published August 20, 1916, I have here, and which cartoon I had seen prior seeing the picture. (Said cartoon marked Defendant's Exhibit 49). (Cour reads to the jury the poem appearing in the same publication as said carto entitled "The Munition Maker's Daughter"). 1436 Witness continuing: I made certain subdivisions of "The Price We Pay; the first dealt with conscription; the second with the picture "The Battle of the Somme;" and in the third I refer to the high price of food. I based that on a study of the ordinary grocery bill; it required ne research. Section 4 is in regard to food. It reads: "The Attorney General United States is so busy sending to prison men who do not stand up he Star Spangled Banner is played that he has no time to protect the oply from gamblers." I have here a clipping from the Chicago Tribune 1 28, 1917. The clipping is "300,000,000 Pounds of Food in Cold Storce." This paper was issued when there was a talk of food shortage. acts were laid before a representative of the body that was deliberating ge of the food situation and food speculation, and Attorney General I said "There is no doubt in the world as to the cause of the high food We laid the matter before the Attorney General and his remark was 't care a damn if they do rob the people." The attorney general is 1 as having said that on the day on which I wrote "The Price We Mr. Burns is reported as having said that Gregory said that, on the sat down to write "The Price We Pay," that appeared in The Tribune 1 like to explain also that was also the time when there was a great rrests and a great deal of criticism about people not standing up when r Spangled Banner was played. I always do that myself, but I was bjecting to anybody being sent to jail for not doing it. My opinion at hat time was that it would have been more serviceable to the people and to the war to have prosecuted these food pirates, which has not yet ndertaken by the attorney general. In point No. 1, the only thing we about conscription then was that it was a cheap imitation of Prussian s, and I objected to that. In point 4, about venereal diseases, the official made by Surgeon M. J. Exner, who was employed to investigate condin the army camps along the Mexican border, I gave to Mr. Stedman; 1 produce it tomorrow morning, I am not sure it is here now. It was ed to the jury, but not introduced in evidence. I have and would call attention to a single sentence: One of eat nations lost more men through immoral diseases than on the line during the first 18 months of the war." (The report of M. J. Exmer arked Defendants' Exhibit 50). re 66 erpts from said report were introduced in evidence as Defendant's ExNo. 50 in words and figures as follows: DEFT. EXHIBIT No. 50 Excerpts from Exmer's Report is a matter of history that prostitution follows the army. In all the ean armies at the present time, vice and its consequences constitute one è most serious of army problems. In some of these armies, the wastage venereal disease has been frightful. The reliable facts at hand show g the first eighteen months of the war one of the great powers had men incapacited from service by venereal disease contracted in the mobon camps than in all the fighting at the front. From the standpoint of military strength and efficiency, such a waste is serious." Witness continuing: This report is practically all confined to conditions as found by Dr. Exmer on the Mexican border, to which reference is in paragraph 4, which is terrible reading, not offensive in nature, but an astounding condition. On page 8 it says that the most execrable sitns with reference to prostitution was found in reference to the troops in ro. Many of the men were resentful because of the low order of women ded, and one of them said "It is an insult to the troops." The rest I do are to read, dealing with the fact that the officers had different arranges for themselves. The pamphlet proceeds to point out that this is the price we pay, homes of the world are being destroyed, which would have been saved by Socialism. My intent in writing this was not particularly in relation to enlistment or volunteering for the service, but to call attention to the fact that the ancient lie that is leveled against Socialism that s destroying the homes, becomes ridiculous when confronted with the fact as this, supported by an eminent medical authority, proving that the g we are trying to end is the thing that destroys the home, namely, it is That is the substance of this paragraph; it is war that destroys the e and Socialism would destroy the war and, therefore, save the home. In words, this whole argument is for Socialism and not particularly against army. That was the whole thought in my mind. The intention of paragraph 5 of the pamphlet, about the war being caused by the kaiser, was to call attention to the fact that wars had exis before there were any kaisers, and would continue after the kaiser was hu unless the causes of war are removed; that the kaiser was a symptom i not a cause. That commercialism was the cause of the war, and soon as guns are stilled commercial forces will prepare for the next bloody struge® over routes and ports and rights, coal mines and railroads. For these are th essence of this as well as all wars. That was freely in my mind at the time I wrote that because of a book "Why War" by Frederick G. Howe, Co missioner of Immigration at the port of New York. I know him per 1441 sonally and dined with him the day before I left New York. He s he was a friend of President Wilson, and he was also a protege of Jar Garfield. The point of this book was that this struggle is essentially a quarr over the control of the trade routes of the world. I have here a clipping from the Chicago Tribune, written by Col. Henry Reilly, dated June 28, 1917. I also have a quotation from Major General Le ard Wood and one from Admiral Chadwick, the former delivered an address just before the preparedness parade in New York City, which was in May, 1916 I have a clipping of this remark of Major General Wood taken from the Ne York Times and I published it in the Christian Socialist, October 4, 1915 He said in his address that the army exists to get you out of the trouble that you get us into. It is business that brings on war; it is the struggle for trade routes; it is international competition that causes all conflicts. I also had quotation from Rear Admiral Chadwick in an address delivered in December 1915, in which he said that Imperialism has had its worst and most injurious development in recent years, its essence being land grabbing. Navies and armies are the insurance for capital owned abroad by the leisure class of a nation: that it is for them that empires and spheres of influence exist; that the great war now raging is the culmination of efforts to maintain and extend thes spheres; the time has come to call a halt. 1442 I also had an address delivered by President Wilson in Milwauke during January of 1916, in which he said that this government of the people and for the people is not going to choose war. And in June, 1915, he said that he was not the servant of those who wish to enhance the value of their Mexican investments, but of the rank and file of the American people. In his Milwaukee speech he said he had reason to believe that these raids upon American soil are caused from this side of the border, in order to compel intervention in the interests of foreign capital. A little further down in paragraph 5 I mention the rights of small nations. I had historical facts before me in writing that, concerning the early history of Ireland. I had in mind that the soldiers in sailing across the sea to save Belgium, the first nation they sight is Ireland, and every attempt to set Ireland free has been met with machine guns and tanks of the democratic British government. What was in my mind was that if England was going to war to set small nations free, she could very easily do it without shedding any blood, start in with Ireland to show Germany how to do it. I had also talked to one of Hoover's assistants in Belgium, and he told me he had been in the Province of Luxemberg and that the atrocities were terrible for two or three months, but since then had not been much worse than the Rockefeller atrocities in Colorado. I had in mind that the atrocities in Belgium were not as bad as the atrocities in Ireland. 1443 Coming down to paragraph 6 is where I begin the constructive portion of "The Price We Pay." It says, correcting the misprint, "We are beholding the spectacle of whole nations working as one person for the accom plishment of a single end, namely, killing." What was in my mind was an article in the North American Review by John D. Harvey, which had stated "The Supreme end of this war is to kill Germans, kill Germans, kill Germans." The rest of the article calls attention to the price we pay because the people would not listen to our warnings when we urged to cooperate for the saving of life, and concludes with an apostrophe to the agony, the death, the blood. the price of your stupidity. As to paragraph 7, the book "Why War" had made a deep impression on me, and in particular I had before me a copy of a resolution adopted by the Chicago Federation of Labor and sent to the President, under date of March 2 1917, taken from the official bulletin dated May 20, 1917. The telegram dated March 28th says that the common people do not want war. If we stay out and t our own rights and refuse to be guarantors of the aims of belligerents or bonds held by American bankers, we believe peace negotiations will come July. American Federation of Labor held a convention in Washington just to the declaration of war, in which it adopted a similar position, on March 17, 1917, and lengthy resolutions were adopted, which I saw in the week following March 17th. I also saw President Gompers and asked him about this and he said it was good stuff. The paragraph that I articularly impressed by stated that the way to avert war is to establish uctive agencies for justice in times of peace, that war has never put an o the necessity of struggling to establish and maintain industrial rights. earners in war times must keep one eye on the exploiters at home and her upon the enemy threatening the National Government; that whatever -sult of wars the wage earners generally lost. eard the testimony of Dean Lovett on the stand here concerning a meeting in the auditorium on May 27, 1917. I was chairman of the organization à called it, and was present at that meeting. His speech was shown me o occasions prior to its delivery, and I told him that I agreed with the ments therein set out as being the object and purpose for which the meetwas called. I have heard that speech read here before the jury while he on the stand, and it was the speech that Dean Lovett delivered at that and the same as the document which was shown to me as being the h he was about to deliver. I made a very brief talk at that meeting. This ypewritten copy of my remarks; it is to the effect that the amendment to constitution of the United States guarantees that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people to freely assemble or petition the government for a redress of grievances; that we were meetn response to an invitation by President Wilson in his war speech of April a which he invited the people at all times to insist upon full information gard to all of the government's affairs, and that the object of the meeting to accept the invitation and insist upon full information in regard to our rnment's affairs and as to just what were its aims in entering into this That was all I said at that time except a brief reference to taking up a ction. The president's speech referred to was delivered to a joint session he two houses of Congress. he next meeting I remember speaking at was June 17th at Riverview Park er the auspices of the Socialist party of Cook County. The main portion of speech was taken up with repeating an interview I had on the day before President Jordan of Leland Stanford University, who had told me of a heon speech to bankers in New York. In my speech I referred to my consation with President Jordan, and that the substance of his conversation that he had been in Wall Street, lunching with a number of bankers, and told him that just before the war broke out the bonds of the Russian -ernment had gone down to fifty per cent; Servian bonds to twenty cents the dollar, and that British and French Government bonds purchased or held by Morgan & Co. had gone down from 98% to 91%, and that on the day 6 following, that is on April 1, 1917, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York City had given out an interview in the New York bune, in which he said "We must now go to war in order to protect Ameriinvestments in Europe." I also repeated that President Jordan had said t at the luncheon mentioned several of the eminent bankers told him that Liberty bonds were the softest thing Wall Street had ever struck, that y are untaxable, have the credit of the government back of them and Wall rect is plunging on Liberty Bond. When I quoted President Jordan I said at I did not want to be misunderstood, those were not my words, but the rds of an eminent college president. That was the substance of my speech. On the afternoon of June 14th I wrote an article entitled "The Flag Day eech." I had been looking forward with much interest to the adveritsed advance Flag Day Speech which was to be delivered by President Wilson at lington Cemetery on the anniversary of Flag Day. The speech was pubhed by the afternoon papers of that day and I got a copy of the Chicago ily Journal which had that speech in full, in the issue of June 14th. I read it that day and went to my office and wrote my view of that speech on my pewriter and gave that to Mr. Engdahl the same afternoon, to use if he ed it, if not I said to throw it in the waste baskt. I never said at that time to anybody in the offices, "Here is where I get hell from the Federal author ities." I heard Mr. Schiller testify; I did not use language of any ki 1447 in his presence or hearing concerning my reply to the flag day speec The only defendant present in the room, so far as I remember, while was writing my speech was Mr. Kruse, who was dictating letters in the sarroom. I did not discuss the matter with him. This was the time when I had t desk there. I did not see Adolph Germer at that time or talk with him abor my reply. I did not talk with anybody about my reply to the Flag Day Speech simply gave it to Mr. Engdahl and said if he liked it to use it, if not to throw it in the waste basket, and my recollection is he replied that he would probabi throw it in the waste basket. I wrote "Why You Should Fight" on May 29, 1917. I read in the newspaper about seven persons being arrested in an alleged riot at Grant Park as a result of the Auditorium Meeting of May 27th, and being taken to Mr. Clabaugh's office, and I knew there had been no riot and that it was purely a newspap invention, and that was the occasion for writing that pamphlet. I was on the inside at that meeting, where all was peaceful. There was no riot on the outside, except in the imagination of the newspaper men. I called at Mr. Clabaugh's office at the department of justice and saw Mr. Clabaugh, Mr. Furbeshaw and Mr. Gowenlock. I told them I had called to find out what they were doing with the seven persons arrested the day before at Grant Park, and they aske what business it was of mine; I told them I was chairman of the meet 1448 ing, and Mr. Furbeshaw said "are you the man who wrote The Price We Pay.'" I said I was and inquired how he liked it. He produced a copy and I asked whether he saw anything wrong with that, and he said he did not, that it was very subtle. I asked Mr. Clabaugh the same question, and he said he saw nothing wrong with it, that it seemed to be perfectly legal. although it was not what he should have written. Then Mr. Gowenlock inquired why I didn't write another article showing why young men should fight I asked him to give me some reasons why they should fight, and he said they ought to fight to protect their wives, property, money and their children. He said I should write an article to encourage young men to fight. I replied that I would write it, but that I could not swear that it is the same thing that he would write. He said to go ahead and let them see what I would do. So I went back to my office, that was on the 28th, and wrote a rough draft of "Why You Should Fight." The next day I gave it to Mr. Engdahl, saying "here is another one," and he took it with no comment. My intent and frame of mind when writing that was having in my mind mainly the testimony of the United States Industrial Relations Committee in regard to the economic status of the great majority of the American people, when Frank P. Walsh, chairman of this Commission, gave me ten copies, September, 1916 I went to his office, and the following month Mr. Walsh gave me an order on the printer for ten copies, and in October 1915 I went and got them. I referred to that report con1449 stantly in writing the article "Why You Should Fight." The report covers some 450 pages, of which I marked a number of references to conditions in industry with particular reference to children and the plight of the wage earners; pages 10, 11 and 12 are the ones that I have marked. (There upon said document was introduced in evidence and marked Defendants' Exhibit 51.) 1450 DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT 51. The portions read by the witness from the report of the Industrial Relations Commission were as follows: "In such communities democratic government does not, as a rule, exist, except in name or form, and as a consequence there now exist within the body of our Republic industrial communities which are virtually principalities, oppressive to those dependent upon them for a livelihood and a dreadful menace to the peace and welfare of the Nation. "The wealth of the country between 1890 and 1912 increased from sixtyfive to one hundred and eighty-seven billions, or 188 per cent, whereas the aggre gate income of wage earners in manufacturing, mining, and transportation has risen between 1889 and 1909 only 95 per cent, from two thousand five hundred and sixteen millions in 1889 to four thousand nine hundred and sixteen millions in 1909. Furthermore, the wage earners' share of the net product of industry in the case of manufactures was only 40.2 per cent in 1909, as compared with 44.9 per cent in 1889. |