, were obliged to maintain, and completely to paralyze transportation by practices of the most flagrantly criminal character.

"We will tie up every train, both freight and passenger; every ferryboat and every railway shop, and not a wheel will turn anywhere," was the boastful threat made and circulated with official sanction from the brotherhood chiefs who were the leaders in the strike and were the official authority for the order which brought it about. The threat was, in sound, at any rate, something of an echo of the threat proclaimed by Bert M. Jewell in 1919 when, as a member of the executive committee of the Plumb Plan League for nationalization of the railroads and as chief spokesman for the Railway Department of the American Federation of Labor, he said: "We will tie the railways up so tight that they will never run again."

The months of July and August were months of such paralysis in transportation and of such a widespread condition of violent industrial warfare in virtually every section of the country where railway tracks are laid that the situation was one closely bordering upon civil war. The patience of the government was great. It was so great, in fact, that popular restiveness and public demand for action of a vigorous and conclusive character became in escapably apparent to President Harding, and he went before Congress with a special message on the 18th of August, saying:

"We must reassert the doctrine that in this republic the first obligation and the first allegiance of every citizen, high or low, is to his government, and to hold that government to be the just and unchallenged sponsor for public welfare and the liberty, security and rights of all its citizens. No matter what clouds may gather, no matter what storms may ensue, no matter what hardships may attend or what sacrifices may be necessary, government by law must and will be sustained. Wherefore I am resolved to use all of the power of the government to maintain transportation and sustain the right of men to work."

Sympathetic strikes had been called by radical labor leaders responsive to influences from the most red revolutionary quarters, and others were in the making.

"Deserted transcontinental trains in the desert regions of the Southwest," the President told Congress, "have revealed the cruelty and contempt for law on the part of some railway employes, who have conspired to paralyze transportation, and lawlessness and violence in a hundred places have revealed the failure of the striking unions to hold their forces to law observance. . . . There is a state of lawlessness shocking to every conception of American law and order violating the cherished guarantees of American freedom. . . . It is fundamental to all freedom that all men have unquestioned rights to lawful pursuits, to work and to live and choose their own lawful ways to happiness. In these strikes, these rights have been denied by assault and violence, by armed lawlessness. In many communities the municipal authorities have winked at these violations, until liberty is a mockery and the law a matter of community contempt. These conditions can not remain in free America. .

"Tt is not my thought to ask Congress to deal with these fundamental problems at this time. No hasty action would contribute to the solution of the present critical situation. There is existing law by which to settle the prevailing disputes. There are statutes forbidding conspiracy to hinder interstate commerce. There are laws to assure the highest possible safety in railway service. It is my purpose to invoke these laws, civil and criminal, against all offenders alike."

In what manner was this promise of the President fulfilled? Naturally, here had arisen a situation which called for action, and what arm of the government acts in such an emergency?

So long as it can be made to survive the assaults of destructionists and detractors, the Federal Department of Justice, as I have said, is the bulwark of ordered civil government. Acting through the medium of the courts, it is for the Department of Justice to make the nation not merely safe from individual criminals, great and small, but safe from the chaos and wreckage of mob lawlessness as demonstrated in the railway strike of 1922.

President Harding went to his Attorney General in time of such a crisis as then confronted the country. The Attorney General was prepared for the emergency, not simply in his possession of an efficient organization adequately equipped and backed by the entire administrative department of the government, but by a knowledge of law excelled by few who have occupied the same position and by a personal courage surpassed by none.

On the 1st of September the government, through Attorney General Daugherty in his official capacity, acted in conformity to the promises President Harding had held forth to the people through his message to Congress. The action taken was deliberate, definite and determined. It was taken on behalf of a suffering American public, and in the interests of nobody else. It was taken in defense of a government the foundations of which were being attacked and their destruction threatened.

The railway strike of 1922 had attained such proportions and such scope and such seriousness, that it was a matter entirely beyond and above either the railroads, the operators and owners of the railroads, the striking railroad workers, the officials who had called the strike or the men who had refused to strike or who had sought to fill the places of the men who had obeyed the strike order and who had turned their attention to practices of violence, sahotage, kidnapping and other forms of lawlessness characteristic of bolshevism in practice and mobocracy in action. The crisis was one to be met entirely independent of the interests of any of these elements. It was one to be dealt with solely as one of concern to the general public and of importance to the fulfillment of the chief function of the Federal Department of Justice—namely, the maintenance of order and the enforcement of law. Solely upon this principle, therefore, did the government act. Very definitely refusing to be joined by the railways or by any other interest than the public interest, and taking the step entirely as an officer of his government, the Attorney General acted for his government.

His case supported by evidence of no less than 17,000 instances of unlawful acts and upheld by affidavits and convincing circumstantial evidence of conspiracy against the government, Mr. Daugherty went, as Attorney General of the United States, himself personally before Judge Wilkerson in the federal court at Chicago and obtained a preliminary restraining order—a step preceding a temporary injunction and the subsequent court act of making the injunction permanent. The precedent was the Debs case of 1894. It was a court proceeding, not to enjoin the men from striking, not to compel them to return to work, not to deny the right of union organization or of collective bargaining or of any other lawful right recognized by the Constitution and by federal statute, but to enjoin the conspirators from further executing their conspiracy and to enjoin the law violators from the hindrance of the conduct of interstate commerce and the transportation of the United States mails by mob violence and lawlessness.

The preliminary restraining order was in itself a body blow at the strikers and their chiefs and a stern warning to the reds who were the leading spirits in violent manifestations of disorder and destruction. The effect was immediately discernable; enforcing officers throughout the country began to take their jobs seriously and to enforce the law; the lawless began to lose some of the courage and bravado they had shown; the strikers began to understand that the federal government meant business and had no intention of being long flouted, defied and trifled with; the transportation system began to function; the paralysis of passenger and freight traffic and of distribution of the mails began to be relieved.

And the Federal Department of Justice began at once to be the object of an exceptionally bitter assault from its natural foes. The reds, the pinks and the yellows now opened up on it with their heavy artillery.

Attorneys for the Railway Employes' Department of the American Federation of Labor et al. endeavored to make a show at contesting the legal step taken in behalf of the government and the public by the Attorney General. But the record of the proceedings is ample indication of their full consciousness of the futility of their cause before the law. They seemed to confine their defense to a systematic attack on the Attorney General. This was continued throughout his term and still continues. They never in court, much less out of court, discussed the facts or the law. That they sought to conceal by drawing him into a personal controversy. This they failed to do, for he made no answer to attacks but devoted his energies to the government's case and the law and facts involved.

The government was loaded with evidence in support of its case and before the entering of the final court order the testimony of more than 700 witnesses had been heard and set down in a court record of nearly 4,000 pages. The witnesses were from fifty different railroads covering the entire country. Oral testimony and affidavits presented by the Attorney General showed that the cost of the strike, wholly aside from damages to property, losses incurred by business, loss by claims for damages, and from increased cost of doing business, had amounted to nearly $97,000,000. Practically all railway. terminals, shops and roundhouses had been picketed, it was shown, and "the conduct and general demeanor of the pickets and strikers was aggressive, belligerent, violent and lawless."

The record in the case established such facts as the following:

  • Approximately a score of known deaths, due to violence and assault by strikers;
  • Some 1,500 instances of various kinds of assaults by strikers on employes of the railroads and on men seeking such employment;
  • Sixty-five cases of kidnapping, with accompanying brutal assaults;
  • Eight instances of victims of strikers or their sympathizers being tarred and feathered;
  • Fifty cases of arson and dynamiting, or attempted destruction by these means, of railroad bridges, for the purpose of wrecking freight, passenger and mail trains;
  • 250 instances of bombing or burning, or attempted bombing or burning, of railroad property or property and homes of non-striking employes;
  • Fifty cases of train-wrecking or attempted train-wreckingby derailment; and
  • Innumerable instances of flagrant practices of sabotage in its various forms.
  • One thousand mail trains required to be taken off and abandoned on account of the mobs.

The Attorney General had appointed six thousand deputy United States marshals all over the country upon the recommendations of courts and government officials prior to his application for the injunction to preserve property, protect lives and try to keep down disorder and interference with transportation. He spent over $2,000,000, which Congress afterwards approved without a question,

In court the case for the strikers and conspirators was weak. It was so weak, in fact, that their own counsel confessed it to Judge Jacob M. Dickinson, special assistant to the Attorney General, handling the proceedings in the court at Chicago, on the final hearing. ''Counsel for defendants told me on that day (May 2, 1923) that we already had sufficient evidence to win the case, and that, in view of this, their clients were unwilling to expend any more money." Judge Dickinson reported to the Attorney General the day the final hearing of evidence was held, May 15, 1923. "I think it is perfectly manifest that they did not dare take the stand to deny the allegations of the bill, and subject themselves to cross-examinations and the exposure of their papers."

"The allegations of the bill are fully sustained," said Judge Dickinson further. 'We have not, and could not expect to get any direct evidence of coming together and conspiring. The conspiracy must be inferred from proven facts showing concert of arrangement, purpose, and action."

With no case in court, but obliged nevertheless to make a show at contesting the determined steps taken by the government, through the Attorney General, without the risk of submitting the strikers' chiefs to cross-examination or their books and correspondence to the scrutiny of the court, the leading actors in the conspiracy sought to defeat the government by a system of threats and the practice of intimidation against the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

As Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Daugherty symbolized the power of that arm of the government to circumvent not merely the conspiracy against the government indicated by the railroad strike of 1922, but other correlated and illegal movements and acts. "Get Daugherty!" therefore became the resonant slogan of the enemies of the government and of their pink defenders and yellow apologists.

The conspiracy of 1922 was but a prelude to the frameup that was yet to come, and with which the most of the remainder of this book will have to do.



A Plot That Failed

Had the United States Government not acted as it did and when it did in the crisis precipitated by the railway strike of 1922, the action necessarily taken by the federal Department of Justice by duly legalized court procedure, it is not at all outside the realm of probability that the transportation system of the country would soon have been completely paralyzed and the country at the mercy of organizations dominated and directed by radical elements. Once legal authority over the means of distributing the necessities of life among the people of the country had been broken down or surrendered, those who break down that authority or those to whom that authority is surrendered have vested in themselves the power of dictatorship. Fortunately for the country, this authority, vested in the government, was not surrendered by those responsible for its maintenance—the President, primarily, and the Attorney General as the chief law-enforcing officer of the administration—nor was it broken down by the radical forces which strove so determinedly to break it down.

No sooner had the initial step been taken by Attorney General Daugherty to redeem the country from industrial paralysis and a "class war" the potential results of which it would be impossible to estimate, than the "Get Daugherty!" slogan became paramount among the reds, and almost at once it became the cry among the pinks and radicals of every shade.

The bill in equity, under which the government proceeded, was filed in the federal court at Chicago on September 1, 1922, and on that date the preliminary restraining order was issued by Judge James H. Wilkerson of the federal bench. It was but ten days later that Oscar E. Keller, a pink "progressive" representative in Congress from Minnesota and a member of the National Council of the People's Legislative Service, arose on the floor of the house and "impeached" the Attorney General in a resolution charging "malfeasance in office."

Already it has been shown that the People's Legislative Service, of whose Executive Committee Senator La Follette was chairman, was one of the units affiliated with the Socialist party and "all radical and labor organizations" in the organization of the Conference for Progressive Political Action. Already it has been shown that the People's Legislative Service was the link which connected the sundry radical organizations of the country—red as well as pink—with the legislative branch of the government. And already it has been shown that the director of the People's Legislative Service was the socialist, Basil M. Manly, and that powerful influences in the "Service" were the chiefs of the railroad brotherhoods, including William H. Johnston, secretary-treasurer and member of the Executive Committee, who also was president of the International Association of Machinists and chairman of the Conference for Progressive Political Action.

"Get Daugherty!"

Daugherty was given to understand that he would be got." Obviously the threat had a purpose, and the purpose was obvious. If Daugherty, who was not the kind who could be persuaded from performance of a public duty, and who, it had now become pretty well known, was not given to making compromise with the foes of the government he was serving—if Daugherty could be intimidated, if he could be made to fear for the safety of his future political life, he might perhaps be dissuaded from pressing the government's case. It was with this in mind that the promoters of the railroad strike proceeded to act. They may or may not have been then aware that their case was hopeless in the federal courts and that the government was almost certain to come through victorious, but with their connections with the legislative branch of the government, through the People's Legislative Service and its "bloc" in the House and Senate of the Congress, they were unquestionably of the opinion that they could intimidate Daugherty and that they might be able to "get" him by means of "impeachment" proceedings instituted in the House.

Now, in this they had the backing of every radical organization in the country, but particularly did they have the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union. It was only a week or so before the issuance of the temporary restraining order in the railway strike that special agents of the Federal Department of Justice had cooperated with state authorities in a raid on a secret and illegal gathering of communists held in a sequestered woods near Bridgeman, Mich. This raid was productive of two barrels of documentary proof of communistic conspiracy against the government of the United States, not the most trifling of which proved of value to the government in meeting the issues presented by the court proceedings instituted to save the country from industrial paralysis and outlawry manifest in the railroad strike. Large amounts of this evidence have since been placed on record before a Senate committee whose chairman, Senator Borah, of Idaho, notwithstanding the sensational character of the documents, continues to favor a resolution calling for recognition of the Bolshevik Russian government and trade and diplomatic relations between the United States and the banditti who control and operate the soviet oligarchy.

In the raid at Bridgeman, a number of the communist conspirators, neglecting to make a getaway when warned of the presence of a federal government agent by William Z. Foster, who made the discovery, were arrested. Those arrested included Caleb Harrison, who, with Jacob H. Hartman, was one of the organizers of the Friends of Soviet Russia, heretofore referred to: William F. ("Big Bill") Dunne, of Butte, Mont., and New York City, and others who have figured in this narrative or will figure in it in the discussion of later events connected with it.

The American Civil Liberties Union was interested particularly in the "impeachment" of the Attorney General because of the Bridgeman raid, but it was interested, too, because of the government's interference in the railroad strike. The National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union includes William Z. Foster, a participant in the secret gathering of communists near Bridgman. William H. Johnston, as heretofore noted, is also a member of the committee, as also is Morris Hillquit. It is not here important to mention the names of the reds and pinks who constitute the imposing list of others who are members of the committee or hold executive official positions in the "union." But it is here appropriate to remind the reader that a considerable number of the personages dominant in the Civil Liberties Union also became leading factors in the subsequent operations of the Labor Defense Council, an organization of strictly communist origin but drawing to it for cooperative purposes various radical groups including some unions of the American Federation of Labor, the Socialist party and others.

Congressman Keller, a Minnesota radical, elected to Congress by the reds and pinks of his district, a Plumb plan advocate and the supporter of sundry socialistic pieces of proposed legislation, was the man picked to start the "Get Daugherty!" proceedings in the House. On the 11th of September, while the Attorney General was engaged in the important business of conducting the government's case, first to obtain a temporary injunction and then to obtain a final order of the court making the injunction permanent, Keller arose in the House and said:

"Mr. Speaker, I impeach Harry M. Daugherty, Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors in office."

"When the gentleman rises to a question of this high privilege," said the Speaker, "he ought to present definite charges at the outset."

"The Chair means such charges as acts of the Attorney General?"

"Yes; definite charges."

"Very well," said Keller, "I will do so. First, Harry M. Daugherty, Attorney General of the United States, has used his high office to violate the Constitution of the United States in the following particulars: By abridging freedom of speech; by abridging freedom of the press; by abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

And then followed a list of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which, tripped of the soapbox verbiage in which Keller enumerated them, were as follows:

Daugherty had conducted himself in a manner arbitrary, oppressive, unjust, and illegal. He had used the funds of his office to prosecute "individuals and organizations for certain lawful acts," these acts being, of course, those attending the conspiracy behind the railroad strike and the attempted paralysis of the nation's transportation systems.

He had failed to prosecute others "individuals and organizations," notably "big business" and "malefactors of great wealth."

A resolution accompanying the charges thus voiced by Mr. Keller, in a speech typical of the radical soapbox orator, was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary. Five days later the committee held a meeting to hear such evidence as the accuser of the Attorney General had to offer. But he had none to offer.

Therefore the following remarkable colloquy:

"The committee should take the charges that I make, and they are true until they are proven not true," said Keller.

"Is it your contention," inquired Congressman Yates, of Illinois, in unfeigned surprise, "that this committee ought now to report this resolution favorably without any showing whatever by you?"

"I have made my charges," Keller protested, "and they are true until they are proven not true."

Had Representative Keller been familiar with the method of conducting trials in the bolshevik tribunals of soviet Russia, which he may or may not have been, he could not have presumed more accurately to have introduced the method in the United States. He was reminded by the committee that in the United States the burden of proof is upon the accuser, and that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In Russia the process is precisely the opposite.

"I have made my charges," said Keller, "and they are true until they are proven not true!"

Please note the character of the charges—at the very outset a cry against the abridgement of "free speech," "free press" and "peaceable assembly." The interest of the American Civil Liberties Union in "getting Daugherty" is readily apparent. "The advocacy of murder, unaccompanied by any act, is within the legitimate scope of free speech," Roger N. Baldwin, director of the "union," has said. "All of them (the members of the organization) believe," Baldwin also said, "in the right of persons to advocate the overthrow of government by force and violence."

Which is precisely the kind of "free speech" and "free press" that was wanted by the radicals in the course of the railway strike—the kind of "free speech" and "free press" the Attorney General of the United States was committing "high crimes and misdemeanors" to abridge. It was the kind of "free speech" and "free press" to which William H. Johnston, president of the International Association of Machinists, chairman of the Conference for Progressive Political Action, and secretary-treasurer of the People's Legislative Service, subscribed and gave his sanction to as a member of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union.

It was very soon revealed that Keller had no proofs in support of his charges, but that the whole scheme was to get before the committee some choice oratory from representatives of the striking railway workmen and others similarly interested in "free speech," "free press" and the right of "peaceable assembly."

Confronted with the demand of the committee for "proofs," Keller could do nothing but seek delay. The hearing was, therefore, postponed until a later date, and continued to be postponed from time to time because the accuser of the Attorney General was "not ready." In the meantime he continued to make denunciatory speeches in the House, for consumption by the press generally and the radical press particularly. To the October, 1922, issue of the Locomotive Engineers' Journal, on the eve of the Congressional elections, he contributed an article entitled "Why Daugherty Should Be Impeached," a diatribe of sensational but unsupported charges, chiefly to the effect that the Attorney General had illegally prosecuted and persecuted the "working class;" i.e. reds, rioters and industrial war conspirators—but had shown extreme partiality to "malefactors of great wealth."

Samuel Gompers, always loud in his protestations of "conservatism" and his want of sympathy for "radicalism," but always, nevertheless, playing into the hands of the reds in his great fear of losing power as the head of the American Federation of Labor, issued a blast in the official organ of the American Federation of Labor, saying:

"It is the purpose of the American Federation of Labor to do everything possible to bring the impeachment proceedings to a successful conclusion. Labor will participate in the proceedings through its representatives, through its counsel, and through the presentation of testimony of witnesses,"

Thus was revealed the hand of Gompers. The committee found it impossible to get Keller to produce proof of his charges, and it had almost as much difficulty in finding out who helped Keller prepare the charges. It did find out, eventually, that one Jackson Ralston, an attorney for the American Federation of Labor,—the same Jackson Ralston of the group of pink lawyers employed to defend radicals in court and calling themselves the National Popular Government League,—who had sought by similar means to "get" Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer,—had helped with the preparation of some of the charges. It learned also that Samuel Untermyer, the chairman of the Finance Committee of the People's Legislative Service, had helped with the preparation of some of them.

As time went on, however, Keller found himself deserted by Untermyer, and Ralston unwilling to assume any great responsibility in making good with the charges. In December, 1923, the committee finally got some "evidence," but it was principally on the side of the accused.

Keller himself became disgusted and refused, even when served with a subpoena, to appear.

"If there had been no strike and the shopmen had continued at work and had not struck, you would have had no complaint to make to the Attorney General at present, would you?"" Congressman Hersey at one of the hearings asked of Thomas Q. Stevenson, an attorney for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, who had been advertised as a 'star' witness for the 'prosecution.'"

"Probably not, sir,' was Stevenson's reply, and the witness, displaying quite plainly his unwillingness to make the admission, did admit, nevertheless, that "impeachment" of the Attorney General appeared to be without very substantial basis.

The witnesses who did appear to present the case for the "prosecution" plainly revealed the motive behind the charges, but they revealed nothing in the way of evidence to support them. All that was left for the committee to do, after a fiasco that would have been a colossal joke had it not been a preliminary to a more ambitious frameup based upon similar motives, was to report to the House that "It does not appear that there is any ground to believe that Harry M. Daugherty, Attorney General of the United States, has been guilty of any high crimes or misdemeanor requiring the interposition of the impeachment powers of the House,"—a report which the House adopted January 23, 1923, by a vote of 204 to 77, a small group of pink Democrats voting in the negative with the radicals, elected as Republicans or Democrats but wearing the colors of the People's Legislative Service. And all that was left for those who had made Keller their tool, and had sought this means to intimidate the Department of Justice and "get" its chief officer, was to babble "whitewash."

Denouncing the proceedings of the committee as a "whitewash," even before they had been completed but after Keller had abandoned them and gone south "for his health," the radical weekly newspaper, Labor, official organ of the railroad brotherhoods and the Conference for Progressive Political Action, said:

"Congressman Keller has already served notice on the Attorney General that unless the latter gets out of public life the impeachment fight will be renewed as soon as the new Congress convenes."

But Keller retired to an undoubtedly comforting and comfortable oblivion. The execution of this threat, intended to be conveyed by the big chiefs of the railroad brotherhoods through their official publication, was left to abler and more daring hands—hands more resourceful, and restrained even less, perhaps, by scruples.

"Have patience," was in effect the counsel of Burton K. Wheeler, of Butte, Montana, to the reds of his own State, "and leave it to me, I'll get Daugherty!"



Red Comrades With a Purpose

It has heretofore been emphasized that the determination of the reds and their pink dupes and sympathizers to "get Daugherty" was by no means a personal matter, but emphasis upon this point bears reiteration. To be sure, there was a certain element of hatred of the man, but this was due more to the fact that he symbolized the virility of the law-enforcing department of the federal government—the Department of Justice—than to any other cause. They were not so much interested in him as an individual, but they were tremendously interested in him as the directing head of a Department of Justice that was functioning so efficiently that a plot to bolshevize the key industry of the country—the transportation systems—by the intimidating processes of force, violence and destruction, was nipped in the bud. As the demoralization of the Department of Justice had been one of the main objectives from the outset, so it was after the injunction proceedings in the railroad strike of 1922 had been instituted, the only difference being that the natural enemies of the Department of Justice became all the more determined in their purposes.

Weeks before the filing of the government's bill in equity in the federal court at Chicago, September 1, 1922, the factors behind the railroad strike and the processes by which they operated were subjects of a widespread investigation by the Department of Justice; since, naturally, the government could not take so drastic a step without being sure of its ground. Seldom does the Department of Justice, when it is functioning efficiently, take a step when it is not sure of its position, and that is why the government so seldom loses cases it takes to court. The investigation of the railroad strike being under way during those weeks prior to the filing of the case in court, secretly conducted though it was, was not so profound a mystery that those concerned for the success of the conspiracy were not measurably cognizant of the fact. So that the attempts to intimidate the directing head of the Department of Justice did not begin with the Keller "impeachment" by any means. They began a long time before that, and during the summer of 1922 there were repeated "rumors" that Daugherty was to be "impeached." The "impeachment" of Daugherty was in contemplation many weeks before it was actually attempted, but until it finally came about threats of it were the means by which the intimidation of the Attorney General was sought.

Impeachments of federal officials must originate in the House of Representatives. They must be tried in the Senate. As Keller was the tool picked to institute such proceedings in the House, so was there a tool in prospect for an outstanding role in the Senate. I am not prepared to say how definitely the plan to "get Daugherty" had been worked out before the Congressional elections of 1922, and in the light of subsequent developments this is not of great importance. But the man who, in due season, essayed the role of tool for the ted enemies of the Department of Justice and their pink accomplices and sympathizers; the man nominated for the Senate by the red and pink radicals who had captured the Democratic party organization in Montana in 1922; the man who had been the beneficent friend of reds in 1917 and 1918, and who had been their candidate for governor of Montana in 1920, became their hero and their champion in 1922, and was the man counted upon to "do his duty" when the "impeachment" should reach the Senate. This was Burton K. Wheeler, political comrade in 1922 as well as in 1920 of William F. ("Big Bill") Dunne and other reds almost, if not quite, as notorious as this avowed communist and official agent of the Moscow Internationale.

Of course, as is well known, the "impeachment" of Attorney General Daugherty never reached the Senate—which accounts for the desperate situation with which Wheeler was confronted after he became a Senator, pledged as he was to "get Daugherty" and counted upon to redeem the pledge. It accounts also for the desperate and daring program which he and his backers adopted to accomplish their purpose. The details of this program it is, of course, my intention to lay before the reader in succeeding chapters of this book, but most important to an understanding of the processes that operated for the carrying out of the program are the motives underlying it. These motives become conclusively evident, it seems to me, upon examination of the political career and political affiliations of the outstanding genius of that program, Senator Wheeler himself.

It is not important to go further back than the year 1917—a year in which Senator Wheeler was United States district attorney for the Montana district, a year in which he made so much money that he paid an income tax of $1,500 and thereby prompted a former attorney general of Montana, D.M. Kelly, to inquire somewhat curiously "how do you do it?' Wheeler had been something of a protege of Senator Thomas J. Walsh, and it was Walsh who had obtained the federa! attorneyship for him. The manner in which Wheeler functioned as United States attorney for the Montana district during the years 1917 and 1918 is enlightening in that it affords the best explanation of the passionate allegiance bestowed upon him subsequently by the lawless reds of his state when he sought, with their support, the gratification of higher political ambitions.

"Big Bill" Dunne, a red by boast, preference and chief occupation long before he ever made the acquaintance of Wheeler, was booted out of Canada in 1916 because his chief occupation was antagonistic to Canadian interest in the outcome of the World War. This same "Big Bill" Dunne—none other than the "Big Bill' Dunne who is now one of the leading spirits of William Z. Foster's majority faction of the communist organization in America; none other than the "Big Bill' Dunne who was among the seventeen communists captured in the raid on their underground "convention" at Bridgeman, Mich., in August, 1922,—this same "Big Bill' Dunne took up his abode and place of occupation in Seattle, Wash., upon decamping from Canada in 1916, but from Seattle he adjourned to Butte, Mont., by way of Helena, in 1917. His departure from Seattle was precipitate and necessary, for reasons similar to those which prompted his poste haste trip out of Canada.

To "Big Bill" Dunne, Butte was a haven, as it was to all other reds in 1917, and the great state of Montana was the same thing in six letters, h-e-a-v-e-n. The heavenliness of Montana, so far as "Big Bill" and his fellow reds were concerned, was due not exclusively but in a very large measure to the fact that the Montana unit of the federal Department of Justice was not functioning for the benefit of the United States government, but rather for the protection of its avowed enemies and professional detractors. The head of that unit was United States District Attorney Burton K. Wheeler.

So flagrantly and frankly was Wheeler arrayed with the reds against the government whose interests he was paid to protect that his behavior was a state scandal, and had it not been for the presence in the state legislature of a considerable number of legislators owing their political preferment to radical constituencies the legislature unquestionably would have gone on record as demanding the resignation or removal of Wheeler from public office. As it was, thirty members of the legislature voted on February 25, 1918, for a resolution embodying such a demand, and the resolution was lost when three more than that number opposed the resolution, many of those opposed evidently taking the position that interference in a matter that should have been attended to by the executive branch of the United States government was not within the province of a state legislative body.

The State Council of Defense, however, took it upon itself to hail Wheeler and a group of his red admirers, including "Big Bill' Dunne, into a "court" of its own, and at the conclusion of a hearing lasting five days the membership of the State Council of Defense voted unanimously that Wheeler had been guilty of close affiliation with I.W.W. and other seditious elements and of refusal to prosecute them for acts of violence and other manifestations of lawlessness. The conclusions reached by the State Council of Defense prompted it to recommend to President Wilson the removal of Wheeler from office. A state meeting of County Councils of Defense, held later, with only three dissenting votes adopted resolutions similar to those voiced by the State Council, and a state gathering of Democrats, held at Helena, voiced its disapproval of Senator Walsh's continued approval of Wheeler.

It is small wonder, then, that Wheeler drew unto himself an admiring following in the radical movement of Montana, and that he was welcomed into the councils of it by such leaders as "Big Bill" Dunne.

Another notable red who joined Dunne in the reception of Wheeler into political comradeship was D.C. Dorman, a big chief in the councils of the Non-Partisan League of Montana. Dorman achieved the position of national manager of the Non-Partisan League, subsequently became a member of the National Council of La Follette's People's Legistlative Service, and later we shall hear of him again as the secretary and treasurer of the Montana unit of the Conference for Progressive Political Action.

"Dorman swore that he did not believe in the Constitution and was opposed to the flag of the United States; that the flag was nothing but a rag, or words to that effect, and that the government was no government at all and should be destroyed."

Dorman had been a follower of the red flag of international socialism for years when he affiliated with Dunne and Wheeler in the radical politics of Montana. He participated in the political activities of the Socialist Party in Minot, N.D., a dozen years ago, and once was the party's candidate for state senator in the Minot district. He too, like Dunne, was familiar with the interior decorations and routine of jailhouses, having spent some little time in one following participation in red riots at Minot.

Both Dunne and Dorman, as outstanding leaders of the Montana radicals, organized their forces behind Wheeler in 1920 to make him governor of the state. The state convention of the Non-Partisan League was held in Lyceum Hall, Great Falls, and it was none other than Dunne who took the floor of the convention and placed the name of Wheeler in nomination for the governorship. Wheeler, of course, accepted the nomination and he himself made a speech in which he is quoted by the Great Falls Leader as having said "I will run on the Republican ticket, the Democratic ticket, or any ticket this convention may pick." For the Non-Partisan League was following then, as it has since, the Townley system of "boring from within," and the radicals of the Montana organization were at that time in a fair way to capture the party machinery of the Democratic party of the state—a feat they accomplished two years later, to the utter disgust of Senator Myers who, seeing which way the political winds were blowing in his party, gave up the struggle for genuine Democratic representation of the state in the Senate of the United States and retired from politics, no longer able to stomach the advancing power the radicals in the party that had sent him to the Senate.

Wheeler was the candidate of the reds for governor of Montana in 1920. But the time was altogether too soon after the events of 1917 and 1918 which brought about his retirement from the office of United States district attorney under fire. He was defeated by 37,000 votes. The two years that followed, however, were made ample use of by the reds and the near reds that had sought to elect him. The "boring from within" system was worked to a finish in the Democratic party, and when 1922 with its Congressional elections rolled around the system had made sufficient strides to make the nomination of an avowed radical possible.

"Big Bill" Dunne had moved again, this time to New York. The Workers' Party had been organized by the committee to camouflage their underground organization, of which Dunne was an important member. He blossomed forth as the Workers' Party candidate for governor of New York. He had climbed considerably in the councils of the bolsheviki of America, and had been sent by them as a delegate to one of the Comintern Love-feasts held in Moscow. He had attended the secret and illegal convention of the communists near Bridgeman, Mich., in August, 1922, made a speech there, and had been among the seventeen arrested.

Dunne was elated that his radical cohorts had been so successful in attaining such a powerful position in the party machinery of the Democratic party in Montana, and particularly was he elated over the nomination of his friend and comrade of the campaign of 1920, Burton K. Wheeler as the party's candidate for the Senate. He was perfectly familiar with the workings of Wheeler's mind, and like all the rest of the reds who acclaimed Wheeler's nomination, he felt certain that Wheeler's election would be an important stroke in behalf of "the cause" in the United States. Having been released on bond, following his arrest in Michigan, Dunne was on hand in Montana to do his share toward accomplishing the election of Wheeler. He was welcomed with open arms by his comrades in Montana. He was counted upon to deliver that hotbed of reds, Silver Bow County, for Wheeler, and this he declared he could and would do.

The paramount issues of the campaign of Wheeler for the Senate were "free speech" for seditionists and revolutionary agitators, the termination of "persecution" of red radicals by the Department of Justice, and the "Get Daugherty" slogan born of the Department's prosecution of the railroad strike injunction suit in the federal courts.

"I'll get Daugherty. I'll drive him from the Cabinet," Wheeler told the Montana radicals in speeches he delivered in his own behalf as a candidate for the Senate. Those may not have been his precise words, but those words express the substance of what he said, according to the sworn evidence of three witnesses whose affidavits are to be found among the appendices of this book. These words constitute the essence of his pledge. They are the key, or rather they are among the several keys, to an understanding of the genuine motives behind his subsequent acts as a United States senator in this particular connection.

Wheeler's outstanding pledge was to the red radicals of his state, and it amounted to a pledge to the entire radical movement of the country, for there was plenty of help from outside the state for his candidacy besides that afforded by "Big Bill" Dunne, the communists' candidate for governor of New York. It was a pledge that carried with it, if not a definite agreement, a very well grounded understanding, certainly, that in other ways he would, if elected to the Senate, serve the cause of those elements that had done the most for him in the furtherance of his political aspirations.

But if Wheeler was the candidate of the reds, how could he have been elected? Can it be that the majority of the voting population of Montana was of red persuasion in that year, 1922?

The answer to both of these questions is simple. A negative answer must be given to the second one. To the first the answer is this: but thirty percent of the qualified voters of Montana elected Wheeler, and only thirty-four percent of the voting population went to the polls. The reds and the pinks went to the polls in full force—they always do. Wheeler was elected by a noisy and radical minority, and by the passive and indifferent failure of a conservative majority to find its voice and let it be heard.

Except the inarticulate and inactive majority, conservative in thought and at heart true to their flag and country, Wheeler the detractor and destroyer, the champion of Red Russia and the political comrade of avowed apostles of bolshevism and followers of the red flag of international socialism, could not have been elected to the United States Senate.

But he was elected, along with a group of fellow reds and pinks of similar persuasion and of similar following, in the Congressional election of 1922, and the election of all of them may be traced without difficulty to the same causes.



The Frame-Up Gets Under Way

In telling, in the first chapter of this book, about my trip to Mexico in the early part of 1922, and of my conversation with the communist Olson, alias Smith, alias Redfern, I said that Olson in his predictions concerning the Congressional elections of that year made particular mention of the state of Montana. I do not recall this, nor do I stress the details of events leading up to the election of Senator Wheeler, because of any desire specifically to attack Senator Wheeler. For Wheeler is no worse than his red or his pink allies. But Wheeler is the man to whom fell the star role in a drama of conspiracy which to the utter disgrace of the United States Senate, was later enacted for the purpose of breaking down the foremost bulwark of ordered government, the department of a government responsible for the suppression of lawlessness, the federal Department of Justice.

Simultaneous with Wheeler's election to the Senate, La Follette was re-elected in Wisconsin on the Republican ticket, the Republican organization of Wisconsin having long been in the control of radicals, red and pink. That there might be no doubt whatever of La Follette's re-election, the Socialist party of the state indorsed him and took pains particularly not to put any candidates before the people who might prove embarrassing to La Follette. Frazier, of North Dakota, and Shipstead, of Minnesota, were elected to the Senate as avowed radicals. Dill, of Washington, and Ashhurst, of Arizona, were elected as Democrats, but they were both pinks who received the benefit of radical support, red and pink. Brookhart, of Iowa, who was, with the possible exception of Wheeler, the nearest thing to a red who ever got a seat in the Senate, was elected as a Republican because the reds and pinks of the state had captured the party organization in Iowa. Norris, of Nebraska, like Ladd, of North Dakota, was already in. He was not up for reelection until two years later, when he was permitted to ride along in the Republican bandwagon notwithstanding endorsement of him by the radicals.

Norris, of course, is no more a Republican than La Follette was or Brookhart is, or that Wheeler or Dill or Ashhurst are Democrats. Norris is somewhat like Borah, though less subtle. One might better class him as a political anarchist than anything else. Both he and Borah are so "independent" they can't be hitched to any party, and can't be dragged into team work with any radical organization, although both of them incline to cooperate with the radicals rather than with anyone else—except just at election time when both can be depended upon to make use of Republican party organization for their own political success.

[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

U.S. SENATOR BURTON K. WHEELER (LEFT) STROLLING WITH U.S. SENATOR WILLIAM K. BORAH.


In the election of 1922 there were some others wearing the Republican or Democratic party label who were elected to the Senate with the frank approval and support of the conference for Progressive Political Action—the co-ordinated red and pink political organization which grew out of the action of the Socialist party on the Hillquit resolution heretofore discussed in detail. There must have been something pink about them or they could scarcely have counted on this radical support. These others were McKellar, of Tennessee; Kendrick, of Wyoming; Swanson, of Virginia; and Howell, of Nebraska.

As had been said, Wheeler was elected by thirty percent of the qualified electorate of Montana. But only seventeen percent went to the polls to elect Dill in Washington. Frazier was elected by thirty-five percent; Brookhart, by twenty-nine percent; twenty-eight percent was all La Follette needed; and Howell required but thirty-two percent.

[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

U.S. SENATOR C.C. DILL OF WASHINGTON


The Wheeler campaign was typical of the campaigns waged in behalf of the other radicals who were elected to Congress in that 1922 election. Particular stress upon the "Get Daugherty" issue was evident wherever it was expedient to put that issue to the fore. The radical press and radical campaign orators urged the election of men ta Congress who would impeach Daugherty. Benjamin C. March, professional friend of the farmers and connected with the "labor" movement simply by the part he played in mobilizing gullible farmers when the Conference for Progressive Political Action was organized, was notably industrious in emphasizing the "importance" of electing men to Congress who were pledged to do their bit toward "getting Daugherty."

It ought, perhaps, to be noted at this point that one pro-Russian pink senator, Joseph I. France, Republican, was repudiated at the polls in the election of 1922, when Maryland expressed its preference for William Cable Bruce, a Democrat, who subsequently achieved note, as well as the bitter enmity of many of his party colleagues in the Senate, by maintaining a consistent opposition to the alliance into which the Democratic minority in the Senate was inveigled by the La Follette "radical bloc."

Immediately after the 1922 election, the radicals of both the new Senate and the new House began to mobilize for action in the sixty-eighth session of the Congress. Wheeler, the "Democrat," and Brookhart, the "Republican," at once were received into the fold of the People's Legislative Service, the radical rallying ground, by their comrades-in-service already in, Messrs. La Follette, Norris and Ladd. A love-feast of the red and pink elect was held in Washington under the auspices of the People's Legislative Service on December 3rd following the election, and that great apostle of uplift, Samuel Untermyer, of New York, whose love for the "common people" had become intensified by the vigorous methods of the Department of Justice in dealing with war profiteers, delivered an attack upon the Department of Justice and Attorney General Daugherty that was cheered to the echo. An "investigation" of the Department of Justice was urgently demanded by Mr. Untermyer, and Senator-elect Wheeler grinned with satisfaction the while Senator Brookhart, who had the day before taken the seat made vacant in the Senate by the resignation of Senator Kenyon, smiled with serene anticipation of the contemplated action called for by the chief financial prop of the People's Legislative Service, Mr. Untermyer.

It was the Sixty-seventh Congress that was then in session, however, and Senator Wheeler was not a member of it. His role at the time was largely one of getting ready for action when he should become a member of the Senate in the Sixty-eighth session. But the schooling to be had by him and Brookhart in the People's Legislative Service was kindergarten stuff to what they both were to have a few months later by first hand contact with the conduct of government as practiced by the geniuses of bolshevism themselves in Moscow, capital of Red Russia and headquarters of the world revolution for the overthrow of capitalism and capitalist government everywhere, including the United States of America.

Soon after the Congressional elections of 1922, while the government injunction suit in the railroad strike cases was pending and when the Department of Justice was being assailed by radicals in and out of Congress because of its suit and continued "persecution" of the red enemies of the nation the Borah resolution for the recognition of soviet Russia by the United States was revived in the Senate; the "independence of the Philippines" movement received impetus from the radicals of the People's Legislative Service, assault upon the American government's "imperialist" policy of affording protection to the maintenance of orderly government in certain Latin-American portions of the western hemisphere was intensified by radicals of the same group. All of these "movements" were parallel and in strict harmony with the demands of the red radicals, as specifically set forth in the communist program and in theses from Moscow headquarters.

Senator Wheeler spent quite some time in Washington before the adjournment of the Sixty-seventh Congress, of which, as has been noted, he was not a member—being still only a Senator-elect. Senator Ladd, of North Dakota, was endeavoring to organize a group of American legislators and legisators-elect to visit Russia and obtain information first-hand about the way the reds were running their government. Whether Senator Ladd was taking the actual initiative in this move or whether he was simply pinch-hitting for Wheeler, I do not pretend to know. But the plan did not find the immediate response desired, and soon after the adjournment of the sixty-seventh Congress, Senator Ladd announced the trip had been abandoned, and that Senator Wheeler alone would accept the hospitality of the bolshevik overlords. So Senator Wheeler sailed for Europe alone. Ditto, Brookhart. It was not so very long, however, before Senator Ladd had found it possible to organize his group for the visit to Russia.

The party included Senator King, of Utah, Senator Walsh, of Montana, was invited to go, but declined. Why Senator King was invited is something of a puzzle, unless he was suspected of being "amenable to reason" because he had opposed the Railroad Labor Board. I'm sure I don't know. But it is certain the radicals lived to regret the invitation, for Senator King learned a lot in Russia which the others appear to have overlooked. He came back charged with ammunition denunciatory of the soviet regime, and frequently exploded some of it on the floor of the United States Senate as a sort of antidote for the singing of praises for that regime by Wheeler, Brookhart and Ladd.

Wheeler was frankly a defender of the Russian Government and its policies toward foreign governments before he went—alone—to Moscow. His outpourings to the press upon his return to the United States were even more fervently pro-Russian than before he had had the advantage of first-hand investigation and entertainment at the hands of the Moscow oligarchs. Senator Brookhart's fondness for proposals to remake the American government along socialist lines seemed also to have been accentuated by his trip abroad, but Brookhart's hobby, of course, was government-controlled and federal-enforced cooperatives "for the benefit of the farmers."

Soon after his return from Russia, Senator Wheeler enlisted himself in the cause of strengthening the "radical bloc" in the Sixty-eighth Congress, of which he was to be a member, by going into Minnesota to campaign for the election of Magnus Johnson, the Farmer-Labor candidate for the seat made vacant by the death of Senator Knute Nelson. Wheeler had been elected to the Senate as a Democrat, but he campaigned in Minnesota against the Democratic candidate because he was not a radical sympathizer, and for Magnus Johnson because Johnson was. The left wing, or communist element, of the radical movement had a strangle-hold upon the Farmer-Labor party of Minnesota, just as it had a strangle-hold upon the Farmer-Labor and Non-Partisan League outfits of North Dakota. Magnus Johnson was elected, but, as the reds and pinks now sadly relate it, Johnson proved to have nothing but a big voice, and was a teriffic disappointment when he got into the Senate, which he did at the same time Wheeler did.

To know beyond any doubt whatever that the soviet government of Russia and the Communist (Third) Internationale are so inextricably woven together as to be identically the same thing; to know that the Comintern is the supreme authority recognized by the communists of the United States as well as everywhere else in the world; to know that all propaganda conducted directly by the communists themselves in this country and elsewhere is directed and in part financed by the Comintern; and to know that this propaganda is directed not only to the overthrow of capitalism and the existing order of government in the United States, but also to the destruction of the influence of the Christian Religion, all it is necessary to do is to read the official communist publication and the authorized communist literature which is openly circulated in this country. For Senator Wheeler to have visited Russia and for him to have come into the intimate contact with the soviet authorities which he himself professes to have done, ignorance of these facts would have been impossible.

Yet, Mr. Wheeler, upon his return to the United States, directed the bulk of his attention to the job of spreading his praises of the bolshevik regime, of comparing the United States government unfavorably with it, and of making public denials that the bolsheviks were anti-Christian or that they were engaged in any sort of propaganda in the United States.

"That agitation in the United States against the recognition of the Russian Soviet government is based upon the vilest propaganda is charged by Senator Burton K. Wheeler, of Montana, in a letter to Alton B. Parker, of New York, president of the National Civic Federation," said a special dispatch from Washington to the New York Times, November 22, 1923.

Senator Wheeler had been making speeches and giving interviews in the support of the proposal for recognition of Russia by the United States government, and Mr. Parker wrote him a letter asking him to give serious consideration to certain phases of the Russian situation before committing himself to the policy of recognition.

"I am not in accord with your statement," Wheeler said in his reply to Parker, "that in case of recognition, the soviet consulates here would be 'nothing more than centers for communistic propaganda, including the promotion of atheism.' I am absolutely convinced that the Russian government, as such, is not promoting communism and revolution in the United States nor is it carrying on a propaganda for atheism."

"By reason of the opportunities afforded me on my visit to Russia to observe and study the church situation, I feel that I am able to speak with some authority on that subject; at least I feel that my opinions are based on facts, and not on the mendacious propaganda that fills the capitalistic press, and which you so smugly endorsed in your open letter."

Some of this "mendacious propaganda" which filled "the capitalistic press" emanated from the United States Department of State, Charles Evans Hughes, Secretary, and consisted of the explanations of the United States government, through the Secretary of State, of its reasons for continued refusal to bestow recognition upon the soviet government of Russia. The bolshevik chieftains took official recognition of the "mendacious propaganda" by calling upon the government of the United States for proof of its position. Fortunately, the proof was readily at hand.

Continuing a consistent and vigorous prosecution of plots agianst the American government by reds recognizing allegiance only to the generals of the world revolution in Moscow, defying the never-ceasing efforts of reds and pinks to intimidate them, and refusing under heavy pressure from reds, pinks and yellows to recommend the release from prisons of the more flagrant war-time seditionists, Attorney General Daugherty also had directed investigations which made the proof against Moscow's lies and Wheeler's defense of them available. Evidence to confirm the soundness of the American government's position was laid before the Secretary of State in voluminous quantities, including a full report of the Bridgeman (Mich.) communist convention which had been so precipitately terminated by the raid by state officers and Department of Justice Agents and the arrest of seventeen of the chief pro-soviet, anti-American conspirators.

The Sixty-eighth Congress convened in December, 1923, and the "radical bloc" began to function as per advance program immediately. An alliance with the Democratic minority was quickly brought about by Messrs. LaFollette and Wheeler in cooperation with a misled Democratic leadership which saw in the alliance certain political advantages but failed to see that a petted snake grows bigger and bigger and gets not a whit tamer or less dangerous to the petter.

The "radical bloc" went to the support of the Democratic nominee for the Chairmanship of the Committee on Interstate Commerce in the Senate, and his election gave heart to the Democratic party organization. It made it easy for the radical program in some of its essential details, and there was no shortage of glee in the souls of LaFollette, Wheeler, Brookhart, et al. The barrage of attack by the "radical bloc" and by Democrats seeing in it a way to success in the national election of 1924, impugning by wholesale the integrity of government officials—an attack studiously calculated by its red and pink instigators to destroy the faith of the American people in their government—so dazed those men in Congress, who might have been expected to meet the barrage with courage and with vigor, that nothing less than a panic among administration senators occurred.

The time was opportune for any daring scheme that might be concocted. The stage was set for the very sort of drama and intrigue that thereupon was created. No more prepared to go through with it than Keller had been with his impeachment proceedings in the House, but remembering well his pledge to the reds whose support had won him his place, Wheeler saw his great opportunity and experienced a feeling of courage in the belief that the radical coalition with the Democratic minority supplied a radical balance of power that would see him through to triumph in whatever step he might find himself obliged to take.

Wheeler introduced his resolution, attacking the Attorney General and the Department of Justice and calling for an "investigation," and the resolution went over with a whoop and hurrah from the radical-Democrats alliance and with a sickening sense of fear in the panicky hearts of Republican Senators. It was terrible, this calamity! It would break the administration! For the sake of the Republican party and the administration, the Attorney General ought to resign!

The Attorney General, not being the kind who runs away and being clever enough to know the attack was not a personal assault but an assault upon the administration, upon the government itself, declined to quit under fire. He was fully aware, even if nobody else was, that the attack was a frame-up—not of himself, but of the administration,—and that if it "got" him without a struggle, it would only turn in another direction to "get" someone else, and that the assault would be continued until every official in the administration, from President down, would find himself on the defensive.

The Senate passed the Wheeler resolution which, in itself, provided an entirely illegal proceeding. It then brushed rules and precedent aside by resolving to "elect" the committee which should conduct the investigation. With the Democratic minority allied with it and overwhelmed with enthusiasm for the project, the "radical bloc" succeeded in naming the committee. Brookhart, the pro-soviet pink red, or red pink, from Iowa, was elected Chairman, and with Wheeler, the Montana pink red, or rect pink, and Ashurst, the Arizona pink, on the committee, it was quite safely packed in favor of the "prosecution."

[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

SENATOR HENRY F. ASHURST OF ARIZONA


The Department of Justice and its chief officer didn't have a chance. They were foredoomed to take what came. Wheeler had no more of a case than Keller had had, but he had the committee packed and framed in his favor—and that was a tolerably good beginning.

Gregory Zinoviev, chairman of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, announced through the columns of Pravada that bolshevism had the right to "expect welcome surprises from the American labor movement."



The Means to an End

Eugene V. Debs, from his cell in the Atlanta Penitentiary, made the prediction, in 1920, when the Socialist party mission went to Russia, that "victory" for the proletarian cause in the United States might be expected in 1924. As noted in the previous chapter, Gregory Zinoviev in February, 1924, set forth in the Pravada, official organ of the Comintern, that bolshevism had the right to "expect welcome surprises from the American labor movement" in the year that had now come. Notwithstanding the factionalism and the jealousies and the difference of view as to methods of creating and maintaining a "united front" of the revolutionists, there was a "united front" so far as certain essential details were concerned. The "left wing' Reds—the communists—and the "right wing" reds—the socialists—were in complete accord, so far as the following demands were concerned:

  • Recognition of Soviet Russia by the United States, and the establishment of diplomatic and trade relations with Russia:
  • Adoption of the Plumb Plan for the bolshevization of the transportation systems of the United States, as a preliminary step towards the extension of the same plan to all other industries of the country:
  • The greatest possible limitation of Congressional appropriations for the support of the American Army and Navy, that these defensive arms of the government might be weakened to as great an extent as possible:
  • Legislation providing for the independence of the Philippine Islands:
  • Withdrawal of all American soldiers from duty in insular territory where the United States exercised protective supervision:
  • A constitutional amendment taking from the Supreme Court the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, and vesting in the Congress the power of veto over decisions of the Supreme Court:
  • Legislation to prevent the use of the injunction in connection with industrial disputes:
  • And some proceeding—impeachment or otherwise—to "get Daugherty."

The early sessions of the Sixty-eighth Congress, in which the LaFollette radical bloc had become reinforced by the addition to it of Wheeler, Brookhart, Frazier, Shipstead and Dill, at once revealed that the radicals were in a position to maintain a balance of power, and the alliance between the radicals and the Democratic minority became apparent when it brought about the election of a Democratic chairman of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce. The election of Senator Smith of Georgia, as chairman of this committee was accomplished, however, only after a lengthy deadlock, and little was done by the Senate before the Christmas-New Year holiday recess.

The Borah resolution demanding the recognition of Russia and diplomatic and trade relations with the bolsheviki was an item in order at the beginning of the year 1924. Senator Borah was named chairman of a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to conduct public hearings on his resolution. Perhaps no effort in Borah's life has been greater than the one to bring about the recognition of Russia. The government had in its possession an abundance of records and reports showing the activities and the propaganda of the Russian reds intended to influence the recognition of the Soviet government. These documents also showed their methods and violent acts in Russia and in this country.

During the winter of 1923-24 an assistant attorney general had asserted that there was no evidence in the possession of the government of the above character. This assertion was seized upon with great glee by the reds and Russian sympathizers to dispel any opposition in this country to the recognition of the Soviet government.

To the surprise of those observing the movement, Attorney General Daugherty, on the ninth of January, 1924, issued the following statement:

"My attention has been directed to certain publicity supposed to have emanated from the Department of Justice in connection with the Communist propaganda in this country, and pertaining to that publicity already made public by the Department of State."

"I beg leave to call attention to the fact that some time ago, and before any publicity had been given out, I announced that the Department of Justice would give out no information in connection with this propaganda; that the Department of Justice would furnish the State Department, as it has done, all the information in its possession, and that publicity on the subject would be given out only by the State Department."

"Personally, I have given out nothing for publication since making this announcement, nor authorized anybody else to do so."

"I have only this to say further. Apart from the question of prosecutions or of technical requirements to meet the provisions of particular statutes, it should be clearly understood that the Department of Justice has abundant evidence to support the position of the Department of State with respect to Communist propaganda, directed from Moscow, in this country."

This statement was published in every newspaper in this country and extensively abroad. It created great consternation in the red ranks. At this time Senator Borah's activities against Attorney General Daugherty and his urgency upon the President to change Attorney Generals, became notoriously apparent.

Neither Attorney General Daugherty nor Secretary of State Hughes has ever explained why the Attorney General issued this statement. But it can be fairly presumed that Attorney General Daugherty would not have published the statement involving subject matter under the direction of the State Department without a specific request from the head of that Department. It is known, however, that this announcement by the Attorney General intensified the feeling of the reds and the pinks both in and out of office.

At the same time, the Teapot Dome investigation, originated by Senator LaFollette, was under way with Senator Thomas J. Walsh, of Montana, as "prosecutor."

The chronology of the Senate's activities in these early weeks of the Sixty-eighth Congress is both interesting and significant. In sizing up these activities, the reader should have two things clearly in mind: First, the "demands" of the reds, both "left wing" and "right wing," as enumerated above; and, second, the radical "balance of power" and the alliance with the Democratic minority, accomplished through the help of misled and duped Democratic leadership which saw in the coalition political advantages that might be conducive to a return to power in the next national election.

The Senate on January 14th adopted the Borah resolution calling upon the State Department for copies of all reports, for six years past, on Russian affairs. On the same day, Senator LaFollette introduced his bill for the granting of independence to the Philippine Islands. Although there had been a few outbursts, apropros of Teapot Dome, prior to then, it was on this day that the guns of slander and defamation were let loose in earnest—and it became almost a daily occurrence thereafter for such oratorical fire-brands as Walsh, of Montana; Heflin, Ashurst, Caraway, Robinson and others to join with the avowed radicals in the recital of rumors, falsehoods, insinuations, libels and slanders, under protection of senatorial immunity, in an effort to extract from the case of Teapot Dome support for a campaign intended to demonstrate that the entire Republican administration was rotten with crookedness and that the government was everything that the communists, socialists, pinks and yellows said it was.

Senator Ladd's resolution to investigate the regime of General Wood in the Philippines was introduced on the 17th of January. This supplied ample excuse for another fiery campaign in support of another red demand—independence for the Philippines.

The State Department, on January 21, complied with the provisions of the Borah resolution, and supplied the Borah committee with a vast quantity of reports and documents, much of it of the most confidential character. Additional documents and reports were turned over to the committee by Secretary Hughes the next day. It should be noted in this connection that Secretary Hughes found it necessary, sometime later, to warn the Borah committee that certain of these reports must not under any circumstances be made public, for to do so would be "incompatible with the public interest."

By the 28th of January, the daily harangues in the Senate—almost wholly outside the record of the Teapot Dome committee's hearings—had developed such a state of panic among administration senators that only the feeblest sort of attempt was made by them in defense of the administration and of the government it represented. On that day—which was the same day on which President Coolidge announced steps would be taken in court to protect the government's interests both in Teapot Dome and in the Elk Hills reserves of California —Senator Walsh in the Senate demanded the resignation of Secretary of the Navy Denby, not because the Secretary had committed any crime, but because of what the Montana senator termed his "stupidity." The President's announcement was that he would nominate special counsel to represent the government, Attorney General Daugherty having recommended that such a step be taken. There are certain significant phases of the Teapot Dome case, which the reader is entitled to know, but to these I want to direct attention a little later, and shall not, therefore, go into that case further at this point.

A day later, January 29th, Senator Wheeler introduced his resolution calling upon President Coolidge to demand the resignation of Attorney General Daugherty. Senator Shipstead, on the first of February, delivered his initial broadside in the Senate against the Treasury Department, charging that the department, under Secretary Mellon, was engaged in a "conspiracy with big banking interests."

Ten days of oratory on the floor of the Senate, a source of intense rejoicing among the leaders of every radical group in the country—communist, socialist, "liberal",—followed, and then on the 11th of February there took place Senator Walsh's introduction of his formal resolution calling upon the President to demand the resignation of Secretary Denby. The panic among administration senators had been supplemented by voicelessness and impotence. The resolution was adopted with scarcely the sound of a struggle.

"We cannot impeach Denby," said Walsh. "There is no evidence upon which he can be impeached."

But—

"We can pass a resolution calling upon the President to compel Denby's resignation."

He could not be impeached, in other words, but he could be officially lynched, possibly, and the result would be the same.

"No official recognition can be given to the passage of the Senate resolution relative to their opinion concerning the members of the Cabinet or other officers under executive control," said President Coolidge in a Lincoln Day address.

"I do not propose," said the President, "to sacrifice any innocent man for my own welfare, nor do I propose to retain in office any unfit man for my own welfare. I shall try to maintain the functions of the government unimpaired, to act upon the evidence and the law as I find it, and to deal thoroughly and summarily with every kind of wrongdoing."

"In the meantime, such steps have been taken and are being taken as fully to protect the public interests."

[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

U.S. SENATOR THOMAS J. WALSH OF MONTANA, WHOSE COMPANY PROFITED BY SECURING THE BOOTS LAKE PERMIT FROM THE GOVERNMENT.


Unfortunately for the future power and value of these forceful utterances, Secretary Denby—undoubtedly wearied of the impotence of Republican senators who should have been standing by their country and fighting for the preservation of the integrity of its administration—surrendered. He sent his resignation to the President on the 17th of February, and the President made the unfortunate mistake of accepting it.

In the meantime, Senator Wheeler had been endeavoring, through one liason or another, to establish a connection between himself and one Gaston B. Means, indicted by Daugherty for bribery, at that time awaiting trial; but, at the time of this writing, convicted and serving time in the Atlanta penitentiary. According to Means' own story of it, his wife wired him at Palm Beach, Florida, that Wheeler, "through a very close friend," had requested that he (Means) see him (Wheeler) in connection with a contemplated 'investigation' of the Department of Justice." Before the link between Wheeler and Means had been welded, however, Wheeler introduced in the Senate, February 13th, his resolution providing for an investigation of the Department of Justice. The resolution pended for nearly a week before Wheeler took the floor of the Senate (February 19th) and delivered a scathing arraignment of Attorney General Daugherty, concluding his speech by making the unprecedented proposal that a committee of his own choosing be designated to conduct the investigation. He made known his choice of a committee with the following names: Wheeler, of Montana; Brookhart, of Iowa; Ashurst, of Arizona; Jones, of Washington, and McLean of Connecticut.

[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

GASTON B. MEANS AS HE APPEARED BEFORE THE EXTRAORDINARY INVESTIGATING COMMITTE


The idea was, of course, as was quite obvious to anyone possessed of even average intelligence, to pack the committee for a certainty against the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, the administration and, in fact, against the government. For the committee proposed by Wheeler was composed of three pinks—of the "radical bloc"—to two Republicans, such an alignment being possible because Brookhart had been elected as a Republican and Wheeler and Ashurst had been elected as Democrats. The proposal was little short of a stroke of genius, in the minds of the misled dupes within the Democratic minority, and for several days these joined with the radicals in support of the Wheeler resolution and of the personnel suggested by Wheeler for the committee. There was almost a gravelike silence among the distressed administration senators on the Republican side of the Senate chamber—except for Borah, who had been keeping the road hot between the Capitol and the White House in his endeavor to convince President Coolidge he should dismiss his Attorney General, "for the sake of the party." And Borah, whose love for the party is on a parity with LaFollette's or Norris's or Brookhart's, arose on the 23rd of February to deliver himself of a blast at Daugherty.

But Senator Bruce, the Maryland Democrat, who was not unfamiliar with the aims and aspirations of the pro-bolshevik pinks, having come out on the top side of a campaign with one—Senator France—to get his seat in the Senate, was one man on the Democratic side of the chamber who detected the odor of a mouse and did not hesitate to tell the Senate so. In a speech to the Senate on February 29th, Senator Bruce expressed emphatic objection to Wheeler's naming the committee or to his having his way as to how the committee should be chosen. The Maryland Democratic senator revealed the reason for his opposition by declaring it was because "everyone knows that the author of the resolution (Senator Wheeler) is closely affiliated with elements of our population (the radical elements, of course!) which have particular reasons for objecting to Mr. Daugherty."

But Wheeler was destined to have his way. The alliance of the "radical bloc" with the Democratic minority, combined with the pussy-footing impotence of the Republican opposition, made this inevitable. His resolution was adopted March 1st. LaFollette took a hand by making a motion that the committee be elected, instead of appointed, as per rule, by the presiding officer of the Senate, and that the following constitute the committee: Brookhart, chairman; Wheeler, Ashurst, Jones and Moses, Senator Moses' name being substituted for that of Senator McLean, originally suggested by Wheeler.

Upon the return to Washington from Palm Beach of the aforesaid Gaston B. Means, whose fame is such now that words or phrases intended to establish his identity would be the quintessence of ultra-refined superfluity, Means was brought "into conference" with Senator Wheeler, and, to quote Means, "it was agreed that I was to assist him in the investigation of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice in the way of furnishing evidence, examination and coaching of witnesses, etc."

"Wheeler grew desperate in his efforts to find some information on which he could base charges against the administration and against the Department of Justice," swears Means, "saying that he was working with LaFollette and had certain plans in view that made it imperative that he make good in connection with his public statements as to the conditions in the Department of Justice, and that the Department of Justice be connected with the alleged oil scandals."

Means was chary about his dealings with Wheeler. He was not so unscrupulous that his prospective role did not give him an attack of indecision. Although he had failed to get the ear of the Attorney General, himself, he sought to get it indirectly. What was going on in Wheeler's office, preliminary to the investigation, and his own assertions that "an effort was being made to frame Mr. Daugherty," were reported to the Alien Property Custodian, Col. Thomas Miller, and the information in turn was conveyed to Daugherty.

"Colonel Miller reported back," again quoting Means, "that Mr. Daugherty said that it would be impossible for anybody to successfully frame him up, and that he 'did not give a damn' about what was going on in Senator Wheeler's office. However, Colonel Miller, understanding more of the details of what was going on, requested that the efforts to secure this information not be dropped, but be reported to him, which I did, from day to day."

Attorney General Daugherty, for a mistaken position which he took with respect to the so-called investigation which Wheeler proposed should be made and which the Senate authorized to be made, is to be excused, no doubt, on the ground that the proceeding, as it developed, was entirely unprecedented. That any senator could make such a proposal as Wheeler's and succeed in carrying it out was too incomprehensible. So that, it is probable Attorney General Daugherty's was a natural mistake when he gave official recognition to the "investigation," even welcomed it; and, supposing it would be conducted in an ethical, as well as legal manner, engaged counsel to represent him before the committee. To give the action of the Senate, and subsequently, that of the Wheeler-Brookhart committee official recognition, by employing counsel to appear before it or by giving it any official attention whatever, was a blunder on the part of the Attorney General; but, as I say, undoubtedly an excusable blunder when it is remembered that so flagrant a defiance of ethical rules and law, and so palpable a repudiation of the processes prevailing in an orderly government as were exhibited by Wheeler and his predominating colleagues on the committee, never had been known in the annals of the United States.

Such a nefarious plot was impossible, thought Daugherty, and that is why he met Colonel Miller's transmission of information, supplied by Means, with impatience, and said that he "did not give a damn" about the goings on in Wheeler's office, preparatory to the start of the "investigation."

"Up until the time I took the stand in the investigation," says Means, "I understood that I should seek information as to what Senator Wheeler was going to do, and on the day before I took the stand received information that Mr. Daugherty said I could 'go to hell,' so far as he was concerned."

And that determined Means. He was severely ruffled by Daugherty, and he suffered no longer from indecision. His alliance with Wheeler was thus made secure. "Go to Hell!" He'd be damned if he would. He'd show Harry Daugherty the fruits of such rough talk!

And that accounts for the star witness against Daugherty, this arch-collaborator of Wheeler in the unscrupulous development of as conscienceless a frame-up against a man, a government and a people as it is possible to imagine in any country with the exception, perhaps, of Red Russia itself.



The Reign of the American Cheka

Testifying before the Lusk committee in New York, John A. Embry, who had been United States consul at Omsk, Siberia, told of his experiences and of what these demonstrated to him following the ascendancy to power of the bolsheviki in Russia. At Belebei, about which Mr. Embry testified specifically, control was in the hands of liberated criminals, operating as the Central Executive Committee of that Soviet.

"Now, this executive committee," said Mr. Embry, "had under it several other bolshevik committees, or commissionaires. One of these committees was known as the Extraordinary Investigation Committee, which had the peculiar power of sentencing to death without trial."

"Now, another one of the committees," continued Mr. Embry, "was a kind of bolshevik court which attempted in some cases to give a trial; but, as we were informed by these judges, the Extraordinary Investigation Committee, which had no court and which had the power of executing people, never allowed this bolshevik court, which the bolsheviks themselves had established, to operate, and it was as if it were non-existent, and there was no justice to be had."

William Henry Chamberlin, writing in Moscow, under date of March 10, 1924, for the New York Nation, Oswald Garrison Villard's pro-Russian "liberal" journal for pinks and parlor reds, detailed the trial of a bolshevik banker, Alexander Krasnoschokov, and his brother, Jacob, a Moscow building contractor, and four accused employees of the industrial bank of which the banker was president. The defendants were a long time incarcerated before they were brought to trial.

"After a long interval," wrote Chamberlin, "the trial of the Krasnoschokov brothers and of the four accused bank employes opened on March 4th in the Supreme Court of the republic. (The republic referred to was the Far Eastern Republic.) The small courtroom was crowded with spectators. . . . . On a raised dais at one end of the room sat the chief judge, Solz, a short, thick-set man with bushy iron-gray hair. He has a reputation for severity and belongs to the Central Control Committee of the Communist Party. He was flanked by the two assistant judges . . . "

"To the left of the judges sat the prosecutor, Krilenka, a slight, wiry man, with tense face muscles and something of an air of a hunter ready to spring upon his prey. 'He hates and despises everyone who is not a thoroughgoing communist,' someone whispered, referring to the prosecutor."

In an indictment covering seventy-two pages, and which it took three hours to read, according to Mr. Chamberlin's story, the bank president was charged without almost every crime imaginable, including "broad living" and being enamoured of gypsies. "From a legalistic standpoint," said Mr. Chamberlin, "the indictment was a curious indictment."

"The rumors that Krasnoschokoy had somehow absconded with hundreds of thousands of dollars were exploded," wrote Mr. Chamberlin. "The dubious transactions with his brother's firm were shown to have involved no actual loss to the bank in the shape of nonpayment of obligations, although the prosecution claimed that the bank should have made a few thousand dollars more by charging higher interest rates—. . . . On the other hand, his administration of the bank, as was conceded by the prosecution, had been distinctly successful . . ."

"The final duel between prosecution and defense centered largely about the issue whether violation of communist ethics should be considered legal offenses. 'I do not defend my client as a communist,' said Chlenov, Krasnoschokov's eloquent lawyer. 'He did not always live up to communist standards of conduct. But you cannot try a man in a civil court for ethical offenses. For that purpose you have a party code of discipline and party courts.'"

"But Krilenko would not admit this distinction. 'Our revolutionary justice erases the distinction between ethics and written law,' he declared in a harsh, metallic voice. 'Just because Krasnoschokov had such a distinguished revolutionary past, just because the party reposed so much confidence in him, his treason before the party and the soviet power is all the greater'."

The prosecution won the case, of course. As Mr. Chamberlin put it, "Krasnoschokov must have known the party and its workings too well to have expected mercy after its powerful machinery of destruction had been set in motion against him."

But this was in Red Russia. The Wheeler-Brookhart committee was functioning in the United States of America. How was the chief officer of the Department of Justice of the United States to know, or why should he even suspect, that its procedure would be, as it turned out to be, so strikingly like the system in use in Russia under bolshevik rule? The conduct of the Wheeler-Brookhart committee of the United States Senate was so nearly an adaptation of the methods of the Extraordinary Investigation Committee of Belebei, described by Mr. Embry, and those of the Supreme Court of the Far Eastern Republic, revealed by. Mr. Chamberlin, that the arch-concocters of the Senate committee's processes may well have learned the technique while they were being entertained and instructed as to the idealistic beauties of the bolshevik system by the soviet chiefs in Moscow.

The committee of the Senate which began on the 12th of March, 1924, its "investigation" of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice under his administrations, was a triumverate of radicals, and the triumverate remained in indisputable control throughout. The chairman was Brookhart, and the other two were Wheeler and Ashurst. It is true there were two other members of the committee—Senators Moses, of New Hampshire, and Jones, of Washington—but these members (and nobody realized this more than they after the proceeding got under way) might just as well have been totally non-existent.

The radical triumvirate were judges and jury in all instances, with one of them as "prosecutor," and they would brook no interference nor tolerate any counsel or suggestion, however mild or courteous, that did not fit in unqualifiedly with their program and their determination to convict the Attorney General and the Department of Justice and all of his and its works. From a legalistic standpoint, to paraphrase Mr. Chamberlin's description of the Krasnoschokov indictment, the proceeding was not simply curious—it was a crime, and all the worse crime by reason of the fact that it could be and was put into effect in the capital of the nation and by the authority of the Senate of the United States. Both as to method of procedure and as to demeanor in his conduct of the case, Wheeler may as well have borne the name of Krilenko.

At the outset of the first session of the committee, Paul Howland, of counsel for the Attorney General, sought to make a preliminary statement, in accordance with the custom in similar instances. The futility of the Attorney General's being represented by counsel before the committee became immediately apparent.

"I move that we proceed with the hearing without any statement by counsel," said Wheeler, after some colloquy. And Ashurst seconded the motion.

"I vote for the representatives of the Attorney General to be heard," said Senator Jones.

"I vote no on the motion by the Senator from Montana," said Senator Moses.

"I vote aye," came from Ashurst, and Brookhart, noting his own vote and Wheeler's in support of the motion, said: "It is the decision of the committee that we will not hear you for an opening statement."

And such invariably was the vote at every stage of the proceedings for the weeks that followed whenever any move whatever was attempted on the part of the Attorney General's counsel to make of the hearing a two-sided rather than an endlessly one-sided inquisition.

"Now, Mr. Chairman," said Howland, "as a matter of right I request this—not as a privilege, as was my first request, but as a matter of right, that the representatives of a coordinate branch of the government, now under investigation by this Senate committee, be permitted to plead to the resolution. I demand that as a matter of right before this investigation is begun."

"The Attorney General," retorted Brookhart, "is not a coordinate branch of the government; only the President is. We are not going to proceed like we were in a technical trial. This is a Senate investigation."

"If we are not to be permitted to make a statement, I submit the request that we may have the statement we would make printed as a part of your proceedings," said the other defense attorney, former Senator Chamberlain.

"You may submit the statement, and we will pass on it," was Brookhart's significant reply.

More colloquy, and two or three votes, with the line-up noted above, but at the conclusion of the day's proceedings the statement was read by Wheeler and passed by him as containing nothing calling for his "censorship."

But Senator Ashurst let counsel for the Attorney General know the point to which they would be allowed to go when Mr. Howland questioned the competence of the first witness, Roxie Stinson, to relate stories about and alleged statements of a dead man, Jess Smith.

"Let the matter be understood," said the Arizona senator. "Counsel for Attorney General Daugherty are rendering their client very poor service if they attempt to interpose here technical objections." And so forth.

"And they will certainly not get anywhere by trying to bulldoze somebody on this committee," was Wheeler's angry interposition.

"No; do not misunderstand me," said Howland. "I am not tryin: "

"I do not misunderstand you," Wheeler retorted, proceeding with an angry arraignment of the Attorney General's lawyers.

Both Flowland and Chamberlain, whose attitude had been of exceeding and studied dignity, were taken completely aback. Ashurst hurled hotly at them that the committee expected from them "a large amount of silence" and Wheeler reminded them they were present "by the courtesy of the committee."

The protests of Senators Moses and Jones were in vain, as were sundry and all of their subsequent protests against the strong arm methods of the triumvirate that prevailed from the start to the finish of the "investigation." Endeavoring, as they did, to meet insults and intimidations with soft words, these two: Senators might just as well have remained silent. And striving, as they did, to do battle against fire and conscienceless intrigue by the practice of their profession according to law and the ethical rules they had learned in the law colleges and the courts, Messrs. Howland and Chamberlain might just as well have conserved their energies and taken a vacation, far, far away.

The term perjury, applied to the so-called testimony, is perhaps technically from a legal stand-point improperly used for the reason, that, as held by Judge Cochran, the committee had no jurisdiction or authority to make the investigation nor to administer an oath. And witnesses were advised by those working for the committee that these two elements especially being necessary to constitute perjury under the law and being absent, together with other elements to constitute perjury, they were immune from prosecution for that offense. This is the reason why the witnesses at the time were not prosecuted for perjury and certain other persons were not prosecuted for subordination of perjury.

"The testimony given before the Wheeler committee by Roxie Stinson, R. Momand, myself and the majority of the other witnesses," Gaston B. Means has since confessed, "was nothing but a tissue of lies put in the mouths of these witnesses by Senator Wheeler primarily to confound and discredit the Department of Justice and the administration. These witnesses and myself were persuaded to make these false statements by Senator Wheeler under threats of indictment in some cases and by promises of gain and aid in others."

That it was in truth a riot of perjury and a parade of criminals, convicts, ex-convicts and convicts-to-be that constituted the backbone of the "prosecution" in this flagrantly lawless proceeding before a red-inspired and a radical-controlled committee of the United States Senate, ought to have been obvious to any unprejudiced observer giving the case the test of analytical scrutiny; and that Wheeler, daring and cunning though he is, could have succeeded with it as he did is above and beyond the realm of understanding,

There were men, Americans, believers in law and order, optimists as to the welfare of the nation, lovers of the flag and born with the impulse to fight for the defense and preservation of their country at the slightest sign of peril—there were men like this who began to ask, after the Wheeler-Brookhart inquisition had proceeded but a short way: Where are the defenders of the American Constitution in the forum of the nation, the Congress of the United States? Where are the champions of law and order in the Senate? Have none but cowards been elected to sit in that body? Are there none there but the detractors and the defamers, and those who have been cowed into a state of frightened silence, driven to cover by the mobocracy which seems to have seized the power of control in the American Congress?

"The great Senate of the United States has fallen to a new level in these days," was the accurate conclusion reached by a former Congressman from Nebraska, Albert W. Jefferis. "The Constitution used to be referred to and adhered to within its confines with just and honorable pride. It is so thought of no longer. The order of the day during this Wheeler, Walsh, Heflin and Robinson era is to belittle the House of Representatives, usurp its functions and powers, and dominate and dictate, if possible, the powers and functions of the executive department and the judiciary. The marvelous leadership of this Wheeler from Montana gives notice to the thinking people of the nation that there is work to be done by them if they are to preserve and protect the Constitution which has guided the nation so well through all its years of progress . . . . The overthrow of the Constitution was once tried by rebellion and war. That effort failed. Whether this latter method now being tried in the Senate shall be successful, the future only can tell."

Under the influence of reds and pinks, and with a radical-Democratic alliance, purposefully proposed by the radicals, blindly entered into by the Democrats, the controlling forces of the Senate had deliberately and quite frankly repudiated the Constitution, and were able to do so because the opposition was either buffaloed or scared to death.

"This is not the time to waste the time of the Senate talking about the Magna Charta and the Constitution," were the sneering words of Senator Robinson of Arkansas.

Lawlessness was in the very spirit of the Senate, and if explanation of how the Wheeler-Brookhart-Ashurst triumvirate succeeded with everything except murder is needed, it is to be found in that spirit and the impotency of Republican leadership to combat it and overthrow it.



A Tale From The Tomb

A good many years ago there was an orphan boy in Washington Courthouse, Ohio, in whose welfare the Daugherty boys—Harry and Mal—interested themselves. His name was Jess W. Smith. It was the Daugherty boys who financed young Jess and set him up in the mercantile business. He was quite adept at the business, made a go of it in that small Ohio town, paid off his debits to Harry and Mal, made more money, accumulated a small fortune, and became attached to the Daugherty boys with a devotion almost dog-like in its intensity.

Smith became enamoured of a young woman bearing the name of Roxie Stinson. She was striking, as to looks, at that time, and had a way with her that was fascinating to young Jess beyond all resisting. He fell in love with her and she enjoyed to the uttermost her triumph of "landing" the prosperous young merchant. So Jess and Roxie were married.

Time passed, and it developed that the Jess Smith household was none too tranquil. Social evenings in it became fewer, fewer people accepted invitations to play at cards, and the common report was that Roxie's temper was incompatible with social contacts. Jess lamented that so many of his personal friends shied at his hospitality and blamed it on his wife's proclivity for insulting them by the use of an uncontrollable tongue. Anyway, they agreed to disagree, and there was a divorce, Mrs. Smith reclaiming her maiden name.

[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

ROXIE STINSON ON THE WITNESS STAND.


Jess went to live elsewhere. But he never recovered from his infatuation for his somewhat tempestuous wife, and evidently regretted the untying of the matrimonial knot. For Roxie there appeared to be no such regrets, for she had negotiated a settlement with Jess that kept the wolf at a very respectable distance from her doorstep, and her freedom gave her the privilege, in addition, of "living her own life" in the way she wished to live it. She began to have other men friends, and the variety of them was a puzzle to Jess. To hear of it aroused Jess' jealousy beyond endurance. He went to see Roxie, and somehow or other made a most remarkable truce with her. Thereafter he became her most intimate friend, and his attentions and standing in the household became very much the same as they had been before the legal bonds of matrimony had been duly and judicially severed.

But Jess, if the almost unanimous conclusion of the citizenry of Washington Courthouse is worthy of belief, did not cut out all the rest of the men on Roxie's string, and he had to remain content with being the leading man and the one upon whose financial resources his ex-wife exercised a foremost lien. The arrangement was not exactly according to Hoyle in the eyes of Washington Courthouse; but, the world being more or less perverse, in some respects, Jess seemed to be the object of pity rather than contempt.

Jess Smith never flagged in his canine devotion to the Daugherty boys, nor did he ever relax to any notable extent in his attention to Roxie. To any and all advice to "put her out of his life" and stop her endless access to his money he turned a deaf ear. It was the one subject, in fact, about which he could work up a real case of indignation against the Daugherty boys, whose protege he had been and whose fondness for him, inexplicable as it may have seemed to many, was interminably enduring.

It must be remembered that Smith had been a sort of executive secretary to Mr. Daugherty throughout the entire campaign which was managed solely by Mr. Daugherty and which resulted in the nomination of Senator Harding for President and also during the campaign which resulted in the election of Harding and Coolidge.

These services of Smith to Mr. Daugherty were continuous and the duties so numerous that Smith lived with him most of the time, as Mrs. Daugherty, long an invalid, was compelled to spend practically all of her time in hospitals.

When Mr. Daugherty came to Washington as the Attorney General in the cabinet of President Harding, he brought Jess along to serve as a sort of unofficial intermediary between the Attorney General's office and the pests and ax-grinders that invariably hover about that office, as they do every other office of a government official in the city of Washington. He had found Jess serviceable, in this capacity, during political campaigns, and Jess had a knack of knowing Mr. Daugherty's desires and of being able to perform the duties of a lackey without appearing to be a lackey and without being himself conscious that he was one. Also, here might be one way to get Jess "out from under" the ever-present proprietorship of Roxie. Jess was for bringing Roxie along to Washington, to be sure, but Mr. Daugherty has a very emphatic way of saying "No!" and the suggestion all but died a-borning on Jess Smith's lips.

So Jess came to Washington and left Roxie behind, much to that lady's chagrin. He never had any official capacity or connection at the Department of Justice, and performed the duty as buffer to the varied assortment of visitors with axes to be ground who considered Mr. Daugherty to be the real spokesman for President Harding; ran personal errands for Mr. Daugherty; was companionable when the Attorney General wanted company and kept his place when the Attorney General did not want company. He was, in Mr. Daugherty's opinion at any rate, loyal to his benefactor and friend. But he was by no means a confidant—for Mr. Daugherty knew him too well to let him in on any state or official secrets. For he was a notorious gossip, had a considerable feeling of his own importance, strutted his stuff as only a nine o'clock fellow in a midnight town like Washington, D. C., can do, and while it would scarcely be just to characterize him as a man deliberately careless with the truth, it can not be denied that his imagination would have served him well had he been skilled in the field of literature. I can offer no testimony as to the honesty of Jess Smith. But if you ask people who knew him they will tell you most emphatically that they believe he was honest.

Asked about the position of Jess Smith at the Department of Justice, Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt testified before the extraordinary Investigation Committee,—the Wheeler-Brookhart-Ashurst committee of the senate—that Jess was "a sort of glorified personal servant" to the Attorney General. It would be more accurate to say, perhaps, that he was a self-glorified personal servant. And the most conspicuous outlet for his self-glorification was, by the very nature of things, the feminine object of his ever-burning infatuation—Roxie Stinson. Jess was the sort of chap who, if he met some prominent man while enacting his role as buffer for the Attorney General, delighted in feeding Roxie, to impress her with his own importance, with the sort of talk that would give the impression, perhaps without actually saying so, that the man was a personal friend who called him "Jess, old boy," and whom he called "Tom," "Dick," or "Harry." And, in turn, Roxie was adept enough at the same game of self-glorification to have no trouble at all in convincing herself that she was herself on intimate social terms with all the big men in the Harding administration, from the President down.

Jess Smith's career came to an end in Washington on the 30th of May, 1923. He died from a bullet wound, self-inflicted. The suicide occurred in the apartments of the Attorney General. The Attorney General was absent at the time. Smith had been suffering from diabetes for a long time, and for many months he had suffered anguish from the effects of this disease and complications that had developed in connection with it. His afflictions became worse after an operation he underwent about a year before his death. That he was "losing his grip" on himself was apparent to the Attorney General and to all others who had a friendly interest in Smith, but none suspected that he might end his own life. He did not seem to be the type that commits suicide. But he did, and the only honest explanation of it in the face of known facts is that he preferred death to continued physical suffering.

The suicide left a will, that he should leave substantial shares of his little fortune to those who had been his benefactors in early days and his most nearly kin-like friends in his last days, was entirely natural. It was not strange that he should appoint Mal Daugherty his administrator inasmuch as a few months before Mal Daugherty had closed out his store business for him in Washington Courthouse.

Two events were saddening to Roxie Stinson—Jess Smith's death was one, and the other was the revelation of the contents of Jess Smith's will. Of the two, the latter, in all fairness, may be said to have been the more tragic. That her hold upon Jess was not, as she had thought, strong enough to make her the sole beneficiary in his will, was a keen disappointment to Roxie. The Daughertys stood none too well with her to begin with, but now she held them strictly to account for being such an influence in the life of Jess Smith that he should leave them anything by his will, and not leave her everything. Her hatred of the Daughertys was, and is, undeniable. She was convinced in her own mind that, but for the Daughertys, she would have got what Jess Smith left at death in its entirety.

Roxie had letters from Jess Smith by the bale. He was a prolific correspondent. Letter-writing is one of the most notable accomplishments of gossips, and as a gossip Jess Smith was no exception to the rule. It is a truth well known to students of the mental processes of mankind that the letters of a gossip manifest one glaring characteristic. This is the characteristic of conveying ideas that may be subject to more than one interpretation. The gossip says something in a cryptic and knowing manner and leaves it to the other fellow to give it the signifiance that supplies the most kick.

A bright idea struck the mind of Roxie Stinson close to the spot wherein reposed the idea that, but for the Daugherty brothers, she would have had enough from the provisions of Jess Smith's will to have justified her wearing mourning for him the rest of her life. She had benefitted plentifully from Jess Smith during his lifetime because he suffered from an infatuation for her.

Al Fink, broker and promoter, was in Cleveland, Ohio, on the 18th of February, 1924, to start a campaign for the sale of securities of the Ideal Tire & Rubber Corporation. He found himself short of funds adequate to the campaign and was in something of a quandary as to what to do about it.

A bright idea came to Mr. Fink's rescue also. As he confesses it now, in an affidavit (which is one of the appendices of this book) he recalled having read in the papers that an old sweetheart of his, Roxie Stinson, had become an heiress by the will of one Jess Smith, and it occurred to him that she might be good for a stake. He got in touch with her by telephone, and induced her to join him in Cleveland.

"We went to the Hotel Hollenden, where we registered as man and wife, under the fictitious name of A.L. French and wife of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania," I quote from Fink's affidavit. 'So upon going to Room 452, which was assigned to us, I immediately started to talk to her about my business proposition, when she interrupted and said, 'I have a far bigger deal on right now and you ought to come in on it.' I asked her what it was and she said she was being defrauded out of her portion of Jess Smith's estate by Harry Daugherty, and that she wanted revenge upon Daugherty because he refused to recognize her or to allow Jess Smith to have her in Washington during the time Daugherty was in office, and that she was prepared, if necessary, to invent stories and piece stories together that would incriminate Daugherty to such an extent that he would be forced to resign from office; also that she expected to sell her story for $150,000, which she felt she was entitled to, and she asked me if I would get some strong Democrat to purchase her story, which she concocted, and also pay her $150,000."

As a further indication of her desire to exact more money from the Jess Smith estate than was bequeathed to her under the terms of the will, Roxie has since sued Mal Daugherty, as the executor of the estate itself, for an additional amount of more than eleven thousand dollars. Two courts have already heard this case and both promptly decided against her.

The affidavit of Fink is a voluminous one, and is available in full as an appendix to this book if the reader desires to read it, but many of the details may be passed over here as not of great importance to the present narrative of more important events. It is sufficient to say that Roxie's threats did not scare the Daughertys, who were not the kind to be frightened, and Roxie was informed politely but firmly that she could take her letters and her story and go to the devil. By a devious way, she went, instead, to Senator Burton K. Wheeler of Montana.

From the time of Fink's meeting with Roxie Stinson in Cleveland, a couple of weeks had elapsed when Henry Stern, a lawyer of Buffalo, N.Y., retained by Fink when he had run somewhat afoul the law at Rochester, N.Y., sent for Fink, Fink had apprised Stern of his adventure in Cleveland. Stern, it appears, among his other law business attachments, had become connected somehow with the Extraordinary Investigation Committee of the United States Senate. It is Fink's charge that Stern, holding over him the shadow of serious legal difficulties if he didn't, and of more favorable consequences if he did, induced him to make a trip with Stern to Washington.

It was through Fink, therefore, that Wheeler accomplished his connection with the woman who hated Attorney General Daugherty; and, fed by her hatred and her desire for money, went upon the witness stand in Washington to lay the groundwork for the colossal frame-up of perjury, insinuations, innuendoes, twisted truths and misinterpreted facts by which the Attorney General was to be driven from office, the Department of Justice demoralized, the integrity of the government impugned, and the reputations of public men crucified without stint and without conscience.

Wheeler took Fink and the lawyer, Stern, with him to Columbus, Ohio, to serve Roxie with a subpoena and induce her to come to Washington to tell her yarn. "After boarding the train and starting for Washington," says Fink's affidavit, "Wheeler spent several hours with her talking. The following morning Wheeler came back to the smoking compartment and said, 'At last I have gotten this girl to testify the way I want her to, and I had better get her right before the committee before she gets a change of heart.' He said, 'You and Stern go to the hotel and then come over to Room 410 Senate Office Building, and we will start the hearings at once.' The hearings started that morning."

Fink became alarmed over the possibility of trouble with his wife, if the episode of the Cleveland hotel came out, and it is his story that Roxie, after her initial testimony, was kept off the stand for several days to allow time for Wheeler to "fix it" with Fink's wife.

The testimony of Roxie Stinson was vast in quantity, but it will he remembered clearly, no doubt, by those who followed it, that virtually all of it rested upon her and Wheeler's interpretations of expressions in Jess Smith's gossipy letters and upon what she invariably referred to as information and events which the dead Jess Smith "told her about." Jess said this, and Jess told her that, she told the committee, but at no time did she testify to anything that she herself knew, and the tale in all its details and ramifications was a tale from the tomb—a dead man's tale, which the dead man could not be asked about—retold with all its twisted embellishments in the language of a vindictive woman who would hesitate at nothing.

On the witness stand she was often the clever actress, and particularly was this the case when asked about "The Little Green House on K Street." It was an arresting line, an attractive phrase, daubed with romance and painted with mystery. Conan Doyle could not have conceived a more fascinating scene for plots, intrigue and devilments to engage the attention of his great detective, Sherlock Holmes. Asked about the K street house, Roxie was exceedingly demure.

"What, if anything, do you know with reference to the K street house?" Wheeler asked her.

"I would rather not answer," she replied, assuming an attitude of shame and almost tearful distress that she should be obliged to go into matters so terrible as those associated with the "Little Green House on K Street."

For some little time, she "would rather not answer," but upon being duly pressed, she did answer.

The cue came from Wheeler as follows:

"You know that Mr. Smith and the Attorney General met at the K street house on a number of occasions?"

"I don't mind saying that," was her reply. "I WAS TOLD SO BY MR. SMITH."

"Do you know the number of the house?" inquired Senator Moses.

"No. I never saw it in my life."

And the fact of the matter is, she had never even heard of it in her life—until she had come to Washington and had worked out, with Wheeler, Gaston Means and others, according to Means' affidavit, the details of the yarn she was to recite upon the witness stand.

The further fact of the matter is, "The Little Green House on K Street" was a melodramatic myth, so far as its relationship to the Attorney General and the Department of Justice was concerned. Daugherty was never in it in his life, and never saw it in his life either inside or outside.

At one stage of the proceedings, Senator Jones of Washington, had his attentions arrested and his curiosity aroused by the fact that Roxie, in the course of her testimony, was reading her replies from a type-written memorandum. It seemed just a trifle out of the ordinary, in the mind of Senator Jones, and he was prompted to gratify his curiosity, if it were possible to do so.

"You are apparently reading from a type-written memorandum?" the senator from Washington interposed.

"Yes, sir."

"When did you make that?"

"This was made by my companion here in Washington, from notes that I had made."

"Since you came down here?"

"The notes were made at my home, at the time."

"When were the notes made?"

"On the 23rd of February."

"That is, the next day after you had been up to Cleveland?"

"No; I was in Cleveland—I returned on the 21st. Then on Saturday is when I made my notes, through the advice of a friend; just a personal friend whom I had told about the Cleveland frame-up (Roxie's version of it) only. It was on that advice."

"Have you those notes now?"

"No, sir; I have not; unless—I have destroyed them—you see, there was someone sent as a personal envoy from me to get my letters and general correspondence and everything from my home which I did not bring with me,"

"You brought those notes down here with you?"

"I did not."

"You had them here, may I ask?" put in Senator Wheeler, in an effort to rescue her from a bit of thin ice.

"I understood you to say you had them typed by your friend here—by your companion here, when you came down here in response to the subpoena," said Jones.

"Yes, sir."

"Then of course you must have had the notes?"

"Yes. But in the meantime I did not bring those notes with me; they were sent for and brought to me."

"Were they destroyed?"

"I think I tore them up, after I elaborated these. I will look at the hotel—"

"I wish you would."

"These are absolutely—I would almost say word for word."

"I would like very much to see those notes," Senator Jones persisted.

"Are they important?"

"Yes."

"They are only just items—just as this is."

"I know. They are very important to my mind; and I wish you would look and see if you can find them."

"I shall look; but I doubt that."

"When did you make these notes?" asked Wheeler.

"Twenty-third day of February."

"Were the notes in pencil or ink?" asked Senator Moses.

"Pencil."

"Did anybody suggest that they be typewritten?"

"No; I just asked my companion here to do this for me, because I can not read my own writing very well."

"As a matter of fact," put in Wheeler apprehensively, "you had never shown those notes to me, either?"

"No; nobody has seen them."

"You had never shown even the statement you had typewritten to me?" coached Wheeler.

"No, sir."

"Had anybody ever seen those notes before you had them typewritten?" Senator Moses enquired.

"No sir, I do not discuss."

"Except your companion, of course? I suppose she saw them, or did you read them to her?"

"I read them off."

"She did not examine them herself?"

"I read them off. I read this off, and she wrote it from my reading. That was the first time I had ever dictated anything in my life."

The "companion" to whom she referred was Wheeler's sister, Mrs. Mitchell, in Wheeler's employ as a confidential stenographer. It is probably superfluous to say that the "notes" were never produced, and the curiosity of both Senators Jones and Moses concerning them was never adequately satisfied.

Roxie Stinson's recital of a highly fantastic tale from a dead man's grave constituted the groundwork for the entire case built up for the political assassination of Attorney General Daugherty and for the demoralization of the law-enforcing branch of the federal government. Its only corroboration came from the equally fantastic tales of Gaston B. Means, who was being kept out of jail by Wheeler and the Extraordinary Investigation Committee, and from an array of underworld characters, confidence game operators and discharged employes of the Department of Justice, coached for their parts by Means and Wheeler, and influenced to go through with them by threats of dire punishment in some instances and promises of financial or other rewards in others.

The rebellion of Al Fink against going through with his part of the plot, as detailed by himself under the oath of an affidavit, appears to have been a source of much embarrassment and annoyance to Wheeler, judging from the allegations of a corroborating affidavit made and sworn to by Florence Fink, Al's wife.

"H.S. Edmonds, my husband's secretary," Mrs. Fink recites, "advised me that he was in receipt of a telegram from Washington sent on a government 'frank' and signed 'Henry' telling him to bring me at once to Washington, that my husband was desperately in need of me."

"Mr. Edmonds and I arrived in Washington Friday morning, and I was led to Senator Burton K. Wheeler's office, Room 440, Senate Office Building. Upon meeting him, he asked me to come into his private office. He appeared very much worried and said to be in substance, 'Mrs. Fink, your husband is a very foolish man. He is holding up the committee hearings by threatening to refute Roxie Stinson's testimony. Now, I want you to be sensible and tell him that he has to allow her to continue to testify. He is going to be given a splendid appointment in Buffalo as Collector of Internal Revenue if he does what I want him te do. I am also going to make Mr. Stern a federal judge if we are able to make Daugherty resign. You should not be jealous over this woman, and you should prevent your husband from throwing away this opportunity. Mr. Stern tells me that unless you urge him to help us 'get' Daugherty, he will destroy the evidence that will exonerate your husband in the case in which he is representing him in Rochester. So you see, little girl, it is up to you to do this to save your husband."

"By this time I was crying, and I finally promised Senator Wheeler that I would not desert my husband because of this episode with this woman."

"Senator Wheeler then took my husband and me back into his office and continued to explain to us how valuable it would be to us if we would consent to join him in his 'frame-up' of Daugherty. As a further inducement he told me that he was raising a sum of money among the Democratic senators who were his friends for the purpose of playing the stock market as soon as he learned, as he would in advance, that Daugherty would resign; that he intended to reimburse Miss Stinson to the extent of twenty-five percent of this fund to make up for the $150,000 that she had originally demanded for her story. Senator Wheeler said that he would send my husband to New York to place this money, and that he would receive a share of the profits for himself."

Whether or not Roxie Stinson, the materialistic medium of the Senate seance, whose voice was the voice of vengeance and greed for gain pretending to speak from the tomb of the dead, ever got the twenty-five percent, or any other percent, the writer of these pages does not profess to know, and ventures not to suspect. But Al Fink appears to be confident that he, for one, never got his, and it is common report that a number of the crooks and con men who took the witness stand to add zest, if not truth, to Roxie's yarn have been whistling in vain for theirs. If this be true, sad though it be for them, they are irretrievably out of luck, for somehow or other the scurvy trick of cheating cheaters is not of itself a crime under the laws of the United States.



The Bank that Couldn't Be Wrecked

"No rogue e'er felt the halter draw, With good opinion of the law."

Every I.W W., every communist, every bolshevik, every left-wing socialist, every rioter, every bootlegger, every bootlegger's source of supply and every profiteering war contractor, therefore, was at one with every pink, every right-wing red, every short-sighted Democrat and every yellow Republican in giving the appearance of unanimity to the assault upon the federal Department of Justice and the demand for the resignation of the head of that department, Attorney General Daugherty.

The hearings of the Wheeler-Brookhart-Ashurst Extraordinary Investigation Committee were attended daily by a throng of disciples of sundry subversive movements, applauding every insult to the legal representatives of the Attorney General and every breath of defamatory gossip and self-convicted perjury, audibly admiring the grim and melodramatic poses of Senator Wheeler, hissing every witness with a good word for the government or the Attorney General, and booing every futile attempt of counsel for the accused to obtain a modicum of consideration for the legal rights of their client.

To insure forcible ejection from the confines of the committee room one had only to let himself be heard giving expression to comment adverse to the tactics of the committee or in deprecation of the testimony of the particular crook or gossip-monger who chanced at the time to be undergoing the leading and suggestive examination by the Krilenko-like "prosecutor," Wheeler.

The timidity and impotence of intimidated and panic-stricken administration senators and congressmen lent zest to the operations of the triumverate on the committee, pep to their satellite cheer-leaders, and daring to the underworld characters upon whom they chiefly depended. Through them they made the record of their case a daily front page news source for the radical, the yellow and the "framed" press of the country.

Never was so much pressure brought to bear upon a President for the accomplishment of an end than that which was brought to bear upon President Coolidge. From the foes of the administration, and particularly from those foes who were conscious of the real motives behind the operations of the committee, there were sent messages to the White House and messages to dupes who would see to their transmission to the ears of the President, conveying the alternative of the Attorney General's resignation or of untoward consequences to the administration, even to the President himself. To supplement these, there was a procession of frightened Republican politicians, both in the Senate and out of it, seeking the ear of the President to urge upon him the political necessity of asking for the resignation of his Attorney General. They went singly and in delegations, and they pleaded individually and in chorus.

The courage of the President was of high order. His stubbornness was exasperating. It appeared that he was immovable. But the time came when he could stand up under the pressure no longer—and he yielded.

The Extraordinary Investigation Committee sent to the Attorney General a demand upon him for a wholesale production of the confidential files of the Department of Justice and its secret service division, the Bureau of Investigation. The Attorney General was confident he knew the purpose of this demand. He was convinced that it was sought for no reason except to supply ammunition for the cause of red radicalism and to reveal to the leaders of various subversive movements just what the government knew about their intrigues against the government. He refused, therefore, to comply with the demand, apprising President Coolidge of his conviction that to do so would be "incompatible with the public interest."

The President had yielded. He found it impossible to withstand the pressure of argument within his party and of intimidation from without. He made of this incident the opportunity to request the resignation of Daugherty. The request was complied with. Both the request and the compliance with it were mistakes—but both, doubtless, excusable, since no man can be right always.

So they "got" Daugherty in this way, and the reds of Moscow and Montana and the pink bollweevils of American politics triumphed. And in their triumph, they proceeded to do precisely what Daugherty, and the scant few with courage sufficient to confess their agreement with him and his position, said they would do. They did not let up on the Department of Justice—and have not let up on it yet—since it was the primary objective, and not any individual directing head of it. But in addition they expanded the assault upon the administration and government in other directions.

They had "got" Denby without a struggle. They had now "got" Daugherty after an arduous and bitter battle. So next in order was the job of "getting" whoever might in any sense be vulnerable. Senator McKellar of Tennessee, elected with the endorsement and support of the radical Conference for Progressive Political Action, training his guns upon the Department of the Treasury, charged that Secretary Mellon was holding his office illegally, and demanded his resignation from the Cabinet.

The Teapot Dome investigation committee began emulating the tactics of the Wheeler-Brookhart-Ashurst committee by issuing subpoenas for witnesses of the same character, calling Al Jennings, ex-train robber, to the stand to recite an impossible yarn about "intrigues" behind the nomination and election of President Harding and to give publicity to other so-called "evidence" having no more pertinence to the Teapot Dome inquiry than Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tales have to a presidential election in Honduras. Al Jennings' tale also came from the tomb, the dead man in this case being Jake Hamon of Oklahoma, who had come to his death by a gun in the hands of a woman. It was planned that the slayer of Hamon be brought to Washington from California to testify, also, but it appears she didn't know or suspect anything of a sufficiently scandalous import, and the project was abandoned.

Senator Dill, the radical Democrat from Washington, elected with the endorsement and support of the Conference for Progressive Political Action, delivered a broadside against the assistant Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, and introduced a resolution demanding his resignation.

With the Senate galleries packed with the same crowd that was making the sessions of the Extraordinary Investigation Committee such a success as a combination melodrama and burlesque show, the Heflin-Caraway-Robinson-Stanley-Norris group of senatorial scandalmongers made the atmosphere in the Senate chamber blue and putrid with their daily amplifications of and speculations upon what passed for evidence before the Extraordinary Investigation Committee and other investigation committees of Congress, defaming and libeling, under the cloak of senatorial immunity, every official of the government whose name came into mind, from President Coolidge down to the lowliest.

Heflin was the Democratic senator from Alabama, who, belaboring the Department of Justice for its reputed shortcomings and alleged failure to prosecute criminals, neglected to explain the hook or crook by which he, some years previously, had escaped prosecution for an unjustified and deadly assault upon a negro. Heflin had broken into print, in this connection, by drawing a gun, shooting and seriously wounding a negro passenger on a trolley car in Washington, shooting also a white pedestrian, causing a panic among the passengers and endangering the lives of men, women and children who were riding in the car at the time of the assault. Caraway was the Arkansas senator upon whom similar notoriety had fallen by reason of a brutal and inexcusable assault upon a disabled veteran of the World War, the weapon used in this instance being an umbrella. And Robinson, the fire-eating Democratic minority leader, is recalled by the membership of a golf club near the capital of the nation for another physical assault, the victim being a member of the club who was not playing his game fast enough to suit the pace of the over-energetic dignitary of the United States Senate who was trailing him.

The radical press of the country, supplied with "news" by the Federated Press, a propaganda association controlled by a combination of communists and radicals of less lurid hue, and the yellow press, to say nothing of misled newspapers whose editors were too dull to comprehend the frame-up against their own reputations for truth and fairness, printed columns, pages, sections, extras and supplements of incredible scandal and palpable perjury and falsehood, subversive to the orderly processes of the courts and the government's executive departments.

The "news" from Washington, deleted or colored according to requirements necessary to give it the most sensational character and at the same time give it a semblance of credibility, was sent to the newspapers and news associations by a horde of correspondents, some of them deluded, some of them in conscious sympathy with radicalism and others drawing pay from sources with special interest in the success of the campaign of calumny, demoralization and destruction, and what these correspondents were fed upon was intended to and did have a tendency to break down the faith of the American people in their government. Most of these correspondents, except perhaps the deliberately corrupted ones, have since experienced a consciousness of their part in the frame-up of their own employers, and if they were frank about it or unafraid of the loss of their jobs they would now admit the fact, as something more than a corporal's guard already has done.

As the sessions of the Extraordinary Investigation Committee proceeded, one of the pet bits of "evidence" put into the record was the testimony of some bootlegger or head of a ring of bootleggers who told the committee—which gave him a vacation from the confines of the penetentiary, if it gave him nothing more—that for a certain sum of money paid some collector who had to split the bribe with Jess Smith or Daugherty or both of them, or somebody else, he would get a pardon if already convicted or have the indictment quashed against him if he had not yet been tried. Charles Vicente, of Baltimore, Maryland, for instance, according to one fragment of this line of evidence introduced by Wheeler, was to pay $50,000 to Elias H. Mortimer as graft in the event of Vicente's release from the Atlanta penitentiary before the expiration of his term. But in this case, as in the case of every other alleged graft contract negotiated by some crook claiming "influence" and the ability to bribe Smith or Daugherty, the one who was to pay the money or did pay it—if he did—went to jail just the same, was convicted just the same, or stayed in the penitentiary just the same if he had already been convicted.

In every single, solitary instance, in which it was alleged money was solicited or offered, paid or bargained for, the crook or ring of crooks that paid it or agreed to pay it was tried and convicted, went to prison and stayed there. And in every instance, the crook or ring of crooks was in prison, at liberty on bond pending appeal from conviction, or awaiting trial when Attorney General Daugherty resigned—unless the crook or ring of them had already served the sentence of the court and obtained freedom by the orderly processes of the law and justice.

In the Glass Casket case, let it be remembered, the defendants claimed to have paid money to Gaston B. Means and his co-conspirators on the theory that Means et al. could bribe the Attorney General, Chief Justice Taft of the Supreme Court and William J. Burns, to prevent their prosecution, And let it be remembered further that, under Mr. Daugherty's direction, Means and his pals were indicted in connection with this very thing, and after Means had, through Wheeler et al., obtained post-ponement after post-ponement of the case that he might continue to serve as both witness and coach for Wheeler, Means and his associates who had professed their ability to purchase "influence" with the head of the Department of Justice were convicted, and Means now reposes within the restraining walls of the Atlanta penitentiary—convicted in two cases instituted and directed by Mr. Daugherty as Attorney General.

One of the most notable of the crooks obtaining a vacation from a federal prison, through the obliging graces of Senators Wheeler and Brookhart, that he might appear before the Extraordinary Investigation Committee and reel off a yarn suitable to the needs of the committee in bolstering the tale from the tomb recited by Roxie Stinson, was one George Remus of Cincinnati, Ohio. Remus was taken before the committee and testified that he paid a bribe of $30,000 to Jess Smith at Indianapolis, Indiana, while Smith was there with the Attorney General in connection with the dismissal in federal court of the government's coal strike cases.

As shown by the record in those cases (Docket No. 1652) the date upon which Remus, according to his testimony before the committee, paid the $30,000 to Jess Smith was June 28th, 1923. So if Remus did pay the money, he paid it to Jess Smith's ghost, for JESS SMITH DIED ON THE 30TH OF MAY, 1923, and the grass had begun to grow upon his grave at Washington Courthouse, Ohio. And if the ghost of Jess Smith accepted the $30,000 which Remus testified was paid to influence the Attorney General against sending him to prison, Remus was the victim of a ghastly joke, for it was under the direction of the Attorney General that this distinguished Cincinnati "king of bootleggers" was prosecuted, tried, convicted and sent to the federal prison at Atlanta to serve the full term of years meted out to him by an unsympathetic federal judge.

Remus, like Means, has subsequently repudiated his testimony in its entirety, and swears in an affidavit to be found among the appendices of this book that Henry Stern, the lawyer for the committee heretofore mentioned, came to him at the Atlanta penitentiary as an emissary from Wheeler; and, with promises that the committee would help him get out of prison, induced him to go before the committee and perjure himself in the interests of the "prosecution" against the Department of Justice.

Another choice bit of "evidence" which supplied the newslead for many columns, topped by flaring headlines in the public prints, was the recital by Means of how a Jap gave him $100,000 in $1,000 bills which had to be divided with Jess Smith and the Attorney General to bring an end to prospective prosecution in the Standard Aircraft case, evidence which Means has since confessed was a fabrication out of whole cloth. But it was perjury on the very face of it, for there was no such case either of record or in prospect in the Department of Justice or of the Bureau of Investigation of that department, and the case had not reached the Department of Justice, if ever it has reached there, up to the hour of the resignation of Harry M. Daugherty as Attorney General.

And some of the best evidence of the incorruptibility of the Daugherty regime in the Department of Justice is to be found in the facts connected with the Dempsey-Carpentier motion picture deal, about which a sensation was sprung during the early stages of the Extraordinary Investigation Committee's operations. For an examination of the records shows that Daugherty caused the prosecution in twenty-five different states of people engaged in the illegal transportation of these pictures, and that the Attorney General was responsible for two indictments of Tex Rickard, the promoter of the Dempsey-Carpentier fight.

An important adjunct of the Extraordinary Investigation Committee of the Senate was a "detective" organization with a staff of forty "operatives." The director of this organization, and its financial angel was Frank A. Vanderlip, who acquired such distinction as a gossip and scandal-monger by his circulation of slanderous reports about President Harding and the President's sale of his newspaper, The Marion Star. Vanderlip was such a success as a purveyor of scandal that he was sued for libel by the purchasers of the Marion Star, and he was so unsuccessful in meeting the allegations of libel made against him that he paid heavy damages which made it possible for the owners of the Star to finance their newspaper liberally and make of it a notable financial success.

It was among Vanderlip's boasts that he and his staff of sleuths were rounding up witnesses for the defamation mill operated as a Senate committee by Wheeler, Brookhart and Ashurst and that he was giving every aid possible to Wheeler in his plans for driving Attorney General Daugherty from office. The "secret service" financed by Vanderlip was exceedingly energetic, particularly in practices of intimidation aimed at government officials and at witnesses who might show an inclination to say something creditable to the Department of Justice.

How many of the "operatives" employed in the service of the Extraordinary Investigation Committee were professional crooks I have never gone to the trouble of finding out. One of them that I know of, however, who had such a penchant for sleuthing that he had been convicted in Chicago for impersonating a federal prohibition officer, was James S. Sanders. He appears to have followed his service in the cause of clean government and law enforcement, as an "investigator" for Vanderlip and Wheeler, with practices requiring the enforcement of law against himself. He was convicted of larceny in New York City June 17, 1925, and was sentenced in federal court to serve a term of three years in the same penitentiary that now includes the persons of Gaston B. Means and George Remus—the United States penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia.

The Wheeler-Brookhart-Ashurst, "Extraordinary Investivation Committee," had been in session several weeks quite satisfactorily to the minds of the "investigators." Their strangle hold on any attempt to deny the perjury they were grinding out by the wholesale had been eminently successful; when an untoward accident happened. The same Al Fink who had produced Roxie Stinson for the committee underwent a change of heart. Fink had been under subpoena of the committee for several months, but Wheeler had not called him.

As I said before, Fink had a change of heart, as he tells it; the lying attacks made on Attorney General Daugherty were too much for any decent citizen to stand. Fink knew all this, from first hand knowledge, but more than that he also knew that in a measure he was responsible, he had furnished the committee with its greatest fabricator.

And so, one bright day in May while Brookhart and Ashurst and their personal lobby of spectators were seated revelling in their scandal monging, a portly man pushed forward to the witness stand and demanded in a forceful manner:

"I've been under subpoena by this committee for some months. I want to be heard. I want to tell the committee that Roxie Stinson's story is a pure lie. And that Frank Vanderlip tried to get me for $1,000 to agree to tell a 'framed-up' story on President Coolidge."

Ashurst found his voice first.

"Throw him out!" he shouted.

"Police!" bellowed Brookhart.

"Tf you don't throw him out at once, I'll do so myself,"' screeched Ashurst.

And so Fink was hustled to the door and out into the cool corridor.

And Fink was never called or allowed to tell his story to the committee, although it will be found in the appendix of this book, which only goes to prove that some Senate committees acknowledge evidence as truth only when it agrees with their own plans and opinions.

The climax of the audacious lengths to which the men in control of the investigation committee were willing to go, however, revealed itself in the lawless raid which Brookhart and Wheeler attempted to make upon the Midland National Bank, Washington Courthouse, Ohio, of which Mal Daugherty, brother of the deposed Attorney General, was president. I call it a lawless raid that was attempted, because that, in plain words, was the finding of the federal court—Judge A. M. Cochran rendering a decision at Cincinnati on June 1st, 1924, a decision which thwarted the attempt and sent the Messrs. Wheeler and Brookhart back to Washington empty-handed, minus the person of the president of the bank, minus the private papers and books of the bank, and their entire proceeding and the action of the Senate in authorizing it thoroughly and emphatically repudiated before the law.

The fact that it was the purpose of the Extraordinary Investigation Committee of the Senate, through Wheeler and Brookhart, to visit the bank, appropriate such of its books, papers and records of accounts as they might think desirable for their purposes, and to take Mal Daugherty with them under subpoena to answer questions about the confidential business of the bank, was advertised with a flare and blare of senatorial trumpets that made the proposed action a topic of conversation wherever two or more inhabitants of the little city of Washington Courthouse met. It may or may not have crossed the minds of Messrs. Wheeler and Brookhart that such a proceeding might cause the depositors of the bank to be seized with panic and precipitate a run upon the institution that would wreck it and blast the financial standing of the president and the stockholders. However this may be, the solid faith of the community in the Daugherty brothers and the unshakable stability of the bank was fully demonstrated. There was but one depositor who was so touched with apprehension for the safety of his money as to visit the cashier's window to withdraw his account, and this solitary man of wavering faith has since endeavored in vain to re-deposit his money and reopen business dealings with Mal Daugherty's bank. But Mal Daugherty is so proud of the manner in which every other depositor stood the test of faith in his and his brother Harry's integrity that he has steadfastly refused to have business dealings with the one exceptional skeptic.

"What the Senate is engaged in doing," said the court, in enjoining the Messrs. Wheeler and Brookhart from in any manner interfering with the bank or its contents or its president, "is not investigating the Attorney General's office; it is investigating the former Attorney General. What it has done is to put him on trial before it. In so doing it is exercising the judicial function. This it has no power to do. It has not been conferred expressly. It's existence is negatived by the provisions of the federal Constitution in relation to impeachment proceedings, in view of which there is no possible ground for claiming that it exists by fair implication. As I view the matter, the Senate, in its action, has usurped judicial power, and encroached on the prerogative of the House of Representatives."

That decision of the court was a heavy-charged bomb that blew the whole proceeding of the Wheeler-Brookhart-Ashurst triumverate and all its works into smithereens and scattered them to the seven seas. The committee never made a report or found a verdict, and it never will. Life in the Coolidge administration was restored, administration senators began to find their voices, the electorate sent delegates to the national convention in Cleveland who would tolerate no compromise with pinks, and give no ear to the voices of jaundiced pussy-footers, and the Republican party won its victory in 1924 because, and only because, there were enough courageous ones left to lead the way into a battle to a finish with the reds and pinks who had determined upon acquiring power and, that power once achieved, the actual overthrow of constitutional, republican government in the United States.

Perhaps the public does not remember that after the enforced resignation of Attorney General Daugherty, with the pack of red and pink wolves at his heels, fighting his election, he was elected a delegate at large from Ohio to the Republican National Convention at Cleveland by almost 100,000 majority.



Foes or Defenders of Lawlessness?

The Wheeler resolution in the Senate, creating the committee upon which I think I have quite appropriately bestowed the title, "Extraordinary Investigation Committee," provided for an investigation "concerning the alleged failure of Harry M. Daugherty, Attorney General of the United States, to prosecute properly violators of the Sherman anti-trust act and the Clayton act against monopolies and unlawful restraint of trade; the alleged neglect and failure of Harry M. Daugherty, Attorney General of the United States, to arrest and prosecute Albert B. Fall, Harry F. Sinclair, H.L. Doheny, C.R. Forbes and their conspirators in defrauding the government, etc." No evidence ever went into the investigation, however, that the Attorney General neglected or failed to proscute any of the personages above named, for the very good reason that events moved too rapidly even for the astute and facile Wheeler.

Before the investigation could get under way, Attorney General Daugherty had advised the President of the United States that he ought to engage special counsel to represent the government's interests in the oil cases which appeared to be of very considerable importance. This advice was adhered to by the President, and the charges of failure and neglect on the part of the Attorney General in connection with the oil cases fell at once as flat as a rubber doormat. Also, before the investigation got under way, and a long time before it did, too, the case of Forbes was being investigated, and in the most expeditious fashion possible, Daugherty went to Chicago in connection with the grand jury proceedings, Forbes was indicted by direction of Daugherty, tried and convicted.

The inclusion in the Wheeler resolution, however, of the charge of failure to arrest and prosecute Fall, Sinclair and Doheny was enough to set off the oratorical fowling pieces of Walsh, Wheeler, Brookhart, Heflin, Carraway, Robinson et al. in the chamber of the Senate. There the allegation was enlarged upon, and the Attorney General accused of complicity with Fall through the medium of his official capacity. Two emphatic refutations of the charge, however, are of record in the federal court at Cheyenne, Wyoming, where Messrs. Roberts and Pomerene, special counsel employed by the government, prosecuted the oil cases.

The first of these in Paragraph 24 of the bill of complaint which the government's attorneys filed before the court, reads:

"The said Albert B. Fall, acting as aforesaid, although a question was raised as to the legality of such a lease, steadfastly refused to take the opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior of the United States or of the Attorney General of the United States concerning the legality of the same."

And the other is a paragraph from the opinion of Federal Judge Kennedy of Cheyenne, delivered in support of his decision holding the Teapot Dome lease to be legal and valid, reading as follows:

"As to the charge that Secretary Fall refused to seek the advice of the Solicitor of his own department or the Attorney General of the United States, only one suggestion need be made. While the Secretary of the Interior is criticized in the bill for engineering the entire plan, the evidence shows—that when legal advice was thought necessary in regard to the legality of the proposed lease then under advisement, such advice was sought and received from the legal staff in the Navy Department. Under these circustances, the criticism could scarcely reach further than an alleged error in judgment in the choice of lawyers."

The evidence of the falsity and absurdity of the charge of neglect and failure properly to prosecute violators of the Sherman and Clayton acts, and in fact the general charge of failure and neglect to prosecute violators of the law or to represent the interests of the government in cases at law generally, was of almost overwhelming volume when the so-called Wheeler-Brookhart-Ashurst committee set about the performance of its illegal and usurping functions. This evidence was of record in the Department of Justice and in the courts of the land everywhere there was a federal district and a federal district attorney. A summary of it may be perused by the reader of this book by turning to the appendices.

It may be true that the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Daugherty, did not function 100 percent, and that it only functioned 99 percent or thereabouts. But if this is true, it is not entirely outside the range of possibility that the one percent failure to function reacted to the benefit of certain of the Attorney General's most ardent detractors, as two or three instances pointed out in this chapter would seem to indicate.

One of these detractors, the leading one in fact, has been prosecuted, and will be further prosecuted. The credit for it has been rather persistently given to Daugherty. But this credit is entirely undeserved, since Daugherty had no more to do with it than Luke McLuke or the Sultan of Sulu. I have no doubt he would have taken and would now take some invigorating interest in officially participating in this particular prosecution, but the matter was and is entirely out of his hands, and rests now in the hands of Attorney General Sargent after having left the hands of Attorney General Stone upon Mr. Stone's elevation to the Supreme Court. The defendant to whom I now refer is the "prosecutor" of the Extraordinary Investigation Committee, United States Senator Burton K. Wheeler of Montana.

The criminal case against Senator Wheeler originated in the Postoffice Department, and not in the Department of Justice. I went to Montana in March, 1924, to look into some matters pertaining to Senator Wheeler, at the instance of a newspaper. At that time I did not know Attorney General Daugherty and did not meet him until months after he had resigned. What I went there to find out principally was the radical connections of Wheeler and to reach some conclusions concerning the real motives behind his enthusiasm for the destruction of Mr. Daugherty and the defamation of the Department of Justice. My sole purpose was to get material from which was written a series of articles exposing Wheeler's affiliation with the reds and the motives behind the movement to "get" Daugherty and discredit the Department of Justice.

I had no sooner arrived there than I discovered the fact that Gordon Campbell, a Seattle oil operator, and Wheeler were then being investigated in connection with fraudulent operations for which Campbell was, in due time, prosecuted and convicted. The investigation was being conducted by inspectors from the Postoffice Department. It is a well-known fact, of course, that the Postoffice Department has its own secret service, and that this service—under the direction of the chief postoffice inspector—operates as a unit entirely independent of the Department of Justice. It investigates and prepares its cases before they even reach the Department of Justice or a federal district attorney.

It was natural that, upon learning of the investigation being made by the postoffice inspectors, I should have some curiosity about it, and I tried hard enough to obtain enlightenment from the inspectors at work on the case. They wouldn't tell me what I wanted to know, so I determined to find out for myself—which is something of a custom among men who have had experience as reporters for newspapers. Well, I did find out—not only what the postoffice inspectors knew, but a lot more; that is to say, information, supported by a number of witnesses from whom I obtained affidavits to the effect that Senator Wheeler had contracted to receive $10,000 from Gordon Campbell to use his influence as a United States senator to obtain from the General Land Office validation of a number of dummy permits for oil lands in Montana, the validity of these permits being necessary to the successful operation of the oil syndicate Campbell had organized.

I went to the federal district attorney, John L. Slattery, at Great Falls, Montana, with the evidence I had obtained. By this time the evidence of the postoffice inspectors had been laid before the district attorney, and when the information I had obtained was placed before him he was convinced there was a strong case against Wheeler on a charge of misuse of his senatorial office. The evidence was placed before a grand jury, the witnesses I had discovered were heard, and the result of it was that Wheeler was indicted. The indictment was obtained after Attorney General Daugherty's enforced resignation from the Attorney Generalship, and the entire preparation of the case for trial took place, not under the Daugherty regime, but under that of Attorney General Harlan F. Stone, now a justice of the United States Supreme Court.

At once the oratorical guns of the United States Senate were directed at the federal Department of Justice, not because it neglected or failed to prosecute alleged violators of the federal statutes, but because it did proceed to the business of prosecuting one who chanced to be a member of that self-righteous and super-sensitive body, The Senate. Wheeler and his allies arose on the floor of the Senate and denounced the due process of the Montana court as a "frame-up," and accused the already deposed Attorney General of being the instigator of it. Wheeler at first "demanded" an immediate trial, but later thought better of it, and instead called for an "investigation" by a committee of the Senate. As for his trial, which was not held until a year had passed following the return of the indictment, he sought delay after delay upon one pretext and another, and then had the audacity to blame these delays upon the Department of Justice and the administration of that department by Attorney General Stone.

There was a time in the history of the United States Senate when senate dignity forbade an indicted senator from participating in the deliberation of that body until he had been cleared of any criminal charges against him. But not so under the rules as now laid down by the reds, the pinks and the yellows. Wheeler instead of being an outcast was treated as the hero of the Senate.

The "investigation" which he demanded in the Senate was held with expeditious haste. Senator Borah was made chairman of the committee, and in addition to this excellent choice of chairman, from Wheeler's point of view the committee was efficiently packed to administer a thorough coat of whitewash to the accused Montana senator. In the conduct of this so-called "investigation," the tactics were a complete reversal of those operating in the proceedings of the Wheeler-Brookhart-Ashurst Extraordinary Investigation Committee. In the latter proceedings, defense of the accused was absolutely and unqualifiedly taboo. On the other hand, in the proceedings of the Borah committee, to "investigate" the charges against Wheeler, borrowing one of the expressive phrases of Octavius Roy Cohen, defense was the one thing "there wasn't nothin' else but." There was no "prosecutor" on the Borah committee, and any and all efforts to get before the committee evidence unfavorable to Wheeler met with insults and indignant rebuffs. As the Wheeler-Brookhart-Ashurst committee was out to "get" Daugherty, and would brook no interference with that purpose, so the Borah committee was out to whitewash Wheeler, and there was nothing in the world that could stop it.

The report of the committee, prepared by Senator Borah, "exonerating" Wheeler, was something of a joke on the chairman, however, since it found the accused senator innocent of violating a statute which had long since been repealed and under which he had not been indicted at all. The senator from Idaho, with a reputation as a great lawyer, was not a little chagrined later upon discovering that Wheeler had been indicted under a statute, the existence of which he (Borah) appeared to have been in entire ignorance.

It was astonishing with what enthusiasm Senators Borah, Walsh of Montana; Brookhart, Dill, Norris, La Follette, Shipstead, Ladd, Heflin, Carraway, Robinson and others went to the defense of an indicted man, simply because he was a member of their own crowd of presumably sacrosanct champions of their denunciations of the Department of Justice for alleged laxity in the investigation, indictment and prosecution of alleged violators of the federal statutes.

[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

U.S. SENATOR GEORGE W. NORRIS OF NEBRASKA.


If the Department of Justice is to be assailed for any laxity in the investigation of individuals suspected of violating the federal statutes, there might be some justice in a charge of failure to investigate Senator Walsh of Montana for one, and Senator Dill of Washington, for another. Had Senator Walsh and Senator Dill been regular members of the Republican party, in good standing, supporters of the Coolidge administration and defenders of the Department of Justice and Attorney General Daugherty, I have no doubt the Extraordinary Investigation Committee of the Senate would have found a way to "expose" the failure of the Department of Justice to prosecute both of them.

Walsh was elected to the Senate in Montana in 1918 by a scant majority of 4,200 votes over Dr. O.M. Landstrom. Following the election it was discovered that probably he was elected by votes supposed to have been sent in by mail from absent voters. Three counties in Montana—Silver Bow, Cascade and Deer Lodge counties—returned something like 7,000 of these mailed votes. All three counties are Democratic strongholds, with a particular leaning toward extreme radicalism. The 7,000 votes are alleged to have been more mailed votes than ever were polled in these counties either before or since the election of 1918. This election at which Walsh was elected has always been under a cloud.

"An Associated Press dispatch from Helena, Montana," said the Spokane, Wash., Spokesman-Review, October 17th, 1924, "last night reported that A.W. Dolphin, Spokane attorney, had submitted to the federal land office a petition for the cancellation of a special use water permit granted to the Beaverhead Ranch Company in 1912. The petition was received for filing by Frank L. Reece, receiver and recorder, and forwarded to Washington, D.C."

"Details of the Dolphin petition, which charges Senator T.J. Walsh of Montana with violation of a federal statute, were first given in the Spokesman-Review on Tuesday. Dolphin declared the permit was worth $140,000, and obtained with the intervention of Senator Walsh while a stockholder of the concern."

"The Associated Press dispatch from Helena adds:

"Large tracts were ptrchased by the company in Beaverhead County, according to county records here, and irrigated with water obtained from the Beaverhead National Forest preserve under the terms of the special permit. Within the last eight years most of the land was sold to individuals in small tracts, with contracts for sufficient water for irrigation.' "

The Dolphin petition alleged correspondence between Walsh and Franklin K. Lane, while the latter was Secretary of the Interior in the Wilson administration, in the interests of the Beaverhead Ranch. Senator Walsh has announced that he has no recollection of having had such correspondence, but that his conscience is clear even if he did. He claims to have disposed of his holdings in the Beaverhead Ranch in 1915—to his daughter—and that the stock subsequently was disposed of to the president of the company.


[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

THIS IS THE LETTER SENATOR THOMAS J. WALSH COULD 'NOT REMEMBER.'



[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

FINAL PAGE OF DECISION IN FAVOR OF SENATOR WALSH MADE BY THE NOW U. S. SENATOR A.A. JONES OF NEW MEXICO.



Senator Walsh first came to the Senate in 1913, following ratification by the state legislature of his election in 1912. He was then holding, and until some time in 1915 held, $20,000 worth of the stock in the Beaverhead Ranch Company. He was one of the incorporators of the company. Associated with him in the organization of the company was J.E. Morse, who claimed the water rights to Boots Lake Reservoir. The Department of the Interior decided the claim was invalid. Walsh, serving in the Senate, demanded of the department that Morse be given a decision on the water rights. There is adequately authenticated evidence that Walsh had correspondence with Secretary Lane and the then Assistant Secretary, now Senator Jones, of New Mexico, and that as a consequence the Morse application for the water rights was reinstated. The land—7,000 acres—controlled by the Beaverhead Ranch Company was worth, prior to that, probably $1.00 an acre. The value thereafter is said to have gone up to $100 or more an acre.

Of course, the federal Department of Justice is not to be held accountable for any failures or neglect in connection with Senator Walsh's election in 1918, since that matter is not within the province of federal officers charged with the enforcement of law. And as for the Beaverhead Ranch case, I make no charges whatever that the Montana senator violated any law or intended to violate any law. All I do, in this connection, is to venture the plausible suggestion that Senator Walsh, had he been a Republican and a supporter of the Coolidge administration, and more particularly a defender of the Attorney Generals who have served in that administration, instead of an assailant of them, the foes of the administration and of the Department of Justice would, in all likelihood, have shirked no scruples in charging the Department of Justice with laxity and neglect in its failure at least to investigate the senator.


[Illustration] from The Red Web by Blair Coan

THE RECORD OF SENATOR C.C. DILL, OF WASHINGTON, FILE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AT WASHINGTON. SECTION 113 OF THE PENAL CODE PROHIBITS A SENATOR FROM APPEARING FOR A CLIENT BEFORE A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND FIXES THE PENALTY AT FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.



Senator Norris, the Nebraska radical wearing the mantle of a Republican with pink decorations, was the author of Senate Resolution 175, in the Sixty-eighth Congress, directing the Secretary of the Interior to furnish a list of the names and records of ex-members of Congress and ex-members of presidential cabinets who had appeared before that department in opposition to the government and in the interests of clients. Inadvertently, it appears, the Secretary of the Interior included in his list the name of Senator Dill of Washington. Dill was a member of the Senate, not an ex-member. Norris did not send the Dill record back to the Department of the Interior, and there is no record that he presented it to his committee, and thereafter was rather notably silent on the questions covered by his resolution. Perhaps Mr. Norris will now explain.

Dill was elected to the Senate in November, 1922, as a Democrat, was known as a radical, and had the endorsement and support of the Conference for Progressive Political Action. The records of the Public Land Office show his appearance there in no less than six cases following his election to the Senate. He was not investigated, indicted or prosecuted. Had he been a Republican, supporting the Coolidge administration and defending the management of affairs in the Department of Justice, it is not at all improbable that the Wheeler-Brookhart-Ashurst committee would have leaped at the chance to charge the Department with "neglect or failure to prosecute" the senator from Washington. It does not seem likely, at this writing, that there will be any investigation or prosecution of Senator Dill, in whose case the statute of limitations if a crime has been committed, will have run in December, 1925. So I offer, purely as speculation upon my own part, the suggestion that the reason for this "failure and neglect" is due in all likelihood to a realization that Senator Dill's behavior was the result of his ignorance both as a lawyer and a statesman, rather than any felonious intent on his part to violate a federal statute. This further suggestion, however, may be added with some justice: If it was ignorance, then Senator Dill is out of place in the United States Senate, and is particularly out of place there as a critic and maligner of executive departments of the federal government.



What is Sauce for the Goose

It seem strange, but is none the less true, that when reds, pinks, yellows or professional reformers and purifiers of whatever shade run afoul the statutes, the first thing they do is strike an attitude of injured innocence, emit yowls about "persecution" and wail about the injustices of courts and the malevolence of prosecutors. It is what every socialist plotter, every I.W.W. rioter, every communist conspirator has done whenever the strong arm of the law has reached out, grabbed him, and hailed him before a legally constituted tribunal in whose presence his guilt or innocence may be determined by orderly procedure and according to the law and the evidence covering his case. One would gather from the line of argument they hand out and the character of reasoning they manifest, that they are people of a very distinct and sacred class to whom special privileges and advantages should be accorded not only by the enforcers of law but by the laws themselves.

The attitude of Senator Burton K. Wheeler of Montana, is simply a conspicuous case in point. With no feeling of consideration whatever in his own heart for the well known fact that an invalid wife, since deceased, of Attorney General Daugherty was suffering far more from the attacks upon her husband than did the Attorney General himself, Wheeler left no stone unturned and no avenue unentered in his determined endeavor to defame and besmirch Daugherty. But about the first words of complaint from Wheeler's lips, when the news was broadcast that he himself has been indicted on a criminal charge, were words of passionate recollection that for him to be charged with crime made his wife and children the innocent sufferers.

When Wheeler was indicted in the District of Columbia some months later, along with Edwin S. Booth, former solicitor of the General Land Office, and the recently convicted oil promoter, Gordon Campbell, on a charge of conspiracy to defraud the government out of millions of dollars worth of land acquired by fraudulent dummy permits, the howl about "persecution" was revived with even greater vigor than before. The indictment was obtained, after several careful investigations had been made at the direction of Attorney General Stone to make sure that there should be no ground upon which to rest a charge of "persecution."

Senator Thomas J. Walsh, counsel for Wheeler, made a spectacular fight on the floor of the United States Senate and in sessions of the Senate Committee on Judiciary to prevent the confirmation of President Coolidge's nomination of Attorney General Stone for a place on the Supreme Bench. The fight was waged around the charge that Attorney General Stone had caused the indictment of Wheeler in the District of Columbia, "many miles from his own home," and that this amounted to "persecution." Walsh sounded the rallying cry for a concerted restoration of life to the war upon the federal Department of Justice that had been waging throughout the administrations of that Department by Palmer and Daugherty, and carried on without interruption after the resignation of Daugherty and the installation of Stone as his successor.

That Albert B. Fall, Harry F. Sinclair and Edward L. Doheny had been indicted in the District of Columbia, "many miles from their homes," was nothing to touch the sympathetic heart and passionate soul of Senator Walsh, but that his protege, Wheeler, defender of reds, advocate and apologist for Red Russia and "cleanser" of the infamous energies for law enforcement in the Department of Justice, should be so indicted was "persecution" of the most indefensible character, in the opinion of Senator Walsh. But Walsh's "prosecution" of Attorney General Stone before the Senate Committee on Judiciary and his speeches on the floor of the Senate were mere incidents in as brazen a campaign of intimidation against Stone and the Department in the interests of an indicted man as may well be imagined. The efforts of Walsh and Wheeler, and others allied in sympathy with them in the enterprise of preventing a trial of the conspiracy case against Wheeler in the District of Columbia were many, varied, energetic, and in a number of instances barely short of vulnerability on the ground that they were contempt of court and of a tendency to obstruct the orderly processes of justice.

The fight upon Stone was a failure. There was not that support for it in the Senate that there had been for the fight on Daugherty, because administration senators had ceased to be quite so panic-stricken and quite so easily intimidated. So Stone's nomination for the Supreme Court appointment was confirmed. The war on the Department did not cease, however, by any means, and ever since the appointment of Attorney General Sargent as Mr. Stone's successor, it has been continued. Sargent has been maligned by Wheeler and his cohorts, and pressure of many sorts have been brought to bear in an effort to defeat the intention of the law-enforcing branch of the government to bring the case against Wheeler to a logical conclusion—either his conviction on the conspiracy charge against him, or an acquittal, as the case may be.

After the many delays of his case at Great Falls, Montana—delays for which Wheeler himself was responsible—the same came to trial. Perhaps the most material witness the government had had died. Wheeler's acquittal in the trial in Montana is accounted for because the indictment in that case failed to allege facts and acts necessary to justify a conviction, which are, however, fully covered in the Washington indictment. A verdict of not guilty was returned by the jury. Thereupon the newspapers carried a story playing up the supposed "fact," supplied to the correspondents by the Wheeler defense, that a verdict of "not guilty" was unanimously reached on the first ballot after the jury had deliberated only a few minutes. But this was not a fact at all. For the truth is, the jury deliberated upon the case for more than two hours, and the first ballot taken showed four of the jurors not voting for the acquittal of Wheeler.

Since the termination of that trial, there has been organized what is called the "Wheeler Defense Committee." This committee is like all similar committees, such as the Labor Defense Council, the General Defense Committee, the American Civil Liberties Union and the most recently organized of all these committees, known as the International Labor Defense Council. The last named, like the Labor Defense Council, was initiated by the communists, and it has taken over the machinery of the old Labor Defense Council. The Wheeler Defense Committee, like the rest of these committes, is an organization for propaganda, pure and simple, and the particular object of assault, as is the case with the others, is the law-enforcing department of the federal government.

The chairman of the Wheeler Defense Committee is Norman Hapgood, a noted radical, muckraker, professional uplifter and propagandist for Soviet Russia. Hapgood was named as minister to Denmark in the Wilson administration and resigned under fire—said fire reported as being charges of undue pro-Russian activity while representing the United States in Denmark. As this is written, Hapgood is in Europe writing special articles for consumption in the United States, telling how terrible it will be for this country if we do not recognize Soviet Russia and establish diplomatic relations with the bolsheviki, said recognition and relations being among the foremost hopes and desires of Senator Borah and the American pinks and of the communists in Russia and in the United States as well.

The vice chairman and chief publicity expert of the Wheeler Defense Committee is Basil Manly, director of the People's Legislative Service, one of the organizers and executive committeemen of the Conference for Progressive Political Action and a socialist writer and propagandist of many years standing.

Among the members of the so-called National Committee of this particular "defense committee" are Francis Fisher Kane, who took a hand in the attempts to "get" Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer and Mr. Palmer's successor in office, Attorney General Daugherty; Donald R. Richberg and Edward Keating, both ardent participants in the long war upon Daugherty; Sidney Hillman, of the extremely radical Amalgamated Clothing Workers; William H. Johnston, head of the International Association of Machinists, an outstanding leader in the railway strikes of 1922, and chairman of the National Conference for Progressive Political Action; Norman Thomas, well known New York socialist and red flag waver; Roger N. Baldwin, war "slacker" who did his bit in jail, director of the American Civil Liberties Union, and one of the most prominent agitators against the "persecution" of reds and defenders of reds, and a long list of other pro-soviet advocates, pinks and parlor bolsheviki.

The committee is engaged in the extensive circulation of propaganda in pamphlet and letter form, denouncing and defaming the Department of Justice and its present directing officials, and it is striving with might and main either to prevent the prosecution of the case against Wheeler, Booth and Campbell ever reaching the stage of trial in court before a jury, or to create an atmosphere of prejudice against the Department of Justice and in favor of the accused that it may operate to Wheeler's advantage and to the government's disadvantage when the case does come up for trial.

In justice to some of the individuals whose names appear upon the list of members of the "National Committee" of the Wheeler Defense Committee, it should be said that they have repudiated the committee, allege that the use of their names was without authority, and declare they do not subscribe either to the funds or the purposes of the committee.

The Labor Defense Council, which also engages in propaganda against enforcement of the law against reds and defenders or supporters of reds, was organized by specific direction of the communists through action taken by the Central Executive Committee of the Worker's Party. Among its members also were Roger N. Baldwin, of the Wheeler committee; John Haynes Holmes, also of the Wheeler committee; Francis Fisher Kane, of the Wheeler committee; Norman Thomas, of the Wheeler Committee; Eugene V. Debs, chairman of the National Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in its support of Wheeler for Vice President in 1924, together with such noted communists as "Big Bill" Dunne, who nominated Wheeler for governor of Montana in 1920 and campaigned for him for the Senate in 1922; William Z. Foster, C. E. Ruthenberg and Earl H. Browder.

Most of these individuals, particularly those of the deeper hues of red and pink, are associates and coworkers for about every committee that is ever organized under the camouflage of defending somebody against the heartless persecutions of the federal Department of Justice or of the law-enforcing officers of the country, states, as well as federal, but actually engaged in aiding and abetting radical causes and subversive movements of all kinds—movements that usually are of red origin or red suggestion, but which are more effective through pink execution.

Senator Walsh, of Montana; Senator Borah, of Idaho, and the sundry other leading lights of the Senate who rushed to the front for Wheeler when he was indicted, and charged "persecution" and "frame-up" when due process of law, with all its advantages to the accused, had been accorded Wheeler, were on the other side when lynch law was substituted for due process in the "indictment" and "prosecution" of the Attorney General of the United States. These gentlemen are not members of the Wheeler Defense Committee or any of these other defense committees, but they have feelings of partiality toward them. If actions speak as well as words, these distinguished senators were advocates of and participants in the practice of lynch law, when the Attorney General was on the defensive. But for Wheeler, even due process is too much for them, and they join him and encourage him and his red, pink and yellow admirers to fight on, and on, and on for the vindication of lawlessness enacted with senatorial approval, and for the conviction of the legally authorized law-enforcing branch of the American government—the federal Department of Justice.



What Are You Going To Do?

Of course, no attempt has been made by the writer of these pages to cover the entire story of the intrigues and purposes underlying the radical and pink alliances of the United States following the World War. The wealth of fact presented in this book is, after all, little more than a fragment of the truths to be found in the archives of the United States government. Many of these unrevealed facts are of a highly confidential character; others, although no longer secret, remain carefully obscured among the documents in the possession of the Borah sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations of the Sixty-eighth Congress.

  • Who represents Moscow, secretly but officially, in Washington?
  • Who represents the prospective concessionaires of the United States, unofficially and clandestinely, in Moscow?
  • Who in the United States are so interested in commercial concessions in Soviet Russia that they are putting up their share of the money that finances the persistent and unwavering propaganda to bring about American recognition of the bolsheviki and trade treaties with Moscow?

These are questions now under investigation. But, aside from the answers to them, much remains to be told, involving, however, purposes and personages subservient to war profiteering and the Wallingfords of international finance rather than those herein exposed. The story of these equally traitorous allies of the post-war assaults upon the American government is deserving of a volume unto itself.

Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg has very forcefully and truly said that the American government and the principles of the republican Constitution of the United States are being "assaulted" by "propagandists who advocate the overthrow of the government and the substitution of class tyranny" and by a "considerable body of our citizens who, in the name of liberty and reform, are impatient of the constitutional restrictions and by insidious approaches and attacks would destroy these guarantees of personal liberty."

"I doubt if you are aware," to quote Mr. Kellogg further, "of the amount of destructive revolutionary propaganda which is being secretly (and he might have added openly) distributed in this country by foreign influence. . . . There cannot rest on anyone a higher and more sacred duty than honestly and efficiently to serve his country and to preserve its ideals and institutions."

The same red hordes and the same pink phalanxes that were behind the attempts to destroy Attorney General Mitchell Palmer and Attorney General Daugherty, and that put the pressure of their combined weight behind the plot to demoralize the federal Department of Justice and besmirch the entire administration of the federal government, were the same hordes and phalanxes that strove, in the election of 1924, to make LaFollette President and Wheeler Vice-President, or, at least, to place them in a reinforced position of governmental control through dead-locking that election.

The men and women who have blossomed forth as members of the Wheeler Defense Committee, who occupy positions of influence in the Labor Defense Council, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Peoples' Legislative Service, the Congress for Progressive Political Action, the Plumb Plan League, the League for Industrial Democracy, and the almost innumerable other organizations of radicals, revolutionists, defenders of violence, promoters of class warfare and agitators for American recognition of socialist dictatorship in Russia and American acceptance of socialism in the conduct of government in this country—these are the elements who nominated LaFollette and Wheeler for the presidency and vice-presidency, and succeeded in mobilizing for them 5,000,000 votes in the 1924 election.

It is not important to go into the presidential campaign of 1924 in any detail, for it is fresh in public memory. But it is important to point out the hypocrisy of one particular gesture which was made in behalf of the candidates who sought to obtain power as a result of their campaign of political assassination and defamation. This was the gesture of LaFollette, by which he "repudiated" the communists on the ground that they were apostles of the overthrow of government by force and violence.

It has already been explained that, notwithstanding the differences that exist among elements of the revolutionary radical movement, the common objective is the destruction of republican government in the United States and the substitution therefore of socialist "democracy." It has been explained that the "Left Wing" revolutionists are primarily bent upon precipitation of violent revolution, but that they are supporters of any and all subversive movements which tend to demoralize government, weaken it, and make it easier for the accomplishment of the revolution they have in mind. It has been explained that the "Right Wing" revolutionists profess to abhor bloodshed and overthrow of government by violence, but that they are defenders of and apologists for "Left Wing" political principles, and are bent upon the accomplishment of the overthrow of republican government and capitalism with a fervor that is not a jot cooler than the hot ardor of the "Left Wing" reds who criticize their milder tactics.

The "Right Wing" revolutionists in the United States were unqualifiedly solid in their support of the LaFollette-Wheeler ticket in the campaign of 1924. Up to the moment of LaFollette's so-called "repudiation" of the communists, they too were a solid unit in support of the plan for a "united political front" for the nomination of LaFollette and Wheeler. Following the "repudiation," there was nothing left for the communists to do but go through the motions of retaliation, but it is not an unreasonable presumption that this, also, was a mere gesture, and that their desire for the election of LaFollette and Wheeler was not a whit lessened. The communist support, of course, was not because of any love for LaFollette, who was, in fact, always an object of contempt in the minds of the very red radicals. But for Wheeler they had a genuine and justified affection, and he was their man at all times, whether LaFollette was or not.

In the pre-convention campaign, the communists were whooping it up strong for LaFollette. The question, "Are we for LaFollette?" was answered by C. E. Ruthenberg, executive secretary of the Workers (Communist) Party, as follows:

"Should that come about (LaFollette's nomination by a farmer-labor party), as it seems very likely, then we will unquestionably suport LaFollette in the election campaigns along with the masses of workers and farmers who are behind the farmer-labor party movement."

The Liberator, a monthly radical journal, the name of which has been changed now to the Workers' Monthly, and which is the official organ of the communist organization, had among its editors in the fall of 1923 Eugene V. Debs, who became national chairman of the Socialist Party in the campaign for LaFollette and Wheeler, and other red radicals, of both the "Left Wing" and the "Right Wing" of the revolutionary movement. In September, 1923, issue of that journal, John Pepper, alias Pogany, alias Lang, sent to the United States by the Comintern of Moscow, and coming direct from Hungary where he had helped put Bela Kun into power, wrote of what he termed "the LaFollette revolution":

"It will be a revolution of the well-to-do farmers, small business men and workers; it will come through rebellion within the old parties, third parties and farmer-labor parties."

"After the victory of the LaFollette revolution there will begin the independent role of the workers and farmers and there will then begin the period of the fourth American revolution—the period of the proletarian revolution."

So that, although the communists were not deluded into the belief that the "LaFollette revolution" was to be their revolution, they were confident that it was a necessary preliminary to whatever hopes they were justified in having for the accomplishment of their "proletarian revolution."

The LaFollette and Wheeler campaign was waged on a platform paralleling in a number of important respects the platform of the communist program, as has already been pointed out. And the red revolutionists hoped for and worked for the success of the LaFollette-Wheeler campaign because they saw in it, precisely what there was in it, the preliminary skirmishes of a revolution to overthrow American capitalism, bolshevize American industry and do away with the republican form of government provided for in the American Constitution.

The Communists may have been "repudiated" by LaFollette but they were never "repudiated" by Wheeler, and the communist press, as well as all other sections of the radical and so-called "liberal" press, continues to bestow praises upon him and hurl epithets at the federal government for its "persecution" of their hero who now is striving so energetically to escape the law by posing as a martyr before it.

There is no let-up in the clamor of the reds and the pinks for the recognition of Soviet Russia by the United States and the establishment of diplomatic and trade relations between the countries. The communists have been working for it, above everything else, from the time the proposal was first made officially in the United Senate by the Borah resolution. Senator Borah has been indefatigable in his loyalty to this resolution, and in the next session of the Senate he is almost certain to renew the demand and the agitation for its passage by the Senate. The Idaho Senator has the solid support of every communist, every socialist, every disciple of Senator LaFollette and every follower of Senator Wheeler. The demand for American recognition and friendship to bolster up the losing game of the red dictators of Soviet Russia has not diminished an iota, and this notwithstanding the fact that every other nation in the world that has granted such recognition has either been gobbled up by the forces of red radicalism or has survived to regret the hour the bloody hands of the Moscow oligarchs were clasped.

The government of Mexico has become so infested with bolshevism and so subservient to the desires and program of Soviet Russia, that the United States government has been obliged to administer, in words of strong import, a warning to President Calles which that distinguished radical resented and replied to in arrogant tones. The whole of Latin-America is being overrun with bolshevik agitators, crying aloud against the United States and using every means to stir up trouble between this country and the countries to the south which, but for the United States, would a long time ago have been gobbled up by European imperialists. One of the effects of this red agitation in Central and South America is a very noticeable falling off in the trade of American exporters with the importers of Latin-American republics.

England, becoming too intimate with Red Russia, has been forced to back up on its policy of intimacy, and the British government is being constantly bedeviled at home with "general strikes" and violence, while in the colonies the bolsheviks have kept constantly at work sowing the seeds of revolution. France and Poland have had their fill of Soviet influence. Japan is awakening to the error of her recognition of Russia and to the peril of getting the worst of it in the intrigues of the Far East, and the chaos and revolution and seeds of international war now fertilizing in China present problems to the civilized world that may prove the test of the very stability of civilization itself.

In the pages of this book there has been told something of the ramifications of red radicalism, much of the affiliations the American pink radicals have had with it, and the underground history of the conspiracy to demoralize and destroy the law-enforcing arm of the American government.

It was said at the outset, that as a menace to the country red radicalism is less potent than pink radicalism. And this is true. The United States government, under its constitution, is peculiarly fortified against red radicalism. But when pink radicalism gets the reins, and exercises its power, as it did in the days of the Sixty-eighth Congress, when LaFollette and Wheeler and Brookhart seized control and transformed the United States Senate into a lawless ally of every subversive movement in the country, the fortifications against actual revolution face the peril of destruction; and mob law and lynch law look up with hope and gloating eagerness to the reign that leads to revolution and the end of government by law and order and justice.

The deaths of Senators LaFollette and Ladd should not be noted by their foes as events tending to signify the end of the radicalism these two senators personified. To say that either of them was in himself vital to the success or progress of such a movement is to misjudge the cohesiveness of the elements that supported the third party campaign of 1924. Who should know this better, who should be a better judge of this than Senator Borah?

"I think Senator LaFollette's death was a great loss to the country," said the Idaho Senator on July 4, 1925, at Spokane, Wash., when interviewed by the Spokane Daily Chronicle. "But I disagree with those who seem to think his death will have any particular bearing on a third party movement. He was a very forceful figure in political parties. If they are political parties, they do not rise or fall in this country because of one man. The third party movement depends entirely upon economic conditions as they develop in this country."

The opinion expressed by Borah is well-grounded. He would have been preferable as the radical standard bearer in 1924, had he and not LaFollette commanded the strategic nuclei of political organization, and if he can "serve the cause" to better advantage by retaining the Republican mantle upon his renegade shoulders, it is not fantastic prophecy to predict his ascendency to the throne and crown which are LaFollette's legacy to the pinks and reds of the country.

The pinks play the game of the reds at every stage, yet professing to be uplifters of the most idealistic sort. Not long ago Senator Thomas J. Walsh was in Wisconsin to make a speech. He stirred a crowd of Wisconsin radicals to great enthusiasm by his denunciations of the government, by his repetition of the oft-heard cry of corruption and rottenness in the conduct of the government.

Are these things true? Does Walsh utter the truth? If he does, the red radicals are perfectly right in their revolt against government, and they are perfectly justified in organizing for the purpose of overturning the government and setting up one of their own, and it is the thinnest kind of hypocrisy for pink politicians to remain aloof from open and outspoken alliance with the most radical of the communist organizations in the country. The pinks and the reds are at one in the charges they make against the existing government, and if these charges are true the pinks and the reds should get together unequivocally and put an end to this wickedness at one fell swoop.

But the charges are not true. The rantings of men like Walsh, Borah, LaFollette, Wheeler, and that great line-up of lesser luminaries whose names appear in the cast of characters of this book, are but the maunderings of inferior men with super-yearnings for the political power that is possible to them only with the help of the red fringe in politics. But these men and their rantings and charges are dangerous to ordered government, for without them and their following the more extremely radical elements are but a puny minority all dressed up, but with no place to go. It is history, that over the bodies of men like LaFollette, Borah, Wheeler and Walsh, whose tongues stir mobs and kindle hatreds, the Dantons, the Robespierres, the Lenins and the Zinovievs ride roughshod to power.

Bolshevism is a mental disorder. It is as far wrong on the one side as autocracy is on the other. So tyranny and bolshevism are kindred diseases. The pendulum swing towards bolshevism inevitably meets tyranny. They are twin brothers, so much alike that, with France in the 18th century and Russia in the 20th as examples, they are indistinguishable. A hundred and fifty years ago the people of the United States were beset by tyranny; they answered it by the Boston Tea Party. If I am not mistaken they will meet tyranny's twin brother—bolshevism—in kindred fashion.

If it is the desire of the American people to repudiate bolshevism, render impotent the subversive and destructive elements which seek to substitute socialism for republicanism, and if it is their desire that government shall continue to function according to law and the Constitution, it is within their power to fulfill that desire entirely and emphatically. But it can't be done sitting calmly, or even disgustedly, at home on election day. The United States government ceases to be government by the people when the people do not exercise their right of suffrage. The kind of government—red, pink or red-white-and-blue—we shall have in this country henceforth is a matter entirely up to those who are qualified to vote and who do so.

What'll you do? It's up to you. You can vote red radicalism in or out—or do nothing. It's your country.