« PreviousContinue »
[ have read the platform of the St. Louis convention. I remember the soled demands, about resistance to compulsory Military Training and Conscripn, and Life and Liberty, repudiation of all war debts. I have read that, d remember it. I can't say yes or no whether I believe that ought to get culation in the mail. I am opposed to the conscription of labor; I think at is meant by the reference there to war debts is that the debt ought to placed fairly. As to the quotation you read from the American Socialist of July 21st out buying real liberty bonds, not the banker's kind, they bind you to the iriot wheels, send a dime for 100 leaflets of the Socialist Party, I believe if
statute forbids that it should not be put in, and I believe that every one puld have bought Liberty bonds and I so stated and I bought all that I
could afford to buy. 59 I think I first met Mr. Stedman the day before my appearance before
Judge Herron, my recollection is at the Shoreham Hotel; could not say w long I was in conference at that time; approximately an hour or two. le next time was that morning or the following morning, and I think I k dinner with Mr. Stedman at the hotel that evening. At the first meeting d at no time was a file of the American Socialist from April 6th down til July 12th before me; I never saw any particular issues; I don't know iether or not I saw the pamphlets; don't know whether they were before 2 at the second conference; I don't recall any papers being in Judge Herron's
Everybody knew the general situation and what had been said in ese papers and what they were claiming the right to say. There were just eeches, argument, before Judge Herron; I saw no files there, we all seemed agree, there was no dispute as to what was published in the paper. I don't call that the file of the American Socialist was there; don't recall that e pamphlets were there or at our conference; I don't recall that the file of e American Socialist was before Mr. Burleson at the time of our conference ere. The conference before Judge Herron started at 10 o'clock and lasted til 12:30, and that time was taken up by speeches, discussion, arguments, lating to all of these radical or liberal publications which were protesting
against what they called unfair treatment. The conference before Mr. 60 Burleson was not short, it lasted until they lit the lights, as I recall it;
we started at two o'clock and got through in pretty deep twilight, if I member; I think the lights were lit.A great deal of the time was conmed by Mr. Burleson; I don't recall that papers were read in that conction, or excerpts from the papers, nor pamphlets nor excerpts from them. hey were not there, or not there that I remember. The advertisement in the issue of June 9th of the American Socialist, to which vu call my attention, of a war picture “The Realities of War,” if I underand the law, is not excluded by it; I don't think a paper ought to be denied e use of the mails for publicity at any time; I don't think, if you are asking e, that it was any violation of the Espionage Act. I believe the mails ought
be extended; it is not in violation of the law in my opinion; others might ffer with me. I went there on that occasion originally on behalf of Thomas
Hickey, owner and editor of The Rebel; my addresses were no confined to Idresses on behalf of The Rebel, Mr. Engdahl called upon me in person; e met and he stated his case to me and asked if we all together would repsent all of them; that was before this hearing, so I think my first conversation ith Mr. Stedman was on the morning before the hearing, that being the conferyoung man to know and very true. It would not inspire a young man i go and register, but there are other things in that that might inspire him if h felt like I did about fighting real hard while he was in there and then doing some other fighting.
ence at the Shoreham Hotel ; I am not so sure about Mr. Engdahl being 161 present there. I couldn't tell you when Mr. Engdahl appeared on the
scene, but I met him before the hearing and had quite a talk with him; 2 may have have taken dinner or lunch there at the hotel ; I have a recollection
his request that we all represent the parties all together. His request was lat we should all pool our interests and go in jointly, what we said applied all of these papers mentioned there that were having difficulty there. I tink I did read the papers at times; I did not read them in detail, any particular nes, before presenting my argument before Judge Lamar and Judge Herron. I have read the article shown in Goverment's Exhibit 51, “ Come, Ye Slaves.” did not say that if it appeared in the American Socialist it ought to be enied the use of the mails. Under the law, I would not like to express iyself. I would not deny it the use of the mails, if you are asking my peronal opinion. If a young man read that and believed it, it would not be ispirational about registering for service in this war. Of course, there are ther things that could be gathered from that that are very necessary for every
Redirect Examination by Mr. Stedman.
I don't recall a controversy before Judge Herron over an article and his pickin up a British authority on sedition; there may have been some papers there bei that did not impress itself upon my mind. The whole file might have been there and I not recollect it. I was not hired as a lawyer for this servis there; my services were absolutely gratuitous, at the time I thought I w performing a public duty. I am not a member of the Socialist party, and not a Socialist ; I am an anti-Socialist.
1063 GEORGE HEMPEL resumed the stand :
The Executive Committee of Milwaukee County recommended to the County Central Committee which is composed of delegates, which in return report back t their branches, the following: That all members absolutely live up to the letter of the law. The recommendation was adopted by the County Centre Committee unanimously. Mr. Berger was on the Committee that met the far yers that made that recommendation. The recommendation had Mr. Berger's approval. With reference to the action of elected Socialist Officials toward any demand made by the Government or any law or rules or orders with reint ence to the prosecution of the war. Mayor Hoan appeared before the Committe in latter part of August or September asking an expression as to what Socialist officials should do about obeying the draft law and war laws. The matter we taken up and discussed and it was the sense of the County Central Committe that every Socialist Official must abide by all laws, all orders and all requests made by the Government with reference to the prosecution of the war. This was concurred in unanimously by that body and Mr. Berger was present at that time, but not a member of that body. That meeting was the latter part August or the first part of September. Mayor Hoan is the Socialist Mayor Milwaukee. I was in the Mayor's office and the proposition of the order was before him in reference to enforcing the draft act. Hoan said he was gois.
over to see Mr. Berger, we both went to Mr. Berger's office, that was to 1064 April of 1917. Hoan said the order has come through requesting the
mayors of cities of 30,000 or over to appoint the draft boards. Now, what in your opinion as a Socialist should be my attitude. Mr. Berger asked Mr. Hoan whether that was the law and Mr. Hoan said it was an order from General Crowder. “Well," he said, “If that is the case you will have to obesto abide by the law.” The draft boards were appointed by Mayor Hoan, one third of those appointed are Socialists. The Socialists on Registration Board accepted no compensation for their services. The Executive Board delegated Mr. Malms, the County Organizer to have charge of the entire activities of the Chautauqua held at Pabst Park, 1917. Mr. Berger had nothing to do with the Chautauqua organization. I was treasurer of that Committee.
Recross Examination by Mr. Fleming. I am a member of the Executive Board of the Socialist Party of Milwat kee whose headquarters is at Brisbane Hall, Room 214. Mr. Louis Arnold and Victor Berger have private offices. I have been a member of that Committee for three years. We took up the question of what attitude the Socialists in Mi waukee should take with reference to conscription before registration, at the
time the proposition was up before Congress we were discussing whether 1065 or not the draft law was Constitutional. Our purpose in discussion
the draft law was to determine our rights; there was considerable opinion at that time that it was not constitutional Our efforts to determine whether the draft law was constitutional or not had nothing to do with the questis of whether we would comply with it or not.
Mr. Pearce of Janesville, came to Milwaukee in June or July after the care scription Law had gone into effect, and registration day had passed for 13 opinion on the constitutionality of the Conscription Law.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Cochems.
do not know how long it takes a case in the usual course from the time or ictment to its final determination in the Supreme Court of the United States. made our recommendation later without waiting for the disposition of any es pending in the Supreme Court as suggested by lawyers whom we con
Our knowledge of the Ruthenberg case was merely from the standpoint t it was going to decide the constitutionality of the draft law. The Hannis llor opinion was the one that was really the basis of our calling this meeting. • Hannis Taylor statements in the newspapers created considerable discusI as to the constitutionality of the act.
Recro88 Examination by Mr. Fleming.
never held a political office in my life. I was appointed by the Mayor as n Censor.
Recro88: Examination by Mr. Cochems.
here is no salary connected with my position as Film Censor. I was elected inty Clerk of Milwaukee County at the last election and I take my position uary 6, 1919.
J. LOUIS ENGDAHL:
Direct Examination (Continued).
a reference to our application for the reestablishment of the second class lling privilege as I understood, the second class mailing privilege was withwn because the continuity of the publication had been interrupted, that is, tan issue had not been mailed out to the subscribers. A periodical must be lished and placed in the mail every week or every month or every day acding to the terms of its entry. All of the subscribers practically had rered their papers and after it had been sent to the subscribers, they (the tofficial officials) held sometime afterward that it was not mailable; that š the issue of June 30th. And then by holding that it was non-mailable, y ruled that the continuity of the paper had been destroyed, that is, there s a week that had not been filled and that that destroyed the mailing privilege. w as to the application for second class mailing privilege on the advice of
O'Malley, superintendent of second class mail in Chicago, I made another | new application for second class mailing privilege. We got out the next le of the paper, filed a copy with Mr. O'Malley, without application, which he 1 he would forward immediately to Washington, hoping to get a ruling in a y few days. He sent the application and a copy of our papers to Washing
ton, but we have never received a reply up to the present time. After 8 that we sent the paper out part by express and part by parcel post, the
postoffice holding that each issue of the paper was to be judged on the tents of each new issue as it came out, and the postoffice making no ruling to the use of the express as transmission of the paper to its subscribers. leferring to the Liberty Bond ad in the Saturday edition of July 21, 1917, e 2 that was the. issue of the American Socialist which was gotten out ing my visit to Washington by Mr. Tucker. I had nothing to do with the erting of that ad. I might explain that when the June 30th issue was debed in the postoffice I ordered quite a number of ads destroyed because I ught they would be objectionable, or at least, I thought they were, among m was this Liberty Bond ad, which had not been destroyed and when I was Washington Tucker put it in the paper. Mr. O'Malley, the superintendent second class mail, did not notice anything objectionable about it when he t went over the proof, but later on, as Mr. Tucker states to me Mr. O'Malley led up and asked him (Tucker) about the ad. He said there might be someng objectionable about it, and so Mr. Tucker under instructions from Mr. falley, eliminated part of the ad from the paper by chiseling off the plate. very few issues of that paper were published containing the ad in full.
Nearly the entire edition went out as the ad was censored by Mr. 9 O'Malley
of the second class department. What he (O'Malley) wanted cut out was cut out. A few of the issues published in full got into the ils. All that we could get ahold of were destroyed. A few might have gotten into the files and I suppose that is where the Government got its copies. The bond ad appeared in no other edition following June 30. On our first visit to the postoffice Saturday, June 30th, I heard that the Socialist Party bullets entitled " The Price We Pay" had been held up by the postoffice. As soon as I heard that I took it out of both the American Socialist and the Socialist Party Bulletin. The American Socialist was on the press at that time, and we stopped the press and chiseled the ad out of the paper. The June issue of the Socialist Party Bulletin was being printed at that time, and we stopped the publication of it and chiseled the ad out of that, that was Saturday, June 30th, before I went to Washington and several weeks before the decision of Juda Rose. The leaet “ The Price We pay” was discussed at a session of the Executive Committee. Morris Hilquit said that the leaflets should not have been issued until it had been taken up with the Executive Committee. He thought it should be changed in several places to be made more effective and much less objectionable. Berger held similar views, took the same position as Hilquit:
that was a July meeting and it came up again at a meeting in September. 1070 None of the attorneys, Walsh, Darrow, Hilquit, Stedman or anyone who
saw it advised me that in their opinion it was a violation of the Espionage Law. The liberty edition of June 30th was held up and I sent a circular letter with a copy of the paper, to all the members of Congress, both the Senate and the House of Representatives, calling the paper to their attentioa and asking them to kindly read it, and to state whether or not it was a violation of what they considered to be an interpretaion of the law. I received numerous answers. Many of their secretaries wrote and said that they (Senators and Representatives) were out of town. I have only six here.
Whereupon counsel for defendants read into evidence copy of letter referred to from Scrap Book A page 128, under date of July 7th concerning the liberty edition, the other letter referring to July 7th edition on page 128.
The Witness: Here is a reply from C. D. Dillion Member of the House of Representatives, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
Here is a letter from William E. Borah, U. S. Senator from Idaho.
Here is a letter from Mr. B. C. Hillyer, Member of the House of Representatives First District of Colorado.
Here is another letter from C. C. Dill, Representative from the Fifth Dis trict, State of Washington.
Here is one from A. G. Gronna Senator from North Dakota. This 1071 is in response to a letter I sent out concerning the withdrawal of our
second class mailing privilege. Here is another letter from B. C. Hilliard under date of July 14, 1917.
(Which said letters above mentioned are in words and figures as follows, to wit:) 1072
Chicago, Illinois, July 5, 1917. Dear Sir: Every member of Congress is vitally interested in maintaining the constitutional rights of a free press, even in the present crisis brought on by this world-wide war.
I am therefore sending you a copy of the Liberty Edition of The American Socialist, June 30th, which has been held up by the post office until it can be passed on by Mr. W. H. Lamar, Solicitor for the Post Office Department in Washington, D. C.
I am interested in knowing whether you think this issue should be usmailable under the Act of Congress adopted June 15, 1917, commonly knows as the Espionage Act.
Will you kindly look over this issue, and let me know immediately what your attitude is on this matter.
Yours very truly,
J. L. ENGDAHL, Editor,
The American Socialist.
Chicago, Illinois, Dear Sir: I am enclosing samples of the July 7 issue of The American Socialist, shor ing the evolution necessary in order to get this paper past the censorship, and through the mails in Chicago.
Exhibit number 1 is the way the paper was originally made up, and page proofs submitted to the authorities in the Chicago post office.
"We will have to send these proofs to Washington for an opinion,” wasi e reply received after the post office officials had gone over the provis. It was felt that this would be fatal to even this two page issue. Once the pofs had departed for Washington, it was felt that after weeks the adverse inion would come back with its verdict, “ unmailable." We finally gained permission to submit a second set of proofs to the post ice censorship. We did this after killing everything in "Exhibit 1” to be und after the reproduction of the law, with the exception of the sentence: " This issue of The American Socialist is confined to a bare recital of these
facts, in order to insure that it may reach its readers." 74 Please note that the censorship even denied us the right to state that
we had any rights under the constitution, paragraph 2, column, 2, as llows: “The American Socialist feels, therefore, that it is within the law when it es everything legally within its power to maintain its rights under the nstitution.” After the first revision, the result is shown in " Exhibit 2," which was again bmitted in proofs to the post office censorship. The censorship did not like the last sentence quoted above, and so it was -written, and another paragraph added. The censorship also objected to the line on page 2 in the 5th paragraph of Our Birthday article, reading: “Now in grave danger of oppression." le were told to fill in the empty columns. This resulted in the final issue, “Exhibit 3,” which was 0. K.'ed by the nsorship, and which went out as the July 7th issue of The American »cialist. Do you think that this kind of censorship tends to perpetuate our free merican institutions? Does it not seem as if some of our officials were getng a little bit pro-foreign in some of their methods? I should like very much get your view. Would it be too much to ask you for your opinion in this
Yours very truly,
J. L, ENGDAHL, Editor,
The American Socialist. House of Representatives, U. S.
Washington, D. C., July 9, 1917. r. J. L. Engdahl, Editor, 803 West Madison Street,
Chicago, Illinois. y dear sir: I have your letter of July 5th. In reply will say that I was one of those ho voted against the Espionage bill. The constitution guarantees the freeom of the press and free speech. Hastily glancing over your page, I fail to e wherein there is any violation of the law. Upon free thought and free peech rests the safety of our government.
C. H, DILLON. 077
United States Senate.
Washington, D. C. July 9, 1917. ly dear Mr. Editor: Replying to your letter of the 5th, will say that I addressed a letter some ays ago to the Post Master General, to ascertain his reasons for excluding our paper, and a number of others, from the mails. I have not yet had an nswer.
I am waiting an answer before concluding myself as to what I can 0, or what I should do. I want to say, however, that I am utterly opposed
this attempted censorship and suppression of the press. Of course, it is he duty of all Americans at this time to obey all laws as long as they are iws, but every man has a right, and it will be a sorry day for this country Then he has not that right, to express his opinion upon the policies of his overnment, and upon the wisdom or unwisdom of any acts of legislation. Vithout freedom of opinion, there can be no free republic. Very respectfully,
WM. E. BOBAH.