Submarine Sinkings of Enemy Merchant Ships.Submarine Sinkings of Enemy Merchant Ships.—Without seeking to pass final judgment on the question whether Germany was or was not justified by the rules of war and considerations of humanity in sinking merchant vessels by means of her submarines, it is important to quote briefly what those who are considered authorities on the subject have to say about it:New York “World,” March 21, 1919: “High officers of the British Admiralty have justified the unrestricted use of the submarine by Germany on the ground of military necessity.”The following characteristic communication of Admiral Fisher is quoted in the London “Daily Herald” of October 18, from the London “Times” of October 17, 1919:“On hearing of von Tirpitz’s dismissal I perpetrated the following letter, which a newspaper contrived to print in one of its editions. I can’t say why, but it didn’t appear any more, nor was it copied by any other paper:”Dear old Tirps,We are both in the same boat! What a time we’ve been colleagues, old boy! However, we did you in the eye over thebattle cruisers, and I know you’ve said you’ll never forgive me for it when bang went the Blucher and von Spee and all his host!Cheer up, old chap! Say “Resurgam!” You’re the one German sailor who understands war! Kill your enemy without being killed yourself.I don’t blame you for the submarine business.I’d have done the same myself, only our idiots in England wouldn’t believe it when I told ‘em.Well! So long!Yours till hell freezes,FISHER.29/3/16.An interview with the former German Ambassador, Count Bernstorff, which Hayden Talbot had in Berlin, as printed in the New York “American” of October 26, 1919, casts an interesting sidelight on the question. Count Bernstorff is quoted as follows:Do you know what Col. House told me one day? We had been discussing the submarine issue. This was early in the war. I had defended the German use of submarines on the ground that it was our only possible method against the British blockade, illegal and inhuman as it was. I had pointed out that Great Britain had given the United States repeatedly greater cause for declaring war than in 1812.“But we can’t declare war on England,” Col. House said. “A war with England would be too unpopular in this country.”American vessels in the War of 1812 sank and destroyed 74 English merchant ships under instructions to the commanders of our squadrons “to destroy all or capture, unless in some extraordinary cases that shall clearly warrant an exception.... Unless your prize should be very valuable and near a friendly port it will be imprudent and worse than useless to attempt to send them in.... A single cruiser destroying every captured vessel has the capacity of continuing in full vigor her destructive power.” This, we think, disposes of the question involved whether a submarine should be required to abstain from sinking a captured vessel of the enemy.Admiral Sir Perry Scott in the London “Times” of July 16, 1914, justified the work of destruction of the submarines, and quoting reports on the treatment of vessels which tried to break the blockade of Charleston during the Civil War, said: “The blockading cruisers seldom scrupled to fire on the ships which they were chasing or to drive them aground and then overwhelm them with shell and shot after they were ashore.”
Submarine Sinkings of Enemy Merchant Ships.—Without seeking to pass final judgment on the question whether Germany was or was not justified by the rules of war and considerations of humanity in sinking merchant vessels by means of her submarines, it is important to quote briefly what those who are considered authorities on the subject have to say about it:
New York “World,” March 21, 1919: “High officers of the British Admiralty have justified the unrestricted use of the submarine by Germany on the ground of military necessity.”
The following characteristic communication of Admiral Fisher is quoted in the London “Daily Herald” of October 18, from the London “Times” of October 17, 1919:
“On hearing of von Tirpitz’s dismissal I perpetrated the following letter, which a newspaper contrived to print in one of its editions. I can’t say why, but it didn’t appear any more, nor was it copied by any other paper:”
Dear old Tirps,We are both in the same boat! What a time we’ve been colleagues, old boy! However, we did you in the eye over thebattle cruisers, and I know you’ve said you’ll never forgive me for it when bang went the Blucher and von Spee and all his host!Cheer up, old chap! Say “Resurgam!” You’re the one German sailor who understands war! Kill your enemy without being killed yourself.I don’t blame you for the submarine business.I’d have done the same myself, only our idiots in England wouldn’t believe it when I told ‘em.Well! So long!Yours till hell freezes,FISHER.29/3/16.
Dear old Tirps,
We are both in the same boat! What a time we’ve been colleagues, old boy! However, we did you in the eye over thebattle cruisers, and I know you’ve said you’ll never forgive me for it when bang went the Blucher and von Spee and all his host!
Cheer up, old chap! Say “Resurgam!” You’re the one German sailor who understands war! Kill your enemy without being killed yourself.I don’t blame you for the submarine business.I’d have done the same myself, only our idiots in England wouldn’t believe it when I told ‘em.
Well! So long!
Yours till hell freezes,FISHER.
29/3/16.
An interview with the former German Ambassador, Count Bernstorff, which Hayden Talbot had in Berlin, as printed in the New York “American” of October 26, 1919, casts an interesting sidelight on the question. Count Bernstorff is quoted as follows:
Do you know what Col. House told me one day? We had been discussing the submarine issue. This was early in the war. I had defended the German use of submarines on the ground that it was our only possible method against the British blockade, illegal and inhuman as it was. I had pointed out that Great Britain had given the United States repeatedly greater cause for declaring war than in 1812.“But we can’t declare war on England,” Col. House said. “A war with England would be too unpopular in this country.”
Do you know what Col. House told me one day? We had been discussing the submarine issue. This was early in the war. I had defended the German use of submarines on the ground that it was our only possible method against the British blockade, illegal and inhuman as it was. I had pointed out that Great Britain had given the United States repeatedly greater cause for declaring war than in 1812.
“But we can’t declare war on England,” Col. House said. “A war with England would be too unpopular in this country.”
American vessels in the War of 1812 sank and destroyed 74 English merchant ships under instructions to the commanders of our squadrons “to destroy all or capture, unless in some extraordinary cases that shall clearly warrant an exception.... Unless your prize should be very valuable and near a friendly port it will be imprudent and worse than useless to attempt to send them in.... A single cruiser destroying every captured vessel has the capacity of continuing in full vigor her destructive power.” This, we think, disposes of the question involved whether a submarine should be required to abstain from sinking a captured vessel of the enemy.
Admiral Sir Perry Scott in the London “Times” of July 16, 1914, justified the work of destruction of the submarines, and quoting reports on the treatment of vessels which tried to break the blockade of Charleston during the Civil War, said: “The blockading cruisers seldom scrupled to fire on the ships which they were chasing or to drive them aground and then overwhelm them with shell and shot after they were ashore.”
Schurz, Carl.Schurz, Carl.—The most distinguished German American, author, diplomat, Union general, United States Senator, Cabinet officer and founder of the Civil Service system. Born March 2, 1829, at Liblar, near Cologne. Educated at Bonn. Participated in the Baden revolution, and after the romantic rescue of Prof. Gottfried Kinkel fromSpandau, he and his old instructor escaped to London, and in 1853 came to Philadelphia with his wife. Later moved to Watertown, Wisconsin, completed his law studies at the State University at Madison, and was admitted to practice.His eloquent speeches in the campaign of 1857 made him the leader of the German Americans. At twenty-eight he became a candidate for vice-governor and came within 107 votes of election. In 1858 he delivered his famous speech in English, “The Irrepressible Conflict,” and stumped Illinois to send Lincoln to the Senate against Douglas. In the Republican Convention of 1860 at Chicago he led the Wisconsin delegation in nominating Lincoln for President and stumped the country for his election.Schurz was sent to Madrid as American Minister, but resigned and entered the Union army, rising to rank of major general. After the war he was elected to the United States Senate (1869) from Missouri. After a temporary estrangement from the Republican Party he supported General Hayes for President in the campaign of 1876, and was appointed Secretary of the Interior; in this office he introduced many reforms which have been adopted. Later he became editor of the New York “Evening Post,” and associate editor of “Harper’s Weekly,” then the leading periodical in America. His “Life of Henry Clay” is one of the standard books of American biographies. After the Spanish American War he was bitterly assailed for his uncompromising hostility to the policy of expansion, the acquisition of colonies, etc. He died May 14, 1906, in New York City, rated one of the greatest political thinkers and statesmen.A strong misconception has been created with regard to Schurz and the German revolutionists who came to the United States in 1848 as to the cause of their grievance. It is generally represented that they were fighting to establish a German republic, whereas the truth is, they were primarily fighting for German unity. The facts are contained in “The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz,” Vol. I, Chap. XIV, p. 405:The German revolutionists of 1848 ... fought for German unity and free government, and were defeated mainly by Prussian bayonets. Then came years of stupid political reaction and national humiliation, in which all that the men of 1848 had stood for seemed utterly lost. Then a change. Frederick William IV, who more than any man of his time had cherished a mystic belief in the special divine inspiration of kings—Frederick William IV fell insane and had to drop the reins of government. The Prince of Prussia, whom the revolutionists of 1848 had regarded as the bitterest and most uncompromising enemy of their cause, followed him, first as regent, then as king—destined to become the first Emperor of the new German empire. He called Bismarck to his side as prime minister—Bismarck who originally had been the sternest spokesman of absolutism andthe most ardent foe of the revolution. And then German unity with a national parliament was won, not through a revolutionary uprising, but through monarchical action and foreign wars.Thus, if not all, yet a great and important part of the objects struggled for by the German revolutionists of 1848, was accomplished—much later, indeed, and less peaceably, and less completely than they had wished, and through the instrumentality of persons and forces originally hostile to them, but producing new conditions which promise to develop for the united Germany political forms and institutions of government much nearer the ideals of 1848 than those now (1852) existing. And many thoughtful men now frequently ask the question—and a very pertinent question it is—whether all these things would have been possible had not the great national awakening of the year 1848 prepared the way for them. But in the summer of 1852 the future lay before us in a gloomy cloud. Louis Napoleon seemed firmly seated on the neck of his submissive people.The British government under Lord Palmerston shook hands with him. All over the European continent the reaction from the liberal movements of the last four years celebrated triumphant orgies. How long it would prove irresistible nobody could tell. That some of its very champions would themselves become the leaders of the national spirit in Germany even the most sanguine would in 1851 not have ventured to anticipate.We think this extract speaks for itself and needs no comment. The chief aim of the revolutionists was to see Germany unified, and Schurz is not remiss in expressing his esteem for the “leaders of the national spirit in Germany” who had once been the champions of reaction.
Schurz, Carl.—The most distinguished German American, author, diplomat, Union general, United States Senator, Cabinet officer and founder of the Civil Service system. Born March 2, 1829, at Liblar, near Cologne. Educated at Bonn. Participated in the Baden revolution, and after the romantic rescue of Prof. Gottfried Kinkel fromSpandau, he and his old instructor escaped to London, and in 1853 came to Philadelphia with his wife. Later moved to Watertown, Wisconsin, completed his law studies at the State University at Madison, and was admitted to practice.
His eloquent speeches in the campaign of 1857 made him the leader of the German Americans. At twenty-eight he became a candidate for vice-governor and came within 107 votes of election. In 1858 he delivered his famous speech in English, “The Irrepressible Conflict,” and stumped Illinois to send Lincoln to the Senate against Douglas. In the Republican Convention of 1860 at Chicago he led the Wisconsin delegation in nominating Lincoln for President and stumped the country for his election.
Schurz was sent to Madrid as American Minister, but resigned and entered the Union army, rising to rank of major general. After the war he was elected to the United States Senate (1869) from Missouri. After a temporary estrangement from the Republican Party he supported General Hayes for President in the campaign of 1876, and was appointed Secretary of the Interior; in this office he introduced many reforms which have been adopted. Later he became editor of the New York “Evening Post,” and associate editor of “Harper’s Weekly,” then the leading periodical in America. His “Life of Henry Clay” is one of the standard books of American biographies. After the Spanish American War he was bitterly assailed for his uncompromising hostility to the policy of expansion, the acquisition of colonies, etc. He died May 14, 1906, in New York City, rated one of the greatest political thinkers and statesmen.
A strong misconception has been created with regard to Schurz and the German revolutionists who came to the United States in 1848 as to the cause of their grievance. It is generally represented that they were fighting to establish a German republic, whereas the truth is, they were primarily fighting for German unity. The facts are contained in “The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz,” Vol. I, Chap. XIV, p. 405:
The German revolutionists of 1848 ... fought for German unity and free government, and were defeated mainly by Prussian bayonets. Then came years of stupid political reaction and national humiliation, in which all that the men of 1848 had stood for seemed utterly lost. Then a change. Frederick William IV, who more than any man of his time had cherished a mystic belief in the special divine inspiration of kings—Frederick William IV fell insane and had to drop the reins of government. The Prince of Prussia, whom the revolutionists of 1848 had regarded as the bitterest and most uncompromising enemy of their cause, followed him, first as regent, then as king—destined to become the first Emperor of the new German empire. He called Bismarck to his side as prime minister—Bismarck who originally had been the sternest spokesman of absolutism andthe most ardent foe of the revolution. And then German unity with a national parliament was won, not through a revolutionary uprising, but through monarchical action and foreign wars.Thus, if not all, yet a great and important part of the objects struggled for by the German revolutionists of 1848, was accomplished—much later, indeed, and less peaceably, and less completely than they had wished, and through the instrumentality of persons and forces originally hostile to them, but producing new conditions which promise to develop for the united Germany political forms and institutions of government much nearer the ideals of 1848 than those now (1852) existing. And many thoughtful men now frequently ask the question—and a very pertinent question it is—whether all these things would have been possible had not the great national awakening of the year 1848 prepared the way for them. But in the summer of 1852 the future lay before us in a gloomy cloud. Louis Napoleon seemed firmly seated on the neck of his submissive people.The British government under Lord Palmerston shook hands with him. All over the European continent the reaction from the liberal movements of the last four years celebrated triumphant orgies. How long it would prove irresistible nobody could tell. That some of its very champions would themselves become the leaders of the national spirit in Germany even the most sanguine would in 1851 not have ventured to anticipate.
The German revolutionists of 1848 ... fought for German unity and free government, and were defeated mainly by Prussian bayonets. Then came years of stupid political reaction and national humiliation, in which all that the men of 1848 had stood for seemed utterly lost. Then a change. Frederick William IV, who more than any man of his time had cherished a mystic belief in the special divine inspiration of kings—Frederick William IV fell insane and had to drop the reins of government. The Prince of Prussia, whom the revolutionists of 1848 had regarded as the bitterest and most uncompromising enemy of their cause, followed him, first as regent, then as king—destined to become the first Emperor of the new German empire. He called Bismarck to his side as prime minister—Bismarck who originally had been the sternest spokesman of absolutism andthe most ardent foe of the revolution. And then German unity with a national parliament was won, not through a revolutionary uprising, but through monarchical action and foreign wars.
Thus, if not all, yet a great and important part of the objects struggled for by the German revolutionists of 1848, was accomplished—much later, indeed, and less peaceably, and less completely than they had wished, and through the instrumentality of persons and forces originally hostile to them, but producing new conditions which promise to develop for the united Germany political forms and institutions of government much nearer the ideals of 1848 than those now (1852) existing. And many thoughtful men now frequently ask the question—and a very pertinent question it is—whether all these things would have been possible had not the great national awakening of the year 1848 prepared the way for them. But in the summer of 1852 the future lay before us in a gloomy cloud. Louis Napoleon seemed firmly seated on the neck of his submissive people.The British government under Lord Palmerston shook hands with him. All over the European continent the reaction from the liberal movements of the last four years celebrated triumphant orgies. How long it would prove irresistible nobody could tell. That some of its very champions would themselves become the leaders of the national spirit in Germany even the most sanguine would in 1851 not have ventured to anticipate.
We think this extract speaks for itself and needs no comment. The chief aim of the revolutionists was to see Germany unified, and Schurz is not remiss in expressing his esteem for the “leaders of the national spirit in Germany” who had once been the champions of reaction.
Scheffauer, Herman George.Scheffauer, Herman George.—One of the foremost American poets, translators, and dramatists, born in San Francisco 1878, traveled in Europe and Africa and spent two years in London. Author of “Of Both Worlds” (poems); “Looms of Life” (poems); “Sons of Baldur,” forest play; “Masque of the Elements,” “Drake in California,” “The New Shylock,” a play. Translator of Heine’s “Atta Troll” and “The Woman Problem,” both from the German.
Scheffauer, Herman George.—One of the foremost American poets, translators, and dramatists, born in San Francisco 1878, traveled in Europe and Africa and spent two years in London. Author of “Of Both Worlds” (poems); “Looms of Life” (poems); “Sons of Baldur,” forest play; “Masque of the Elements,” “Drake in California,” “The New Shylock,” a play. Translator of Heine’s “Atta Troll” and “The Woman Problem,” both from the German.
Schell, Johann Christian and His Wife.Schell, Johann Christian and His Wife.—One of the most inspiring stories of the Revolutionary war centers around this brave Palatine couple and their six sons, who tenanted a lonely cabin three miles northeast of the town of Herkimer, N. Y., and who in August, 1781, while at work in the fields were attacked by 16 Tories and 48 Indians. The marauders captured two of the younger boys, the remainder of the family gaining the shelter of the cabin. Here they successfully defended their home all day. With dusk the chief of the raiders, Capt. McDonald, succeeded in evading the vigilance of the defenders and to reach the door, which he tried to pry open with a lever. A shot struck him in the leg, and before he could effecthis escape Schell opened the door and dragged the wounded man inside, where he held him as a hostage against the attempt to fire the house. The defenders now awaited the next move of the enemy and burst into singing Luther’s famous battle hymn of the Reformation, “Eine Feste Burg ist unser Gott.” In the midst of the song the attacking party rushed toward the house, gained the walls so that they were able to thrust their guns through the loopholes to fire at those within.Quick as thought Mrs. Schell seized an axe and beat upon the gun barrels until they were useless, while the men directed their fire so well that the miscreants were driven to flight, leaving eleven dead and twelve seriously wounded on the field.
Schell, Johann Christian and His Wife.—One of the most inspiring stories of the Revolutionary war centers around this brave Palatine couple and their six sons, who tenanted a lonely cabin three miles northeast of the town of Herkimer, N. Y., and who in August, 1781, while at work in the fields were attacked by 16 Tories and 48 Indians. The marauders captured two of the younger boys, the remainder of the family gaining the shelter of the cabin. Here they successfully defended their home all day. With dusk the chief of the raiders, Capt. McDonald, succeeded in evading the vigilance of the defenders and to reach the door, which he tried to pry open with a lever. A shot struck him in the leg, and before he could effecthis escape Schell opened the door and dragged the wounded man inside, where he held him as a hostage against the attempt to fire the house. The defenders now awaited the next move of the enemy and burst into singing Luther’s famous battle hymn of the Reformation, “Eine Feste Burg ist unser Gott.” In the midst of the song the attacking party rushed toward the house, gained the walls so that they were able to thrust their guns through the loopholes to fire at those within.Quick as thought Mrs. Schell seized an axe and beat upon the gun barrels until they were useless, while the men directed their fire so well that the miscreants were driven to flight, leaving eleven dead and twelve seriously wounded on the field.
Schley, Winfield Scott.Schley, Winfield Scott.—American admiral who conquered Cervera’s Spanish Squadron in Santiago Bay during the Spanish-American war, was descended from Thomas Schley, who immigrated into Maryland in 1735 at the head of 100 German Palatines and German Swiss families. Founded Friedrichstadt, afterwards Frederickstown, Md. Thomas Schley was a schoolmaster, and Pastor Schlatter of St. Gall, in the story of his travels (1746-51), wrote: “It is a great advantage of this congregation that it has the best schoolmaster whom I have met in America.” Admiral Schley graduated from the Naval Academy and participated immediately upon his leaving the Academy in numerous naval engagements during the Civil War. He was then attached to various squadrons and distinguished himself during the Corean Revolution in the bombardment of the forts.When the Greeley North Pole expedition was practically given up for lost Captain Schley one day modestly presented himself to Secretary of the Navy Chandler and said: “Mr. Secretary, I realize that by rank I am not entitled to the honor of commanding a relief expedition, but, seeing that no volunteers have offered themselves for such command, I want to offer my services in order that it may not be said that the navy was found wanting.” Schley’s manner made a strong impression on the Secretary, and in a short time he received orders to head an expedition. The relief of Lieutenant Greeley by Schley when the exploring expedition was practically down to a few starving survivors forms one of the heroic chapters in the history of the American navy. Schley’s rapid rise and success at Santiago, together with his popularity with the rank and file of the navy, raised a cabal against him among the bureaucrats, and he was brought to trial for his manouvering of the Brooklyn in the Santiago battle. Cervera, the Spanish commander, when taken prisoner, attributed the failure of the Spanish squadron to escape to the famous “loop” of the Brooklyn, but a court martial found a contrary verdict. Admiral Dewey dissented. The verdict had no perceptible effect on Schley’s popularity, and the American people give him unqualified credit for the battle.
Schley, Winfield Scott.—American admiral who conquered Cervera’s Spanish Squadron in Santiago Bay during the Spanish-American war, was descended from Thomas Schley, who immigrated into Maryland in 1735 at the head of 100 German Palatines and German Swiss families. Founded Friedrichstadt, afterwards Frederickstown, Md. Thomas Schley was a schoolmaster, and Pastor Schlatter of St. Gall, in the story of his travels (1746-51), wrote: “It is a great advantage of this congregation that it has the best schoolmaster whom I have met in America.” Admiral Schley graduated from the Naval Academy and participated immediately upon his leaving the Academy in numerous naval engagements during the Civil War. He was then attached to various squadrons and distinguished himself during the Corean Revolution in the bombardment of the forts.
When the Greeley North Pole expedition was practically given up for lost Captain Schley one day modestly presented himself to Secretary of the Navy Chandler and said: “Mr. Secretary, I realize that by rank I am not entitled to the honor of commanding a relief expedition, but, seeing that no volunteers have offered themselves for such command, I want to offer my services in order that it may not be said that the navy was found wanting.” Schley’s manner made a strong impression on the Secretary, and in a short time he received orders to head an expedition. The relief of Lieutenant Greeley by Schley when the exploring expedition was practically down to a few starving survivors forms one of the heroic chapters in the history of the American navy. Schley’s rapid rise and success at Santiago, together with his popularity with the rank and file of the navy, raised a cabal against him among the bureaucrats, and he was brought to trial for his manouvering of the Brooklyn in the Santiago battle. Cervera, the Spanish commander, when taken prisoner, attributed the failure of the Spanish squadron to escape to the famous “loop” of the Brooklyn, but a court martial found a contrary verdict. Admiral Dewey dissented. The verdict had no perceptible effect on Schley’s popularity, and the American people give him unqualified credit for the battle.
Steinmetz, Charles P.Steinmetz, Charles P.—One of the greatest scholars and scientists in the electrical field of today, Chief Consulting Engineer of the General Electric Company, and professor of electro-physics at Union College; Socialist president of the City Council and president Board of Education of Schenectady. Intimate associate and collaborator of Thomas A. Edison, and to whose genius many of the most important developments in electrical science are due. A native of Breslau, Germany; born April 9, 1865.The New York “Times” of March 12, 1916, says: “Everybody knows that applied industrial chemistry would be a comparatively barren thing if everything that had come to it as the result of this man’s research should be taken away.” Fled Germany to escape prosecution for his Socialist writings. Came over in the steerage and worked as a draughtsman at $2 a day. In the “Times” he was quoted as having buried all resentment for his experience of thirty years ago. “Germany,” he said, “is so different now. I would not know the country if I went back to it. When I left it was merely an agricultural country. Now it is the greatest industrial country in the world.”
Steinmetz, Charles P.—One of the greatest scholars and scientists in the electrical field of today, Chief Consulting Engineer of the General Electric Company, and professor of electro-physics at Union College; Socialist president of the City Council and president Board of Education of Schenectady. Intimate associate and collaborator of Thomas A. Edison, and to whose genius many of the most important developments in electrical science are due. A native of Breslau, Germany; born April 9, 1865.
The New York “Times” of March 12, 1916, says: “Everybody knows that applied industrial chemistry would be a comparatively barren thing if everything that had come to it as the result of this man’s research should be taken away.” Fled Germany to escape prosecution for his Socialist writings. Came over in the steerage and worked as a draughtsman at $2 a day. In the “Times” he was quoted as having buried all resentment for his experience of thirty years ago. “Germany,” he said, “is so different now. I would not know the country if I went back to it. When I left it was merely an agricultural country. Now it is the greatest industrial country in the world.”
Sauer, Christopher.Sauer, Christopher.—The first to print a book (the Bible) in a foreign tongue (German) on American soil; famous printer and publisher of German and American books. Born in Germany, arrived in the Colonies in the fall of 1724, settling in Germantown. Published the first newspaper in the German language, “Der Hochdeutsche Pennsylvanische Geschichts Schreiber, oder Sammlung Wichitiger Nachrichten aus dem Natur und Kirchen Reich.” His magnificent quarto edition of the Bible, issued in 1743, after three years of endless toil, has never, in completeness and execution, been excelled in this country. He died in September, 1758, leaving an only son, also named Christopher, who continued his father’s business but gave it additional importance by employing two or three mills in manufacturing paper, casting his own type, making his own printers’ ink and engraving his own woodcuts as well as binding his own books, many of which passed through five or six editions. (Simpson’s “Lives of Eminent Philadelphians.”)
Sauer, Christopher.—The first to print a book (the Bible) in a foreign tongue (German) on American soil; famous printer and publisher of German and American books. Born in Germany, arrived in the Colonies in the fall of 1724, settling in Germantown. Published the first newspaper in the German language, “Der Hochdeutsche Pennsylvanische Geschichts Schreiber, oder Sammlung Wichitiger Nachrichten aus dem Natur und Kirchen Reich.” His magnificent quarto edition of the Bible, issued in 1743, after three years of endless toil, has never, in completeness and execution, been excelled in this country. He died in September, 1758, leaving an only son, also named Christopher, who continued his father’s business but gave it additional importance by employing two or three mills in manufacturing paper, casting his own type, making his own printers’ ink and engraving his own woodcuts as well as binding his own books, many of which passed through five or six editions. (Simpson’s “Lives of Eminent Philadelphians.”)
Starving Germany.Starving Germany.—(Lord Courtney in Manchester “Guardian”)—“The attempt of England to starve Germany is a violation of the Declaration of London and a brutal offense against humanity. For these two reasons—if not for many others—it is a dishonorable proceeding.” (Dispatch of March 21, 1915.)The silent policy of starving people into subjection is eloquently shown in the history of Ireland, of India, of the South African republics and of the Central Powers, and, strangely, the one country that has achieved this distinction is England.We said that the blockade of Germany was “illegal, ineffective and indefensible,” but Sir Robert Cecil about the same time declared that England and the United States had an understanding, and he boasted that “we have our hands at the throat of Germany” and scorned the suggestion to relax a grip that meant the starvation of women, children and the aged. Germany was told to give up her U-boat sinking of merchant ships and answered that she had no other weapon to make England take her grip off the German throat, and when she was forced to surrender, the full magnitude of the policy of starving non-combatants was revealed. The picture is presented in the uncolored official statements of unprejudiced observers. The Stockholm “Tidningen” of March 29, 1919:The Swedish Red Cross delegates sent to Germany in order to make arrangements for getting over to Sweden underfed German children have now returned to Stockholm. The first transport will contain 500 Berlin children.The delegates describe the want in Germany as appalling. During the revolution daysnothing at all could be got for the babies in some places except hot water, and many died, but this was nothing unusual in Berlin. The children were underfed, feeble and rachitic everywhere. Often children four or five years old were unable to walk. In many places the schools had had to be closed because of the general want.Tuberculosis has increased by 60 per cent.Because of this older children than at first proposed must be sent to Sweden.... There are also negotiations going on regarding children from the other famishing countries. The German Government has promised to transport the Belgian children free of charge from Belgium to Sassnitz.The interest in Sweden for the war children is immense. One thousand five hundred invitations have already been made from single peasants’ homes, and about £3,000 has been collected, mostly in small contributions from the poorer classes. Thus willingness to sacrifice is great, but, of course, much more money is still needed.Henry Nevison, an eminent journalist, recently presented in the London “Daily News” a tragic description of what he saw in the hospitals of Cologne: “Although I have seen many horrible things,” he writes, “I have seen nothing so pitiful as these rows of babies, feverish from want of food, exhausted by privations to the point that their little limbs were slender wands, their expressions hopeless and their eyes full of pain.”—“The Nation.”Prof. Johansson, of the Neutral Commission, who visited Germany in January, reports: “About 1,600,000 people were killed in the war, but almost half this number, or rather700,000, fell victims to the food shortage produced by the blockade. The population has decreased in an unprecedented degree by reasonof the declining birth-rate. At the present moment Germany has 4,000,000 fewer children than in normal pre-war times.”—“Dagens Nyheter,” Stockholm, Lib., March 30, 1919.Dr. Rubner writes in the “German Medical Weekly” on the effects of the blockade. He gives the figures of deaths of army and civil population since 1914 as:Army, all causes, 1,621,000.Civil population, through blockade, 763,000, of which 260,000 is for 1917 and 294,000 to the end of 1918. He comes to the conclusion that even now any improvement in the condition, as regards nourishment of the German people, will be possible only in a very partial degree; above all, capacity for work will not increase to the needed extent.—“Vorwaerts,” April 11, 1919.In a report made by five doctors of neutral lands, Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch, dated April 11, 1919, after they had collected information in Berlin, Halle and Dresden, they say: “The food concessions under the Brussels agreement are altogether inadequate. The most they do is to maintain the present necessitous food conditions.... Immediate help is necessary. Every day of delay risks immeasurable injury not only to the whole of Europe, but to the whole world.”Evidence of the same import is furnished by Jane Adams and charitable English persons, and the liberal periodicals, as distinct from the daily newspapers, have printed columns showing the terrible ravages of an illegal and indefensible blockade which inflicted the horrors of war upon the feeble and helpless, those recognized by the laws of nations and humanity as entitled to protection when not within the sphere of military operations and in no way responsible for or contributing to them.The armistice was signed November 11, 1918, but so relentless was the English policy of crushing the German people that Winston Churchill, on March 3, 1919, declared in the House of Commons: “We are enforcing the blockade with rigor.... This weapon of starvation falls mainly upon the women and children, upon the old, the weak, and the poor, after all the fighting has stopped.” (“The Nation,” June 21, 1919; p. 980.)The appalling heartlessness which, not content with inflicting starvation on a whole nation—for we will not mention Austria in this connection—designed to add to its horrors still added injuries, is exposed in the terms of the treaty, by which the German people were required to give up 140,000 milch cows and other livestock. Witness the following Associated Press dispatch:Paris, July 24 (Associated Press).—Germany will have to surrender to France 500 stallions, 3,000 fillies,90,000 milch cows, 100,000 sheep and 10,000 goats, according to a report made yesterday before the French Peace Commission, sitting under thepresidency of Rene Viviani, by M. Dubois, economic expert for the commission, in commenting on the peace treaty clauses.Two hundred stallions, 5,000 mares, 5,000 fillies,50,000 cows, and 40,000 heifers, also are to go to Belgium from Germany. The deliveries are to be made monthly during a period of three months until completed.A total of 140,000 milch cows! Forty thousand heifers! To be surrendered by a country in which little children were dying for lack of milk, and babies were brought into the world blind because of the starved conditions of the mothers!
Starving Germany.—(Lord Courtney in Manchester “Guardian”)—“The attempt of England to starve Germany is a violation of the Declaration of London and a brutal offense against humanity. For these two reasons—if not for many others—it is a dishonorable proceeding.” (Dispatch of March 21, 1915.)
The silent policy of starving people into subjection is eloquently shown in the history of Ireland, of India, of the South African republics and of the Central Powers, and, strangely, the one country that has achieved this distinction is England.
We said that the blockade of Germany was “illegal, ineffective and indefensible,” but Sir Robert Cecil about the same time declared that England and the United States had an understanding, and he boasted that “we have our hands at the throat of Germany” and scorned the suggestion to relax a grip that meant the starvation of women, children and the aged. Germany was told to give up her U-boat sinking of merchant ships and answered that she had no other weapon to make England take her grip off the German throat, and when she was forced to surrender, the full magnitude of the policy of starving non-combatants was revealed. The picture is presented in the uncolored official statements of unprejudiced observers. The Stockholm “Tidningen” of March 29, 1919:
The Swedish Red Cross delegates sent to Germany in order to make arrangements for getting over to Sweden underfed German children have now returned to Stockholm. The first transport will contain 500 Berlin children.The delegates describe the want in Germany as appalling. During the revolution daysnothing at all could be got for the babies in some places except hot water, and many died, but this was nothing unusual in Berlin. The children were underfed, feeble and rachitic everywhere. Often children four or five years old were unable to walk. In many places the schools had had to be closed because of the general want.Tuberculosis has increased by 60 per cent.Because of this older children than at first proposed must be sent to Sweden.... There are also negotiations going on regarding children from the other famishing countries. The German Government has promised to transport the Belgian children free of charge from Belgium to Sassnitz.The interest in Sweden for the war children is immense. One thousand five hundred invitations have already been made from single peasants’ homes, and about £3,000 has been collected, mostly in small contributions from the poorer classes. Thus willingness to sacrifice is great, but, of course, much more money is still needed.
The Swedish Red Cross delegates sent to Germany in order to make arrangements for getting over to Sweden underfed German children have now returned to Stockholm. The first transport will contain 500 Berlin children.
The delegates describe the want in Germany as appalling. During the revolution daysnothing at all could be got for the babies in some places except hot water, and many died, but this was nothing unusual in Berlin. The children were underfed, feeble and rachitic everywhere. Often children four or five years old were unable to walk. In many places the schools had had to be closed because of the general want.Tuberculosis has increased by 60 per cent.Because of this older children than at first proposed must be sent to Sweden.... There are also negotiations going on regarding children from the other famishing countries. The German Government has promised to transport the Belgian children free of charge from Belgium to Sassnitz.
The interest in Sweden for the war children is immense. One thousand five hundred invitations have already been made from single peasants’ homes, and about £3,000 has been collected, mostly in small contributions from the poorer classes. Thus willingness to sacrifice is great, but, of course, much more money is still needed.
Henry Nevison, an eminent journalist, recently presented in the London “Daily News” a tragic description of what he saw in the hospitals of Cologne: “Although I have seen many horrible things,” he writes, “I have seen nothing so pitiful as these rows of babies, feverish from want of food, exhausted by privations to the point that their little limbs were slender wands, their expressions hopeless and their eyes full of pain.”—“The Nation.”
Prof. Johansson, of the Neutral Commission, who visited Germany in January, reports: “About 1,600,000 people were killed in the war, but almost half this number, or rather700,000, fell victims to the food shortage produced by the blockade. The population has decreased in an unprecedented degree by reasonof the declining birth-rate. At the present moment Germany has 4,000,000 fewer children than in normal pre-war times.”—“Dagens Nyheter,” Stockholm, Lib., March 30, 1919.Dr. Rubner writes in the “German Medical Weekly” on the effects of the blockade. He gives the figures of deaths of army and civil population since 1914 as:Army, all causes, 1,621,000.Civil population, through blockade, 763,000, of which 260,000 is for 1917 and 294,000 to the end of 1918. He comes to the conclusion that even now any improvement in the condition, as regards nourishment of the German people, will be possible only in a very partial degree; above all, capacity for work will not increase to the needed extent.—“Vorwaerts,” April 11, 1919.In a report made by five doctors of neutral lands, Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch, dated April 11, 1919, after they had collected information in Berlin, Halle and Dresden, they say: “The food concessions under the Brussels agreement are altogether inadequate. The most they do is to maintain the present necessitous food conditions.... Immediate help is necessary. Every day of delay risks immeasurable injury not only to the whole of Europe, but to the whole world.”
Prof. Johansson, of the Neutral Commission, who visited Germany in January, reports: “About 1,600,000 people were killed in the war, but almost half this number, or rather700,000, fell victims to the food shortage produced by the blockade. The population has decreased in an unprecedented degree by reasonof the declining birth-rate. At the present moment Germany has 4,000,000 fewer children than in normal pre-war times.”—“Dagens Nyheter,” Stockholm, Lib., March 30, 1919.
Dr. Rubner writes in the “German Medical Weekly” on the effects of the blockade. He gives the figures of deaths of army and civil population since 1914 as:
Army, all causes, 1,621,000.
Civil population, through blockade, 763,000, of which 260,000 is for 1917 and 294,000 to the end of 1918. He comes to the conclusion that even now any improvement in the condition, as regards nourishment of the German people, will be possible only in a very partial degree; above all, capacity for work will not increase to the needed extent.—“Vorwaerts,” April 11, 1919.
In a report made by five doctors of neutral lands, Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch, dated April 11, 1919, after they had collected information in Berlin, Halle and Dresden, they say: “The food concessions under the Brussels agreement are altogether inadequate. The most they do is to maintain the present necessitous food conditions.... Immediate help is necessary. Every day of delay risks immeasurable injury not only to the whole of Europe, but to the whole world.”
Evidence of the same import is furnished by Jane Adams and charitable English persons, and the liberal periodicals, as distinct from the daily newspapers, have printed columns showing the terrible ravages of an illegal and indefensible blockade which inflicted the horrors of war upon the feeble and helpless, those recognized by the laws of nations and humanity as entitled to protection when not within the sphere of military operations and in no way responsible for or contributing to them.
The armistice was signed November 11, 1918, but so relentless was the English policy of crushing the German people that Winston Churchill, on March 3, 1919, declared in the House of Commons: “We are enforcing the blockade with rigor.... This weapon of starvation falls mainly upon the women and children, upon the old, the weak, and the poor, after all the fighting has stopped.” (“The Nation,” June 21, 1919; p. 980.)
The appalling heartlessness which, not content with inflicting starvation on a whole nation—for we will not mention Austria in this connection—designed to add to its horrors still added injuries, is exposed in the terms of the treaty, by which the German people were required to give up 140,000 milch cows and other livestock. Witness the following Associated Press dispatch:
Paris, July 24 (Associated Press).—Germany will have to surrender to France 500 stallions, 3,000 fillies,90,000 milch cows, 100,000 sheep and 10,000 goats, according to a report made yesterday before the French Peace Commission, sitting under thepresidency of Rene Viviani, by M. Dubois, economic expert for the commission, in commenting on the peace treaty clauses.Two hundred stallions, 5,000 mares, 5,000 fillies,50,000 cows, and 40,000 heifers, also are to go to Belgium from Germany. The deliveries are to be made monthly during a period of three months until completed.
Paris, July 24 (Associated Press).—Germany will have to surrender to France 500 stallions, 3,000 fillies,90,000 milch cows, 100,000 sheep and 10,000 goats, according to a report made yesterday before the French Peace Commission, sitting under thepresidency of Rene Viviani, by M. Dubois, economic expert for the commission, in commenting on the peace treaty clauses.
Two hundred stallions, 5,000 mares, 5,000 fillies,50,000 cows, and 40,000 heifers, also are to go to Belgium from Germany. The deliveries are to be made monthly during a period of three months until completed.
A total of 140,000 milch cows! Forty thousand heifers! To be surrendered by a country in which little children were dying for lack of milk, and babies were brought into the world blind because of the starved conditions of the mothers!
Steuben, Baron Frederick William von.Steuben, Baron Frederick William von.—Major General in the Revolutionary army. Descended from an old noble and military family of Prussia. Entered the service of Frederick the Great as a youth, and fought with distinction in the bloodiest engagements of the Seven Years War, being latterly attached to the personal staff of the great King. After the war, was persuaded by friends of the American Colonies and admirers of his ability in France to offer his services to Congress, and on September 26, 1777, set sail aboard the twenty-four gun ship “l’Heureaux” at Marseilles, arriving at Portsmouth, N. H., December 1, 1777.Found the American army full of spirit and patriotism, but badly disciplined, and was appointed Inspector General. Wrote the first book of military instruction in America, which was approved by General Washington, authorized by Congress and used in the drilling of the troops. Distinguished himself especially in perfecting the light infantry, his method being subsequently copied by several European armies and by Lord Cornwallis himself during the Revolution.With General DeKalb and other foreign-born officers he encountered much opposition and annoyance from native officers on account of jealousy and prejudice, and though supported by General Washington, Hamilton and other influential men, had difficulty in obtaining from Congress what he was legally entitled to claim, not as a reward for his conspicuous services, but to enable him to support life. When threatening to take his discharge, Washington sought to dissuade him on the ground that his service was well-nigh indispensable to the cause of the colonists, and in justifying a memorandum of sums advanced to Steuben in excess of the $2,000 per annum promised him, the commander-in-chief wrote to Congress:“It is reasonable that a man devoting his time and service to the public—and by general consent a very useful one—should at least have his expenses borne. His established pay is certainly altogether inadequate to this,” showing that Steuben was not actuated by mercenary motives in serving the Colonists.“Your intention of quitting us,” wrote Col. Benjamin Walker, March 10, 1780, to Steuben, “cannot but give me much concern, both as an individual and as a member of the Commonwealth, convinced as I am of the necessity of your presence to the existence of order and discipline in the army. I cannot but dread the moment when such event shall take place, for much am I afraid we should again fall into that state of absolute negligence and disorder from which you have in some manner drawn us.”It was Steuben who taught the Americans the value of bayonet fighting. The engagement at Stony Point proved the value of the bayonet as an arm. Previous to this time Steuben preached in vain on the usefulness of this weapon. The soldiers had no faith in it. But when Stony Point Fort was captured without firing a shot and when, the next day, Steuben with General Washington appeared on the scene, “Steuben was surrounded by all his young soldiers and they assured him unanimously that they would take care for the future not to lose their bayonets, nor roast beefsteaks with them, as they used to do.”By his personal kindness and popularity Steuben was able to bring about marked reforms, and to convert the forces from untrained volunteers with no sense of order into a well-disciplined army which enabled Washington to win some of his chief battles. Speaking on a resolution before Congress to pay Steuben the sum of $2,700 due him, a member, Mr. Page, cited as proof of the efficiency which had been inculcated into the army by the distinguished German-American, an interesting incident in the following words:“I was told that when the Marquis de Lafayette, with a detachment under his command, was in danger of being cut off on his return to the army, and the commander-in-chief was determined to support that valuable officer, the whole army was under arms and ready to march in less than fifteen minutes from the time the signal was given.” In the end Steuben was presented by Congress with a gold-hilted sword as a high expression of its sense of his military talents, services and character, and a large tract of land in New York State was given him on which to live in his old age.At the battle of Yorktown Steuben was so fortunate as to receive the first overtures of Lord Cornwallis. “At the relieving hour next morning,” relates North, “the Marquis de Lafayette approached with his division; the baron refused to be relieved, assigning as a reason the etiquette in Europe; that the offer to capitulate had been made during his guard, and that it was a point of honor, of which he would not deprive his troops, to remain in the trenches till the capitulation was signed, or hostilities recommenced. The dispute was referred by Lafayette to the commander-in-chief; but Steuben remained until the British flag was struck.”GENERAL VON STEUBENDrillmaster of the American Revolutionary Armies.Steuben died in the night of November 25, 1794, on his farm, highly respected throughout the State and reverenced by the distinguished men of his time as well as by the German population, having served as president of the German Society of New York. When in 1824 Lafayette visited the United States the inhabitants of Oneida County collected money for erecting a monument over Steuben’s grave. They invited Lafayette to dedicate the monument, but he refused to accede to their request, excusing himself under some shallow pretext. (“Life of Steuben,” by Friedrich Kapp.)That Steuben had no mercenary motives in coming to America, is proved by his letter to Congress. He wrote:“The honor of serving a nation engaged in defending its rights and liberties was the only motive that brought me to this continent. I asked neither riches nor titles. I came here from the remotest end of Germany at my own expense and have given up honorable and lucrative rank. I have made no condition with your deputies in France, nor shall I make any with you. My own ambition is to serve you as a volunteer, to deserve the confidence of your general-in-chief, and to follow him in all his operations, as I have done during the seven campaigns with the King of Prussia.... I should willingly purchase at the expense of my blood the honor of having my name enrolled among those of the defenders of your liberty.”Washington’s appreciation of Steuben is finally and irrevocably attested in the following letter dated Annapolis, December 23, 1783:“My dear Baron! Although I have taken frequent opportunities, both in public and private, of acknowledging your zeal, attention and abilities in performing the duties of your office, yet I wish to make use of this last moment of my public life to signify in the strongest terms my entire approbation of your conduct, and to express my sense of the obligations the public is under to you for your faithful and meritorious service.“I beg you will be convinced, my dear Sir, that I should rejoice if it could ever be in my power to serve you more essentially than by expressions of regard and affection. But in the meantime I am persuaded you will not be displeased with this farewell token of my sincere friendship and esteem for you.“This is the last letter I shall ever write while I continue in the service of my country. The hour of my resignation is fixed at twelve this day, after which I shall become a private citizen on the banks of the Potomac, where I shall be glad to embrace you, and testify the great esteem and consideration, with which I am, my dear Baron, your most obedient and affectionate servant.“GEORGE WASHINGTON.”A superb monument of General von Steuben by Albert Jaegersnow occupies one of the corners of the square opposite the White House in Washington.Along with the splendid tribute to the American spirit of patriotism and unselfish devotion of Steuben, it seems fit and timely to add here the “creed” which was adopted by the officers of the American army at Verplanck’s Point, in 1782:We believe that there is a great First Cause, by whose almighty fiat we were formed; and that our business here is to obey the orders of our superiors. We believe that every soldier who does his duty will be happy here, and that every such one who dies in battle, will be happy hereafter. We believe that General Washington is the only fit man in the world to head the American army. We believe that Nathaniel Green was born a general. We believe that the evacuation of Ticonderoga was one of those strokes which stamp the man who dares to strike them, with everlasting fame.We believe that Baron Steuben has made us soldiers, and that he is capable of forming the whole world into a solid column, and displaying it from the center.We believe in his blue book. We believe in General Knox and his artillery. And we believe in our bayonets. Amen.The gratitude of the American people, many years after Steuben’s death, was solemnly attested by Congress in dedicating a monument to his memory at Pottsdam, with the inscription:To the German Emperor and the German People:This replica of the monument to the Memory ofGeneral Friedrich Wilhelm August von Steuben.Born in Magdeburg, 1730; died in the State of New York, 1794. Is dedicated by the Congress of the United States as a Token of Uninterrupted Friendship.Erected in Washington in Grateful Appreciation of his Services in the War of Independence of the American People.
Steuben, Baron Frederick William von.—Major General in the Revolutionary army. Descended from an old noble and military family of Prussia. Entered the service of Frederick the Great as a youth, and fought with distinction in the bloodiest engagements of the Seven Years War, being latterly attached to the personal staff of the great King. After the war, was persuaded by friends of the American Colonies and admirers of his ability in France to offer his services to Congress, and on September 26, 1777, set sail aboard the twenty-four gun ship “l’Heureaux” at Marseilles, arriving at Portsmouth, N. H., December 1, 1777.
Found the American army full of spirit and patriotism, but badly disciplined, and was appointed Inspector General. Wrote the first book of military instruction in America, which was approved by General Washington, authorized by Congress and used in the drilling of the troops. Distinguished himself especially in perfecting the light infantry, his method being subsequently copied by several European armies and by Lord Cornwallis himself during the Revolution.
With General DeKalb and other foreign-born officers he encountered much opposition and annoyance from native officers on account of jealousy and prejudice, and though supported by General Washington, Hamilton and other influential men, had difficulty in obtaining from Congress what he was legally entitled to claim, not as a reward for his conspicuous services, but to enable him to support life. When threatening to take his discharge, Washington sought to dissuade him on the ground that his service was well-nigh indispensable to the cause of the colonists, and in justifying a memorandum of sums advanced to Steuben in excess of the $2,000 per annum promised him, the commander-in-chief wrote to Congress:
“It is reasonable that a man devoting his time and service to the public—and by general consent a very useful one—should at least have his expenses borne. His established pay is certainly altogether inadequate to this,” showing that Steuben was not actuated by mercenary motives in serving the Colonists.
“Your intention of quitting us,” wrote Col. Benjamin Walker, March 10, 1780, to Steuben, “cannot but give me much concern, both as an individual and as a member of the Commonwealth, convinced as I am of the necessity of your presence to the existence of order and discipline in the army. I cannot but dread the moment when such event shall take place, for much am I afraid we should again fall into that state of absolute negligence and disorder from which you have in some manner drawn us.”
It was Steuben who taught the Americans the value of bayonet fighting. The engagement at Stony Point proved the value of the bayonet as an arm. Previous to this time Steuben preached in vain on the usefulness of this weapon. The soldiers had no faith in it. But when Stony Point Fort was captured without firing a shot and when, the next day, Steuben with General Washington appeared on the scene, “Steuben was surrounded by all his young soldiers and they assured him unanimously that they would take care for the future not to lose their bayonets, nor roast beefsteaks with them, as they used to do.”
By his personal kindness and popularity Steuben was able to bring about marked reforms, and to convert the forces from untrained volunteers with no sense of order into a well-disciplined army which enabled Washington to win some of his chief battles. Speaking on a resolution before Congress to pay Steuben the sum of $2,700 due him, a member, Mr. Page, cited as proof of the efficiency which had been inculcated into the army by the distinguished German-American, an interesting incident in the following words:
“I was told that when the Marquis de Lafayette, with a detachment under his command, was in danger of being cut off on his return to the army, and the commander-in-chief was determined to support that valuable officer, the whole army was under arms and ready to march in less than fifteen minutes from the time the signal was given.” In the end Steuben was presented by Congress with a gold-hilted sword as a high expression of its sense of his military talents, services and character, and a large tract of land in New York State was given him on which to live in his old age.
At the battle of Yorktown Steuben was so fortunate as to receive the first overtures of Lord Cornwallis. “At the relieving hour next morning,” relates North, “the Marquis de Lafayette approached with his division; the baron refused to be relieved, assigning as a reason the etiquette in Europe; that the offer to capitulate had been made during his guard, and that it was a point of honor, of which he would not deprive his troops, to remain in the trenches till the capitulation was signed, or hostilities recommenced. The dispute was referred by Lafayette to the commander-in-chief; but Steuben remained until the British flag was struck.”
GENERAL VON STEUBENDrillmaster of the American Revolutionary Armies.
GENERAL VON STEUBENDrillmaster of the American Revolutionary Armies.
Steuben died in the night of November 25, 1794, on his farm, highly respected throughout the State and reverenced by the distinguished men of his time as well as by the German population, having served as president of the German Society of New York. When in 1824 Lafayette visited the United States the inhabitants of Oneida County collected money for erecting a monument over Steuben’s grave. They invited Lafayette to dedicate the monument, but he refused to accede to their request, excusing himself under some shallow pretext. (“Life of Steuben,” by Friedrich Kapp.)
That Steuben had no mercenary motives in coming to America, is proved by his letter to Congress. He wrote:
“The honor of serving a nation engaged in defending its rights and liberties was the only motive that brought me to this continent. I asked neither riches nor titles. I came here from the remotest end of Germany at my own expense and have given up honorable and lucrative rank. I have made no condition with your deputies in France, nor shall I make any with you. My own ambition is to serve you as a volunteer, to deserve the confidence of your general-in-chief, and to follow him in all his operations, as I have done during the seven campaigns with the King of Prussia.... I should willingly purchase at the expense of my blood the honor of having my name enrolled among those of the defenders of your liberty.”
Washington’s appreciation of Steuben is finally and irrevocably attested in the following letter dated Annapolis, December 23, 1783:
“My dear Baron! Although I have taken frequent opportunities, both in public and private, of acknowledging your zeal, attention and abilities in performing the duties of your office, yet I wish to make use of this last moment of my public life to signify in the strongest terms my entire approbation of your conduct, and to express my sense of the obligations the public is under to you for your faithful and meritorious service.“I beg you will be convinced, my dear Sir, that I should rejoice if it could ever be in my power to serve you more essentially than by expressions of regard and affection. But in the meantime I am persuaded you will not be displeased with this farewell token of my sincere friendship and esteem for you.“This is the last letter I shall ever write while I continue in the service of my country. The hour of my resignation is fixed at twelve this day, after which I shall become a private citizen on the banks of the Potomac, where I shall be glad to embrace you, and testify the great esteem and consideration, with which I am, my dear Baron, your most obedient and affectionate servant.“GEORGE WASHINGTON.”
“My dear Baron! Although I have taken frequent opportunities, both in public and private, of acknowledging your zeal, attention and abilities in performing the duties of your office, yet I wish to make use of this last moment of my public life to signify in the strongest terms my entire approbation of your conduct, and to express my sense of the obligations the public is under to you for your faithful and meritorious service.
“I beg you will be convinced, my dear Sir, that I should rejoice if it could ever be in my power to serve you more essentially than by expressions of regard and affection. But in the meantime I am persuaded you will not be displeased with this farewell token of my sincere friendship and esteem for you.
“This is the last letter I shall ever write while I continue in the service of my country. The hour of my resignation is fixed at twelve this day, after which I shall become a private citizen on the banks of the Potomac, where I shall be glad to embrace you, and testify the great esteem and consideration, with which I am, my dear Baron, your most obedient and affectionate servant.
“GEORGE WASHINGTON.”
A superb monument of General von Steuben by Albert Jaegersnow occupies one of the corners of the square opposite the White House in Washington.
Along with the splendid tribute to the American spirit of patriotism and unselfish devotion of Steuben, it seems fit and timely to add here the “creed” which was adopted by the officers of the American army at Verplanck’s Point, in 1782:
We believe that there is a great First Cause, by whose almighty fiat we were formed; and that our business here is to obey the orders of our superiors. We believe that every soldier who does his duty will be happy here, and that every such one who dies in battle, will be happy hereafter. We believe that General Washington is the only fit man in the world to head the American army. We believe that Nathaniel Green was born a general. We believe that the evacuation of Ticonderoga was one of those strokes which stamp the man who dares to strike them, with everlasting fame.We believe that Baron Steuben has made us soldiers, and that he is capable of forming the whole world into a solid column, and displaying it from the center.We believe in his blue book. We believe in General Knox and his artillery. And we believe in our bayonets. Amen.
The gratitude of the American people, many years after Steuben’s death, was solemnly attested by Congress in dedicating a monument to his memory at Pottsdam, with the inscription:
To the German Emperor and the German People:This replica of the monument to the Memory ofGeneral Friedrich Wilhelm August von Steuben.Born in Magdeburg, 1730; died in the State of New York, 1794. Is dedicated by the Congress of the United States as a Token of Uninterrupted Friendship.Erected in Washington in Grateful Appreciation of his Services in the War of Independence of the American People.
To the German Emperor and the German People:This replica of the monument to the Memory ofGeneral Friedrich Wilhelm August von Steuben.
Born in Magdeburg, 1730; died in the State of New York, 1794. Is dedicated by the Congress of the United States as a Token of Uninterrupted Friendship.
Erected in Washington in Grateful Appreciation of his Services in the War of Independence of the American People.
Sulphur King, Herman Frasch.Sulphur King, Herman Frasch.—Inventor of the method of pumping up sulphur from its deposits, known as the water process, patented in 1891, which made available the large sulphur deposits in southern Louisiana and other places, which had puzzled engineers for years. Frasch came originally from Germany in the steerage, obtained work sweeping out a retail drug store, became a clerk and finally was graduated from the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy. He joined the Standard Oil Company, and in prospecting for oil came upon abandoned sulphur workings. The deposits were covered with quicksands which had caused the death of several men, they exhaled noxious gases and the attempts to mine them were called a failure. Frasch bought them for a song on his own account, and began sinking his own perforated pipes through which he forced steam and hot water from a battery of boilers which he had rigged up. Frasch became a millionaire and revolutionized sulphur mining in Sicily.
Sulphur King, Herman Frasch.—Inventor of the method of pumping up sulphur from its deposits, known as the water process, patented in 1891, which made available the large sulphur deposits in southern Louisiana and other places, which had puzzled engineers for years. Frasch came originally from Germany in the steerage, obtained work sweeping out a retail drug store, became a clerk and finally was graduated from the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy. He joined the Standard Oil Company, and in prospecting for oil came upon abandoned sulphur workings. The deposits were covered with quicksands which had caused the death of several men, they exhaled noxious gases and the attempts to mine them were called a failure. Frasch bought them for a song on his own account, and began sinking his own perforated pipes through which he forced steam and hot water from a battery of boilers which he had rigged up. Frasch became a millionaire and revolutionized sulphur mining in Sicily.
Sutter, the Romance of the California Pioneer.Sutter, the Romance of the California Pioneer.—The romance of American colonization contains no chapter more absorbing than that of the winning of the West. A poetic veil has been cast about the California gold excitement and the rugged pioneers of the gulch, by Bret Harte, Joaquin Miller and Mark Twain; but few historians have thought it worth their pain to uncover the romance of the original pioneer of California on whose land was found the first gold that formed the lodestone of attraction for the millions that swept westward on the tide of empire.Against the historic background of the settlement of the Pacific Coast stands out in luminous outlines the figure of Capt. John August Sutter. Where another German, John Jacob Astor, had failed—that of founding an American colony on the Pacific—he succeeded, even before California, taken from Mexico as a result of the war of 1846, became a State of the Union in 1850. His career is an inspiration to his fellow racials wherever German veins tingle to the thrill of American achievement.Born 1803 at Kandern, in the Grand Duchy of Baden, Sutter received an excellent education, graduated from the cadet school at Thun and, after serving as an officer in the Swiss army and acquiring Swiss citizenship, he came to the United States in 1834. He first wandered to St. Louis, then the outfitting point for the Santa Fe trail and center of the fur trade. Here Sutter joined an expedition to Santa Fe and returned to St. Louis with a substantial profit. His next trip was undertaken with an American fur expedition and, crossing the Rocky Mountains, he reached Vancouver, the headquarters of the Hudson Bay Fur Company on the Pacific, in September, 1838. After a visit to the Sandwich Islands and to Sitka, Alaska, he arrived in Monterey, California, in 1839, and determined to put into execution a long-cherished plan of founding a colony on the Sacramento River. Selecting a spot 120 miles northeast of San Francisco, which had been highly recommended to him by trappers, he formed the settlement, New Switzerland, upon a strip of land which he had acquired on favorable terms from the Spanish governor, Alvarado. Here, of strong walls and bastions, he built Fort Sutter and armed it with twelve cannon. He then offered inducements to settlers to join him, broke several hundred acres of land, built a tannery, a mill and a distillery, fenced in a large area of grazing land between the Sacramento and Feather rivers, employed Indians as herders and laborers and placed them under Mexican, American and German overseers. About 1840 his livestock consisted of 20,000 head of horses, cattle and sheep.Fort Sutter soon attracted a desirable class of settlers, many of them mechanics, who found ready employment here, as well as hunters and trappers, who came to exchange furs for supplies of food, ofclothes and of powder and lead. Having complied with the terms of his agreement, he was given title to the Alvarado grant and was appointed by the governor the official representative of the Mexican government for the northern part of California.In the Mexican civil war between Santa Anna and the constitutional president, Bustamento, he cast his lot with Santa Anna’s governor, Manuel Micheltorena, and in 1845 received from the latter for his services the Sobranta grant. There was almost a daily increase of his land and pastures. His fort became too small. In 1844 he laid out the town of Sutterville on the Sacramento River, which latterly took the name of Sacramento. In 1848 he established vineyards on his property, the first north of Sonoma. His wheat crop is estimated at 40,000 bushels for various years, while his large commercial and industrial enterprises promised him a steady increase of a fortune, even then estimated at millions. His fortune seems to have reached its apex in 1846.Immigration into California was steadily increasing; the old antipathy of the Spaniards and Indians against Mexico was stimulated into new life; Major Fremont, the Pathfinder, visited Fort Sutter, and encouraged by him, Sutter in the spring of 1846 declared his independence and on July 11 of that year hoisted the Stars and Stripes over his fort.Once before the flag had been raised by a German on the Pacific Coast, at Astoria by Astor in 1811. It was not suffered to remain there permanently, but this time it was destined not to be hauled down again. The war between Mexico and the United States broke out. Commodore Stockton appeared with an American squadron, soldiers of the Union began their invasion (see “Quitman,” elsewhere), and California became a territory of the United States. Sutter was now destined to experience that life is uncertain and fortune is fickle.In January, 1848, Sutter was about to build a mill on the American River, a tributary of the Sacramento, and, in digging the foundation, J. W. Marshall, an agent of Sutter’s, discovered gold. Despite the efforts of Sutter to keep the discovery secret for a while until his mill was completed and his fields were put in order, the news circulated with the speed of the wind. The magic word had been spoken, and thence on no man thought of anything but gold. The irresistible rush was on; a tide of humanity swept on to wash gold and dig up the mountain sides farther up. Wages rose beyond all reason, so that it was impossible to continue farming and industry, since there were no hands to do the work. Titles were worthless. Thousands of adventurers squatted on Sutter’s land. Countless law suits had to be instituted, and Sutter’s property was soon covered with mortgages.In the end the supreme court confirmed his title to the Alvarado grant while declaring null and void that of the much larger grant from Micheltorena. Other misfortunes came apace and presently Sutter saw his great fortune swept away. The State of California granted him an annuity of $3,000 for seven years in lieu of taxes paid by him on American federal-owned property which was immune from tax.In the year 1865 Sutter turned his back upon California and went to Pennsylvania, where he died poor at Litiz. But he was not forgotten. His name was given to rivers, towns and counties and the room of the legislative assembly was decorated with his portrait. He had been elected major general of the State militia and in 1849 he was made a member of the convention to adopt a constitution. In this capacity he was active in securing the passage of measures declaring for the abolition of slavery.Sutter was naturally generous, hospitable and broad-minded, with a strong adjunct of courage, shrewdness and enterprise in great conceptions. A memorial speech delivered by Edward J. Kewen on the occasion of a banquet of the Society of California Pioneers, September 9, 1854, concludes with the following tribute:In the cycle of the coming years historians will write of the founding and settlement of this western State, and when they shall dwell upon the virtues, the hardships, the sufferings and courage, the fearlessness which has brought all this about; when they describe the mighty impulse which this commonwealth has exercised upon the progress of free government and the development of the principles of liberty, and when they shall adorn the annals with the name of the founders of its fame, no name will illuminate their records with more brilliant light than that of the immortal Sutter—the noble example of the California pioneers.
Sutter, the Romance of the California Pioneer.—The romance of American colonization contains no chapter more absorbing than that of the winning of the West. A poetic veil has been cast about the California gold excitement and the rugged pioneers of the gulch, by Bret Harte, Joaquin Miller and Mark Twain; but few historians have thought it worth their pain to uncover the romance of the original pioneer of California on whose land was found the first gold that formed the lodestone of attraction for the millions that swept westward on the tide of empire.
Against the historic background of the settlement of the Pacific Coast stands out in luminous outlines the figure of Capt. John August Sutter. Where another German, John Jacob Astor, had failed—that of founding an American colony on the Pacific—he succeeded, even before California, taken from Mexico as a result of the war of 1846, became a State of the Union in 1850. His career is an inspiration to his fellow racials wherever German veins tingle to the thrill of American achievement.
Born 1803 at Kandern, in the Grand Duchy of Baden, Sutter received an excellent education, graduated from the cadet school at Thun and, after serving as an officer in the Swiss army and acquiring Swiss citizenship, he came to the United States in 1834. He first wandered to St. Louis, then the outfitting point for the Santa Fe trail and center of the fur trade. Here Sutter joined an expedition to Santa Fe and returned to St. Louis with a substantial profit. His next trip was undertaken with an American fur expedition and, crossing the Rocky Mountains, he reached Vancouver, the headquarters of the Hudson Bay Fur Company on the Pacific, in September, 1838. After a visit to the Sandwich Islands and to Sitka, Alaska, he arrived in Monterey, California, in 1839, and determined to put into execution a long-cherished plan of founding a colony on the Sacramento River. Selecting a spot 120 miles northeast of San Francisco, which had been highly recommended to him by trappers, he formed the settlement, New Switzerland, upon a strip of land which he had acquired on favorable terms from the Spanish governor, Alvarado. Here, of strong walls and bastions, he built Fort Sutter and armed it with twelve cannon. He then offered inducements to settlers to join him, broke several hundred acres of land, built a tannery, a mill and a distillery, fenced in a large area of grazing land between the Sacramento and Feather rivers, employed Indians as herders and laborers and placed them under Mexican, American and German overseers. About 1840 his livestock consisted of 20,000 head of horses, cattle and sheep.
Fort Sutter soon attracted a desirable class of settlers, many of them mechanics, who found ready employment here, as well as hunters and trappers, who came to exchange furs for supplies of food, ofclothes and of powder and lead. Having complied with the terms of his agreement, he was given title to the Alvarado grant and was appointed by the governor the official representative of the Mexican government for the northern part of California.
In the Mexican civil war between Santa Anna and the constitutional president, Bustamento, he cast his lot with Santa Anna’s governor, Manuel Micheltorena, and in 1845 received from the latter for his services the Sobranta grant. There was almost a daily increase of his land and pastures. His fort became too small. In 1844 he laid out the town of Sutterville on the Sacramento River, which latterly took the name of Sacramento. In 1848 he established vineyards on his property, the first north of Sonoma. His wheat crop is estimated at 40,000 bushels for various years, while his large commercial and industrial enterprises promised him a steady increase of a fortune, even then estimated at millions. His fortune seems to have reached its apex in 1846.
Immigration into California was steadily increasing; the old antipathy of the Spaniards and Indians against Mexico was stimulated into new life; Major Fremont, the Pathfinder, visited Fort Sutter, and encouraged by him, Sutter in the spring of 1846 declared his independence and on July 11 of that year hoisted the Stars and Stripes over his fort.
Once before the flag had been raised by a German on the Pacific Coast, at Astoria by Astor in 1811. It was not suffered to remain there permanently, but this time it was destined not to be hauled down again. The war between Mexico and the United States broke out. Commodore Stockton appeared with an American squadron, soldiers of the Union began their invasion (see “Quitman,” elsewhere), and California became a territory of the United States. Sutter was now destined to experience that life is uncertain and fortune is fickle.
In January, 1848, Sutter was about to build a mill on the American River, a tributary of the Sacramento, and, in digging the foundation, J. W. Marshall, an agent of Sutter’s, discovered gold. Despite the efforts of Sutter to keep the discovery secret for a while until his mill was completed and his fields were put in order, the news circulated with the speed of the wind. The magic word had been spoken, and thence on no man thought of anything but gold. The irresistible rush was on; a tide of humanity swept on to wash gold and dig up the mountain sides farther up. Wages rose beyond all reason, so that it was impossible to continue farming and industry, since there were no hands to do the work. Titles were worthless. Thousands of adventurers squatted on Sutter’s land. Countless law suits had to be instituted, and Sutter’s property was soon covered with mortgages.In the end the supreme court confirmed his title to the Alvarado grant while declaring null and void that of the much larger grant from Micheltorena. Other misfortunes came apace and presently Sutter saw his great fortune swept away. The State of California granted him an annuity of $3,000 for seven years in lieu of taxes paid by him on American federal-owned property which was immune from tax.
In the year 1865 Sutter turned his back upon California and went to Pennsylvania, where he died poor at Litiz. But he was not forgotten. His name was given to rivers, towns and counties and the room of the legislative assembly was decorated with his portrait. He had been elected major general of the State militia and in 1849 he was made a member of the convention to adopt a constitution. In this capacity he was active in securing the passage of measures declaring for the abolition of slavery.
Sutter was naturally generous, hospitable and broad-minded, with a strong adjunct of courage, shrewdness and enterprise in great conceptions. A memorial speech delivered by Edward J. Kewen on the occasion of a banquet of the Society of California Pioneers, September 9, 1854, concludes with the following tribute:
In the cycle of the coming years historians will write of the founding and settlement of this western State, and when they shall dwell upon the virtues, the hardships, the sufferings and courage, the fearlessness which has brought all this about; when they describe the mighty impulse which this commonwealth has exercised upon the progress of free government and the development of the principles of liberty, and when they shall adorn the annals with the name of the founders of its fame, no name will illuminate their records with more brilliant light than that of the immortal Sutter—the noble example of the California pioneers.
“Swordmaker of the Confederacy.”“Swordmaker of the Confederacy.”—Louis Haiman, born in Colmar, Prussia, who came to the United States at a tender age with his family and was brought to Columbus, Georgia, then a small village. At the outbreak of the Civil War Haiman was following the trade of a tinner. “His work,” according to the Atlanta “Constitution,” was successful, “and in 1861 he opened a sword factory to supply the Confederacy a weapon that the South at the time had poor facilities for making. Such was Haiman’s success that in a year’s time his factory covered a block in the town of Columbus and was the most extensive business in the place. The first sword made by Haiman was presented to Col. Peyton H. Colquitt, and was one of the handsomest in all the Southern army. It was inlaid with gold, and was constantly used by Colonel Colquitt up to the time of his death. After that Haiman made swords for the officers of the Confederate army, and his first order came from Captain Wagner, in charge of the arsenal at Montgomery, Ala.Later on, to supply the needs of the troops in Southern Georgia and Alabama, he added a manufactory of firearms and accoutrements to his establishment. When the Federal army occupied Georgia Haiman’s property was confiscated and turned into a federal arsenal. General Wilson, commander of the army of occupation, proposed to restore to Haiman his property if he would take the oath of allegiance to the Federal authority, but Haiman’s unswerving loyalty to the cause of the South would not for a moment allow him to brook such a suggestion, and with the departure of the troops his factory was razed to the ground. His swords came to be famous in the ranks of the Confederacy, and their temper and durability have often called to mind the supreme test of swords related in ‘Ivanhoe’ between the leaders of Christendom and heathendom, Richard Coeur de Lion and Saladin. After the war, with the resources left him, he entered business at Columbus, that of manufacturing plows.”
“Swordmaker of the Confederacy.”—Louis Haiman, born in Colmar, Prussia, who came to the United States at a tender age with his family and was brought to Columbus, Georgia, then a small village. At the outbreak of the Civil War Haiman was following the trade of a tinner. “His work,” according to the Atlanta “Constitution,” was successful, “and in 1861 he opened a sword factory to supply the Confederacy a weapon that the South at the time had poor facilities for making. Such was Haiman’s success that in a year’s time his factory covered a block in the town of Columbus and was the most extensive business in the place. The first sword made by Haiman was presented to Col. Peyton H. Colquitt, and was one of the handsomest in all the Southern army. It was inlaid with gold, and was constantly used by Colonel Colquitt up to the time of his death. After that Haiman made swords for the officers of the Confederate army, and his first order came from Captain Wagner, in charge of the arsenal at Montgomery, Ala.Later on, to supply the needs of the troops in Southern Georgia and Alabama, he added a manufactory of firearms and accoutrements to his establishment. When the Federal army occupied Georgia Haiman’s property was confiscated and turned into a federal arsenal. General Wilson, commander of the army of occupation, proposed to restore to Haiman his property if he would take the oath of allegiance to the Federal authority, but Haiman’s unswerving loyalty to the cause of the South would not for a moment allow him to brook such a suggestion, and with the departure of the troops his factory was razed to the ground. His swords came to be famous in the ranks of the Confederacy, and their temper and durability have often called to mind the supreme test of swords related in ‘Ivanhoe’ between the leaders of Christendom and heathendom, Richard Coeur de Lion and Saladin. After the war, with the resources left him, he entered business at Columbus, that of manufacturing plows.”
Tolstoy on American Liberty.Tolstoy on American Liberty.—Although Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, New York City, never surrendered the decoration bestowed upon him by the Kaiser, and though he had delivered sundry sound scoldings to England for her professed fears of German aggression, in the days before the war, his name stands out conspicuously among a considerable number of heads of colleges for the suppression of free speech and liberty of conscience in regard to the war. A number of the professors, several of international fame, were compelled to resign under the pressure exercised from above, and Columbia became known for its spirit of intolerance. Among those who felt this was Count Ilya Tolstoy, son of the famous Russian author and philosopher, himself a man of distinction in those fields.In February, 1917, even before we entered the war, Tolstoy’s engagement to deliver a lecture at a meeting of the International Club in the assembly room of Philosophy Hall, Columbia University, was summarily cancelled, although he had delivered the same lecture without molestation at Princeton a few days before. In an interview the distinguished savant said:“The action of Columbia University was no insult to me. It was an insult to the vaunted institution of free speech in this country. I shall go back to Russia and tell them the story. I shall tell them how New York prevented me from giving the lecture I gave before thousands in Moscow. They will be astonished. My countrymen have made your heralded freedom of speech a shibboleth of liberty—in our land.... It matters little. I am surprised, but not hurt. Only I have learned that Russia has much more freedom from personal prejudice, in many ways, than this country has.”—New York “American,” February 12, 1917.
Tolstoy on American Liberty.—Although Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, New York City, never surrendered the decoration bestowed upon him by the Kaiser, and though he had delivered sundry sound scoldings to England for her professed fears of German aggression, in the days before the war, his name stands out conspicuously among a considerable number of heads of colleges for the suppression of free speech and liberty of conscience in regard to the war. A number of the professors, several of international fame, were compelled to resign under the pressure exercised from above, and Columbia became known for its spirit of intolerance. Among those who felt this was Count Ilya Tolstoy, son of the famous Russian author and philosopher, himself a man of distinction in those fields.
In February, 1917, even before we entered the war, Tolstoy’s engagement to deliver a lecture at a meeting of the International Club in the assembly room of Philosophy Hall, Columbia University, was summarily cancelled, although he had delivered the same lecture without molestation at Princeton a few days before. In an interview the distinguished savant said:
“The action of Columbia University was no insult to me. It was an insult to the vaunted institution of free speech in this country. I shall go back to Russia and tell them the story. I shall tell them how New York prevented me from giving the lecture I gave before thousands in Moscow. They will be astonished. My countrymen have made your heralded freedom of speech a shibboleth of liberty—in our land.... It matters little. I am surprised, but not hurt. Only I have learned that Russia has much more freedom from personal prejudice, in many ways, than this country has.”—New York “American,” February 12, 1917.
Commercial Treaty with Germany and How it Was Observed.Commercial Treaty with Germany and How it Was Observed.—One of the most humane and liberal treaties in the history of nations was that entered into between the United States and Prussia in 1799. It was renewed in 1828 and became the treaty governing the relations between Germany and ourselves in 1871 on the establishment of the German Empire.This treaty was in force in 1917 when we entered the war. Some high eulogiums have been passed upon this treaty, which was signed by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, and, in 1828, by Henry Clay, on the part of the United States, and by the authorized representative of Frederick the Great, on the other. In his comments on this treaty, Theodore Lyman, Jr., a writer with a strong Tory tendency and chary of praise as regards Prussia, makes the following observations in his “The Diplomacy of the United States” (1828):This treaty, which has been called a beautiful abstraction, is remarkable for the provisions which it contains: Blockades of every description were abolished—the flag covered the property—contrabands were exempted from confiscation, though they might be employed for the use of the captor on payment of their full value. This, we believe, is the only treaty ever made by America in which contrabands were not subject to confiscation, nor are we aware that any other modern treaty contains this remarkable provision. We are probably indebted to Dr. Franklin for the articles.It received an even higher endorsement in a message to Congress, dated March 15, 1826, by President John Quincy Adams, who said:They (the three American commissioners) met and resided for that purpose about one year in Paris and the only result of their negotiations at that time was the first treaty between the United States and Prussia—memorable in the diplomatic history of the world and precious as a monument of the principles, in relation to commerce and maritime warfare with which our country entered upon her career as a member of the great family of independent nations.... At that time in the infancy of their political existence, under the influence of those principles of liberty and of right so congenial to the cause in which they had just fought and triumphed,they were able to obtain the sanction of but one great and philosophical though absolute sovereign in Europe (Frederick the Great) to their liberal and enlightened principles. They could obtain no more.The two principal provisions of the treaty of 1799-1828 follow:Article XII:And it is declared, that neither the pretense that war dissolves all treaties, nor any other whatever, shall be considered as annulling or suspending this and the next preceding article; but, on the contrary, that the state of war is precisely that for whichthey are provided, and during which they are to be as sacredly observed as the most acknowledged articles in the law of nature and nations.Article XXIII provides as follows:If war should arise between the two contracting parties, the merchants of either country then residing in the other shall be allowed to remain nine months to collect their debts and settle their affairs, and may depart freely, carrying off all their effects without molestation or hindrance; and all women and children, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, artisans, manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns, villages, or places, and in general all others whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments and shall not be molested in their persons, nor shall their houses or goods be burnt or otherwise destroyed, nor their fields wasted by the armed force of the enemy, into whose power by the event of war they may happen to fall; but if anything is necessary to be taken from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at a reasonable price.Under the foregoing, German citizens, merchants, corporations, companies, etc., would have the right for the period of nine months after the declaration of war to collect their debts, settle their affairs, and, if possible, to depart safely, carrying all their effects with them without any hindrance whatsoever. This would mean, for instance, that the owners of the German vessels interned in our harbors would be privileged to have full control over their property.Under date of February 8, 1917, the State Department issued the following statement:It having been reported to him that there is anxiety in some quarters on the part of persons residing in this country who are the subjects of foreign states lest their bank deposits or other property should be seized in the event of war between the United States and a foreign nation, the President authorizes the statement that all such fears are entirely unfounded.The Government of the United States will under no circumstances take advantage of a state of war to take possession of property to which under international understandings and the recognized law of the land give it no just claim or title. It will scrupulously respect all private rights, alike of its own citizens and the subjects of foreign states.This was made public two months before we found ourselves in a state of war with Germany. Soon after, A. Mitchell Palmer was appointed Custodian of Alien Property and began to seize about one thousand million dollars’ worth of German property and securities—not the property of the Imperial German Government, with which we were at war, but the property of German private persons.Using the language of an editorial in one of the leading newspapers in America of August 29, 1919, a treaty between the United States and Germany, which had never been denounced and was in full force, provided that in case of war between Germany and the United States, Germany should permit American owners of property in Germany, or Americans doing business in Germany, to have nine months in which to wind up their business affairs, to dispose of their property and to take themselves unhindered out of Germany. And the United States bound itself, of course, to give the same treatment to German aliens doing business or owning property in America. This treaty agreement was deliberately broken by the Custodian of Alien Property. Under international law the duty of such a custodian is to take possession of the property of alien citizens of an enemy country, administer that property carefully, preserve it in good faith, and hold the earnings of the property and the property itself ready for return to the owners whenever peace shall come. “We want,” declares the paper, “to keep the name and reputation of the American people so clean and honorable that no American shall ever need to apologize either to friend or foe.” (New York “American.”)As a result of the confiscation of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of alien property, a sensational scandal developed, which was aired in the House and Senate and had a perceptible bearing on the defeat of the League of Nations treaty in the Senate. Among other things, Palmer, ultimately appointed Attorney General, was charged with having sold the great Bosch magneto works, valued at $16,000,000, for $4,000,000, giving the preference to friends; and Representative J. Hampton Moore, referring to Francis P. Garvan, Mr. Palmer’s successor as Custodian, demanded to know: “Why the same Frank P. Garvan, the distinguished criminal lawyer of New York, had recently been elected to and accepted the presidency of the Chemical Foundation, which has taken over all the German patents in the United States for the manufacture of dye stuffs through an arrangement with the Alien Property Custodian, A. Mitchell Palmer, now Attorney General?”In his speech of June 21, 1919, in the House, Mr. Moore named a number of big trust operators and financiers, including Cleveland H. Dodge, as having formed the Chemical Foundation and taking over “4,500 patents which Mr. Palmer and Mr. Garvan, this distinguished criminal lawyer from New York, the successor of Mr. Palmer as Alien Property Custodian, found on file in the Patent Office, and which they seized on the ground that they belonged to certain German patentees.” (New York “Times,” June 22, 1919.)Hardly a pretence is made by the administration that the seizure was legal, and the death-blow to all such pretensions was delivered when, in urging the ratification of the Versailles treaty by the Senate, Senator Hitchcock, the administration’s Senate leader, declared:Through the treaty we will get very much of importance.... In violation of all international law and treaties, we have made disposition of a billion dollars of German-owned property here. The treaty validates all that.It is important that Americans should know the facts in the case, however unpopular the narrative may be, in order that they may set themselves right before the world, or at least be prepared for the wave of prejudice which is bound to be excited by the remarkable proceedings. Quoting Walter T. Rose, a prominent Chicago exporter just returned from a tour of Europe, the New York “Sun” of November 28, 1919, said: “It is an unfortunate fact that hardly anywhere in Europe does one hear good opinions of America and Americans.” Mr. Rose gathered his opinions in France and England as well as in central Europe. The course of the Custodian of Alien Property establishes a precedent that, of course, will be heeded by those associated with us in the war no less than by our late enemies. It is a warning that the filing of patents and patented processes insures no immunity from confiscation in the event of war, and a warning to foreign investors to go slow in investing their money in industries in the United States. To counteract this policy imposes a moral task upon every citizen of the United States who holds the honor of his country above a dollar. For we shall have flaunted in our faces this passage from President Wilson’s address to Congress, April 2, 1917:We shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as belligerents without passion, and ourselves observe with proud punctilio the principles of right and fair play we profess to be fighting for.... It will be easier for us to conduct ourselves as belligerents in a high spirit of right and fairness because we act, not in enmity of a people or with a desire to bring any injury or disadvantage upon them, but only in opposition to an irresponsible government. We are, let me say again, the sincere friends of the German people, and shall desire nothing so much as the early re-establishment of intimate relations of mutual advantage between us—however hard it may be for them, for the time being, to believe this is spoken from our hearts.In a hearing before a Senate committee investigating his acts as Custodian, Mr. Palmer named as his advisory committee, Otto Barnard, Cleveland H. Dodge, George L. Ingraham and Alex Griswold, Jr. He asserted that he had seized 40,000 German properties. Upon his list were the names of 32 Germans and Austrian-Hungarians interned as enemy aliens, whose property was taken over by him. Their names and the value of their property follows:Carl Heynan, $487,748; Adolf Pavenstedt, $1,661,408; E. K. Victor, $274,092; Edward Lutz, $117,865; Hugo Schmidt, $89,434; F. Stallforth, $540,408; Ad. Fischer, $477,396; F. Rosenberg, $228,484; Max Breitung,$46,006; Isaac Straus, $36,688; Franz Bopp, $31,782; Adolf Kessler, $205,165; Robert Tumler, $48,655; Dr. Ernst Kunwald, $26,456; Fritz Bergmeier, $28,651; Dr. Karl Muck, $82,181; Hans Cron, $54,436; J. H. Beckmann, $120,360; Paul Lubeke, $30,930; Johannes Schlenzig, $58,967; Max Reinhard, $52,433; Gunther Weiske, $138,255; M. S. Barnet, $42,766; Heinrich Beckisch, $25,811; Frank H. Meyer, $60,928; Arthur Richter, $50,012; Herbert Clemens, $53,813; Fritz Materna, $40,000; William H. Steinmann, $32,768; Julius Pirnitzer, $84,656; Desider W. B. de Waray, $200,166; C. F. Banning, $44,000.Among the amounts confiscated was $3,000 left in the will of Mrs. Louisa Manada, of Wyoming, for the care of blind soldiers in Berlin, her home going to a hospital in this country.Among those mentioned as placed in charge of enemy property by the Custodian, in his report to the Senate, March 1, 1919, appear the names of several prominent newspaper men and politicians: Don C. Seitz, publisher of the New York “World,” and George McAneny, publisher of the New York “Times,” two strong administration papers, both of whom were trustees of the Bridgeport Projectile Company. Mr. McAneny and Henry Morgenthau, former ambassador to Turkey, were made trustees of the American Metal Company, another enemy concern. Gavin McNab, of San Francisco, a leading Democratic politician of California, was made a trustee of the Charles E. Houson Estate Company, the Marvin Estate Company and the J. H. von Schroeder Investment Company.In the investigation Mr. Palmer denied the various charges, and others referred to, as well as the allegation, aired in the New York “World,” that his name corresponded with the initials of a certain M. P. mentioned in the captured notes of Dr. Albert, the German agent, who was referred to as friendly to Germany. He stated that “no other course than the seizure was compatible with the safety of American institutions,” to which reply was made from Germany that the $700,000,000 investments by Germans in this country did not reach “one-half of the total value, for instance, of a single American industrial company like the United States Steel Corporation, and not even approximately one per cent. of the total value of American industrial enterprises.” The immense business built up here by the Germans was, Mr. Palmer said, lost to the Germans forever, and there was absolutely no hope for the development of American chemical industries under the old conditions. He defended the Bosch seizure on the ground of a plot by the manager to promise special apparatus to the British for their aeroplanes without intending to deliver them.Millions of dollars’ worth of property belonging to women of American birth, married to German and Austrian subjects, was taken over by the Custodian. Many prominent women are in the list, including Countess Gladys Vanderbilt-Szechenyi, whose property as taken overamounts to nearly $4,000,000 in securities in addition to the income from a $5,000,000 trust fund created under the will of her father.The list includes:Baroness Augusta Louise von Alten, Budapest, Hungary, formerly Augusta L. De Haven, and Sarah E. von Camps Hanover, Welfel, Germany, formerly Sarah E. De Haven, granddaughters of the late Louisa G. Bigelow, formerly of Chicago. Estate valued at about $1,460,000.Baroness Clara Erhart von Truchsess, Dusseldorf, Germany, formerly Clara Erhart, of New York. Life estate in trust fund of $500,000; securities valued at $600,000.Gertrude, Baroness von Bocklin, Baden, Germany, formerly Gertrude Berwind, of Philadelphia. Under the will of Charles F. Berwind, her father, she received more than $300,000 in property, which was put in trust with property received by the other heirs.Baroness Olivia Louise von Rothkirch, Schlesien, Germany, formerly Olivia Louise Brown, daughter of William John Brown, of New York. Life interest in trust, approximating $1,000,000.Baroness Matilda L. Bornemissa, Budapest, Austria; Baroness Margaret von Wucherer and Anna von Dory Johahaza, both of Steiermark, Austria, daughters of the late James Price, of Philadelphia, and Baroness Manon Dumreicher, Baron Tibor von Berg, Baron Tassilo von Berg and Baron Max von Berg, children of the deceased daughter, Baroness Sallie Mae Berg. The above enemies share an income of the trust under the will of Sarah Maria Price, valued at $275,000, and also in a trust created under the will of Samuel Harlan, Jr., valued at $75,000.Baroness Cornelia C. Zedlitz, Berlin, Germany, formerly Cornelia Carnochan Roosevelt, daughter of the late Charles Y. Roosevelt, of New York. Under a trust agreement made in 1889 in contemplation of marriage, her property, valued at about $1,000,000, was put in trust, reserving to her a life interest. Personal property valued at $200,000 was also taken over.Countess Marguerite Isabelle Eugenie Victorine de Stuers Obendorff, wife of the former German Ambassador to Austria, and grandniece of the late Henry Astor, grandson of the original John Jacob Astor, and inheritor of a share in his estate. Her mother was Countess Margaret Laura Zhorowski, daughter of Alida Astor, a sister of Henry Astor, and daughter of William Astor. Trust fund $60,000, created by deed of trust by her father; cash, $949,225 and eight-fifteenths interest in New York city property.Countess von Francken, Sierstorpff, Zyrowa Leschnitz, Prussia, formerly Mary Knowlton, daughter of Edwin F. Knowlton, of New York. Life interest trust fund $1,200,000, left under the will of herfather; Countess Alice Grote, Schloss Varechentin, Mecklenburg, Germany, formerly Alice von Bergen, daughter of Anthony von Bergen of New York. Life interest, $250,000.Countess Gladys Vanderbilt Szechenyi, Budapest, Hungary, daughter of the late Cornelius Vanderbilt and Alice G. Vanderbilt. Nearly $4,000,000 in securities taken over; also income from $5,000,000 trust fund created under the will of her father.Countess Harriet Sigray, Ivancz Nagycsakny, Hungary, daughter of the late Marcus Daly, of Montana, a sister of Mrs. James Gerard, wife of the former Ambassador to Germany. Securities taken over, $1,000,000.Countess Gladys McMillan Cornet, Brussels, Belgium, formerly Gladys McMillan, daughter of the late James H. McMillan, of Detroit. Life interest in one-tenth of trust of $4,500,000; life interest in two-thirds of trust of $450,000; life estate one-tenth trust of $600,000 and securities valued at $149,725.Countess Elizabeth T. P. de Gasquet-James, Krain, Austria, formerly Elizabeth T. Pratt James, of Esopus, N. Y. Life estate in $135,000 and bonds, $59,000.Lily Freifrau Treusch von Buttlar Brandenfees, Stettin, Germany, formerly Lilly G. Stetson, daughter of the late Isaiah Stetson, of Bangor, Me. Securities taken over valued at $250,000.Jayta Humphreys von Wolf, Munich, Germany, daughter of the late Frederic Humphreys, of New York. Life interest in a trust valued about $50,000.Rosa K. Schertel von Burtenbach, daughter of the late Frederick Schaefer, of New York. Under trust created in will of father, she has life interest of $200,000.Clara von Gontard, Berlin, Germany, daughter of the late Adolphus Busch and Lilly Busch, of St. Louis. Life interest in trust fund created under the will of Adolphus Busch, securities valued at $900,000, including stock holdings in Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company of St. Louis.Mary Trowbridge von Zepplin, Germany, formerly Mary Wilkens, Detroit, wife of Conrad von Zepplin and daughter of the late Lizzie C. Wilkens, of Detroit. Life estate trust fund, $40,000.Clara Bauer von Rosenthal, Frankfort-am-Main, Germany, formerly Clara Bauer, daughter of the late Augustus Bauer, Chicago. Life interest in trust of $35,000.Mary Grace von der Hellan, Hamburg, Germany, formerly Mary Grace Meissner, Garden City, New York. Life interest in trust created by herself just prior to her marriage, $65,000, and bank balance, $304,472.Charlotte von Gorrisen, Hamburg, Germany, formerly Charlotte Anderson, daughter of the late Elbert J. Anderson, of Newport, R. I. Small interest in the estate of her father.Alice von Buchwaldt, Bremen, Germany, and Anna Maria von Bose, Dresden, Germany, daughters of William Wilkens, deceased, of Baltimore. Each has a life interest in a trust fund under the will of her father of about $180,000.Natalie Burleigh von Ohnesorge, Provinz Posen, Germany, daughter of Sarah B. Conklin, of New York. Life estate in a trust under will of her father, $140,000.Florence Grafin von Schwerin, Munich, Germany, formerly Florence Wann, of St. Paul, Minn. Daughter of the late John Wann, deceased. Property taken over, $20,000; life interest in trust created under the will of her father, $40,000. Interest in the trust created by deed of trust of her brother, Thomas Leslie Wann, consisting of valuable real estate in St. Paul.Children of Sophie von Bohlen und Halbach, Baden, Germany, formerly Sophie Bohlen, daughter of Gen. William Henry Charles Bohlen, of Pennsylvania. She died in 1915 and her children, all residing in Germany, became beneficiaries of her estate, including trust funds totaling $1,500,000.Helen H. von Stralenheim, Dresden, Germany; Louise von Trutzchler zum Falkenstein, Vogtland, Germany, and Josephine von Arnim, Dresden, Germany, daughters of David Leavitt, deceased, late of New York. Each has life estate one-fifth of $225,000 trust.Sophie von Arenstorff, Frankfort-a-Oder, Germany. Under the will of Edward G. Halls, deceased, late of Chicago, above enemy, a granddaughter, has a life interest in three-tenths of the estate, valued at $267,000.Katie von Kracker, Mecklenburg, Germany, formerly Katie Elias, daughter of the late Henry Elias, of New York, life interest in one-half of a trust valued at $300,000.Mr. Palmer’s assertion that Germany set the example by seizing American property in Germany cannot be sustained by him.
Commercial Treaty with Germany and How it Was Observed.—One of the most humane and liberal treaties in the history of nations was that entered into between the United States and Prussia in 1799. It was renewed in 1828 and became the treaty governing the relations between Germany and ourselves in 1871 on the establishment of the German Empire.
This treaty was in force in 1917 when we entered the war. Some high eulogiums have been passed upon this treaty, which was signed by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, and, in 1828, by Henry Clay, on the part of the United States, and by the authorized representative of Frederick the Great, on the other. In his comments on this treaty, Theodore Lyman, Jr., a writer with a strong Tory tendency and chary of praise as regards Prussia, makes the following observations in his “The Diplomacy of the United States” (1828):
This treaty, which has been called a beautiful abstraction, is remarkable for the provisions which it contains: Blockades of every description were abolished—the flag covered the property—contrabands were exempted from confiscation, though they might be employed for the use of the captor on payment of their full value. This, we believe, is the only treaty ever made by America in which contrabands were not subject to confiscation, nor are we aware that any other modern treaty contains this remarkable provision. We are probably indebted to Dr. Franklin for the articles.
It received an even higher endorsement in a message to Congress, dated March 15, 1826, by President John Quincy Adams, who said:
They (the three American commissioners) met and resided for that purpose about one year in Paris and the only result of their negotiations at that time was the first treaty between the United States and Prussia—memorable in the diplomatic history of the world and precious as a monument of the principles, in relation to commerce and maritime warfare with which our country entered upon her career as a member of the great family of independent nations.... At that time in the infancy of their political existence, under the influence of those principles of liberty and of right so congenial to the cause in which they had just fought and triumphed,they were able to obtain the sanction of but one great and philosophical though absolute sovereign in Europe (Frederick the Great) to their liberal and enlightened principles. They could obtain no more.
The two principal provisions of the treaty of 1799-1828 follow:
Article XII:And it is declared, that neither the pretense that war dissolves all treaties, nor any other whatever, shall be considered as annulling or suspending this and the next preceding article; but, on the contrary, that the state of war is precisely that for whichthey are provided, and during which they are to be as sacredly observed as the most acknowledged articles in the law of nature and nations.Article XXIII provides as follows:If war should arise between the two contracting parties, the merchants of either country then residing in the other shall be allowed to remain nine months to collect their debts and settle their affairs, and may depart freely, carrying off all their effects without molestation or hindrance; and all women and children, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, artisans, manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns, villages, or places, and in general all others whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments and shall not be molested in their persons, nor shall their houses or goods be burnt or otherwise destroyed, nor their fields wasted by the armed force of the enemy, into whose power by the event of war they may happen to fall; but if anything is necessary to be taken from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at a reasonable price.
Article XII:
And it is declared, that neither the pretense that war dissolves all treaties, nor any other whatever, shall be considered as annulling or suspending this and the next preceding article; but, on the contrary, that the state of war is precisely that for whichthey are provided, and during which they are to be as sacredly observed as the most acknowledged articles in the law of nature and nations.
Article XXIII provides as follows:
If war should arise between the two contracting parties, the merchants of either country then residing in the other shall be allowed to remain nine months to collect their debts and settle their affairs, and may depart freely, carrying off all their effects without molestation or hindrance; and all women and children, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, artisans, manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns, villages, or places, and in general all others whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments and shall not be molested in their persons, nor shall their houses or goods be burnt or otherwise destroyed, nor their fields wasted by the armed force of the enemy, into whose power by the event of war they may happen to fall; but if anything is necessary to be taken from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at a reasonable price.
Under the foregoing, German citizens, merchants, corporations, companies, etc., would have the right for the period of nine months after the declaration of war to collect their debts, settle their affairs, and, if possible, to depart safely, carrying all their effects with them without any hindrance whatsoever. This would mean, for instance, that the owners of the German vessels interned in our harbors would be privileged to have full control over their property.
Under date of February 8, 1917, the State Department issued the following statement:
It having been reported to him that there is anxiety in some quarters on the part of persons residing in this country who are the subjects of foreign states lest their bank deposits or other property should be seized in the event of war between the United States and a foreign nation, the President authorizes the statement that all such fears are entirely unfounded.The Government of the United States will under no circumstances take advantage of a state of war to take possession of property to which under international understandings and the recognized law of the land give it no just claim or title. It will scrupulously respect all private rights, alike of its own citizens and the subjects of foreign states.
It having been reported to him that there is anxiety in some quarters on the part of persons residing in this country who are the subjects of foreign states lest their bank deposits or other property should be seized in the event of war between the United States and a foreign nation, the President authorizes the statement that all such fears are entirely unfounded.
The Government of the United States will under no circumstances take advantage of a state of war to take possession of property to which under international understandings and the recognized law of the land give it no just claim or title. It will scrupulously respect all private rights, alike of its own citizens and the subjects of foreign states.
This was made public two months before we found ourselves in a state of war with Germany. Soon after, A. Mitchell Palmer was appointed Custodian of Alien Property and began to seize about one thousand million dollars’ worth of German property and securities—not the property of the Imperial German Government, with which we were at war, but the property of German private persons.
Using the language of an editorial in one of the leading newspapers in America of August 29, 1919, a treaty between the United States and Germany, which had never been denounced and was in full force, provided that in case of war between Germany and the United States, Germany should permit American owners of property in Germany, or Americans doing business in Germany, to have nine months in which to wind up their business affairs, to dispose of their property and to take themselves unhindered out of Germany. And the United States bound itself, of course, to give the same treatment to German aliens doing business or owning property in America. This treaty agreement was deliberately broken by the Custodian of Alien Property. Under international law the duty of such a custodian is to take possession of the property of alien citizens of an enemy country, administer that property carefully, preserve it in good faith, and hold the earnings of the property and the property itself ready for return to the owners whenever peace shall come. “We want,” declares the paper, “to keep the name and reputation of the American people so clean and honorable that no American shall ever need to apologize either to friend or foe.” (New York “American.”)
As a result of the confiscation of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of alien property, a sensational scandal developed, which was aired in the House and Senate and had a perceptible bearing on the defeat of the League of Nations treaty in the Senate. Among other things, Palmer, ultimately appointed Attorney General, was charged with having sold the great Bosch magneto works, valued at $16,000,000, for $4,000,000, giving the preference to friends; and Representative J. Hampton Moore, referring to Francis P. Garvan, Mr. Palmer’s successor as Custodian, demanded to know: “Why the same Frank P. Garvan, the distinguished criminal lawyer of New York, had recently been elected to and accepted the presidency of the Chemical Foundation, which has taken over all the German patents in the United States for the manufacture of dye stuffs through an arrangement with the Alien Property Custodian, A. Mitchell Palmer, now Attorney General?”
In his speech of June 21, 1919, in the House, Mr. Moore named a number of big trust operators and financiers, including Cleveland H. Dodge, as having formed the Chemical Foundation and taking over “4,500 patents which Mr. Palmer and Mr. Garvan, this distinguished criminal lawyer from New York, the successor of Mr. Palmer as Alien Property Custodian, found on file in the Patent Office, and which they seized on the ground that they belonged to certain German patentees.” (New York “Times,” June 22, 1919.)
Hardly a pretence is made by the administration that the seizure was legal, and the death-blow to all such pretensions was delivered when, in urging the ratification of the Versailles treaty by the Senate, Senator Hitchcock, the administration’s Senate leader, declared:
Through the treaty we will get very much of importance.... In violation of all international law and treaties, we have made disposition of a billion dollars of German-owned property here. The treaty validates all that.
It is important that Americans should know the facts in the case, however unpopular the narrative may be, in order that they may set themselves right before the world, or at least be prepared for the wave of prejudice which is bound to be excited by the remarkable proceedings. Quoting Walter T. Rose, a prominent Chicago exporter just returned from a tour of Europe, the New York “Sun” of November 28, 1919, said: “It is an unfortunate fact that hardly anywhere in Europe does one hear good opinions of America and Americans.” Mr. Rose gathered his opinions in France and England as well as in central Europe. The course of the Custodian of Alien Property establishes a precedent that, of course, will be heeded by those associated with us in the war no less than by our late enemies. It is a warning that the filing of patents and patented processes insures no immunity from confiscation in the event of war, and a warning to foreign investors to go slow in investing their money in industries in the United States. To counteract this policy imposes a moral task upon every citizen of the United States who holds the honor of his country above a dollar. For we shall have flaunted in our faces this passage from President Wilson’s address to Congress, April 2, 1917:
We shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as belligerents without passion, and ourselves observe with proud punctilio the principles of right and fair play we profess to be fighting for.... It will be easier for us to conduct ourselves as belligerents in a high spirit of right and fairness because we act, not in enmity of a people or with a desire to bring any injury or disadvantage upon them, but only in opposition to an irresponsible government. We are, let me say again, the sincere friends of the German people, and shall desire nothing so much as the early re-establishment of intimate relations of mutual advantage between us—however hard it may be for them, for the time being, to believe this is spoken from our hearts.
In a hearing before a Senate committee investigating his acts as Custodian, Mr. Palmer named as his advisory committee, Otto Barnard, Cleveland H. Dodge, George L. Ingraham and Alex Griswold, Jr. He asserted that he had seized 40,000 German properties. Upon his list were the names of 32 Germans and Austrian-Hungarians interned as enemy aliens, whose property was taken over by him. Their names and the value of their property follows:
Carl Heynan, $487,748; Adolf Pavenstedt, $1,661,408; E. K. Victor, $274,092; Edward Lutz, $117,865; Hugo Schmidt, $89,434; F. Stallforth, $540,408; Ad. Fischer, $477,396; F. Rosenberg, $228,484; Max Breitung,$46,006; Isaac Straus, $36,688; Franz Bopp, $31,782; Adolf Kessler, $205,165; Robert Tumler, $48,655; Dr. Ernst Kunwald, $26,456; Fritz Bergmeier, $28,651; Dr. Karl Muck, $82,181; Hans Cron, $54,436; J. H. Beckmann, $120,360; Paul Lubeke, $30,930; Johannes Schlenzig, $58,967; Max Reinhard, $52,433; Gunther Weiske, $138,255; M. S. Barnet, $42,766; Heinrich Beckisch, $25,811; Frank H. Meyer, $60,928; Arthur Richter, $50,012; Herbert Clemens, $53,813; Fritz Materna, $40,000; William H. Steinmann, $32,768; Julius Pirnitzer, $84,656; Desider W. B. de Waray, $200,166; C. F. Banning, $44,000.
Among the amounts confiscated was $3,000 left in the will of Mrs. Louisa Manada, of Wyoming, for the care of blind soldiers in Berlin, her home going to a hospital in this country.
Among those mentioned as placed in charge of enemy property by the Custodian, in his report to the Senate, March 1, 1919, appear the names of several prominent newspaper men and politicians: Don C. Seitz, publisher of the New York “World,” and George McAneny, publisher of the New York “Times,” two strong administration papers, both of whom were trustees of the Bridgeport Projectile Company. Mr. McAneny and Henry Morgenthau, former ambassador to Turkey, were made trustees of the American Metal Company, another enemy concern. Gavin McNab, of San Francisco, a leading Democratic politician of California, was made a trustee of the Charles E. Houson Estate Company, the Marvin Estate Company and the J. H. von Schroeder Investment Company.
In the investigation Mr. Palmer denied the various charges, and others referred to, as well as the allegation, aired in the New York “World,” that his name corresponded with the initials of a certain M. P. mentioned in the captured notes of Dr. Albert, the German agent, who was referred to as friendly to Germany. He stated that “no other course than the seizure was compatible with the safety of American institutions,” to which reply was made from Germany that the $700,000,000 investments by Germans in this country did not reach “one-half of the total value, for instance, of a single American industrial company like the United States Steel Corporation, and not even approximately one per cent. of the total value of American industrial enterprises.” The immense business built up here by the Germans was, Mr. Palmer said, lost to the Germans forever, and there was absolutely no hope for the development of American chemical industries under the old conditions. He defended the Bosch seizure on the ground of a plot by the manager to promise special apparatus to the British for their aeroplanes without intending to deliver them.
Millions of dollars’ worth of property belonging to women of American birth, married to German and Austrian subjects, was taken over by the Custodian. Many prominent women are in the list, including Countess Gladys Vanderbilt-Szechenyi, whose property as taken overamounts to nearly $4,000,000 in securities in addition to the income from a $5,000,000 trust fund created under the will of her father.
The list includes:
Baroness Augusta Louise von Alten, Budapest, Hungary, formerly Augusta L. De Haven, and Sarah E. von Camps Hanover, Welfel, Germany, formerly Sarah E. De Haven, granddaughters of the late Louisa G. Bigelow, formerly of Chicago. Estate valued at about $1,460,000.
Baroness Clara Erhart von Truchsess, Dusseldorf, Germany, formerly Clara Erhart, of New York. Life estate in trust fund of $500,000; securities valued at $600,000.
Gertrude, Baroness von Bocklin, Baden, Germany, formerly Gertrude Berwind, of Philadelphia. Under the will of Charles F. Berwind, her father, she received more than $300,000 in property, which was put in trust with property received by the other heirs.
Baroness Olivia Louise von Rothkirch, Schlesien, Germany, formerly Olivia Louise Brown, daughter of William John Brown, of New York. Life interest in trust, approximating $1,000,000.
Baroness Matilda L. Bornemissa, Budapest, Austria; Baroness Margaret von Wucherer and Anna von Dory Johahaza, both of Steiermark, Austria, daughters of the late James Price, of Philadelphia, and Baroness Manon Dumreicher, Baron Tibor von Berg, Baron Tassilo von Berg and Baron Max von Berg, children of the deceased daughter, Baroness Sallie Mae Berg. The above enemies share an income of the trust under the will of Sarah Maria Price, valued at $275,000, and also in a trust created under the will of Samuel Harlan, Jr., valued at $75,000.
Baroness Cornelia C. Zedlitz, Berlin, Germany, formerly Cornelia Carnochan Roosevelt, daughter of the late Charles Y. Roosevelt, of New York. Under a trust agreement made in 1889 in contemplation of marriage, her property, valued at about $1,000,000, was put in trust, reserving to her a life interest. Personal property valued at $200,000 was also taken over.
Countess Marguerite Isabelle Eugenie Victorine de Stuers Obendorff, wife of the former German Ambassador to Austria, and grandniece of the late Henry Astor, grandson of the original John Jacob Astor, and inheritor of a share in his estate. Her mother was Countess Margaret Laura Zhorowski, daughter of Alida Astor, a sister of Henry Astor, and daughter of William Astor. Trust fund $60,000, created by deed of trust by her father; cash, $949,225 and eight-fifteenths interest in New York city property.
Countess von Francken, Sierstorpff, Zyrowa Leschnitz, Prussia, formerly Mary Knowlton, daughter of Edwin F. Knowlton, of New York. Life interest trust fund $1,200,000, left under the will of herfather; Countess Alice Grote, Schloss Varechentin, Mecklenburg, Germany, formerly Alice von Bergen, daughter of Anthony von Bergen of New York. Life interest, $250,000.
Countess Gladys Vanderbilt Szechenyi, Budapest, Hungary, daughter of the late Cornelius Vanderbilt and Alice G. Vanderbilt. Nearly $4,000,000 in securities taken over; also income from $5,000,000 trust fund created under the will of her father.
Countess Harriet Sigray, Ivancz Nagycsakny, Hungary, daughter of the late Marcus Daly, of Montana, a sister of Mrs. James Gerard, wife of the former Ambassador to Germany. Securities taken over, $1,000,000.
Countess Gladys McMillan Cornet, Brussels, Belgium, formerly Gladys McMillan, daughter of the late James H. McMillan, of Detroit. Life interest in one-tenth of trust of $4,500,000; life interest in two-thirds of trust of $450,000; life estate one-tenth trust of $600,000 and securities valued at $149,725.
Countess Elizabeth T. P. de Gasquet-James, Krain, Austria, formerly Elizabeth T. Pratt James, of Esopus, N. Y. Life estate in $135,000 and bonds, $59,000.
Lily Freifrau Treusch von Buttlar Brandenfees, Stettin, Germany, formerly Lilly G. Stetson, daughter of the late Isaiah Stetson, of Bangor, Me. Securities taken over valued at $250,000.
Jayta Humphreys von Wolf, Munich, Germany, daughter of the late Frederic Humphreys, of New York. Life interest in a trust valued about $50,000.
Rosa K. Schertel von Burtenbach, daughter of the late Frederick Schaefer, of New York. Under trust created in will of father, she has life interest of $200,000.
Clara von Gontard, Berlin, Germany, daughter of the late Adolphus Busch and Lilly Busch, of St. Louis. Life interest in trust fund created under the will of Adolphus Busch, securities valued at $900,000, including stock holdings in Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company of St. Louis.
Mary Trowbridge von Zepplin, Germany, formerly Mary Wilkens, Detroit, wife of Conrad von Zepplin and daughter of the late Lizzie C. Wilkens, of Detroit. Life estate trust fund, $40,000.
Clara Bauer von Rosenthal, Frankfort-am-Main, Germany, formerly Clara Bauer, daughter of the late Augustus Bauer, Chicago. Life interest in trust of $35,000.
Mary Grace von der Hellan, Hamburg, Germany, formerly Mary Grace Meissner, Garden City, New York. Life interest in trust created by herself just prior to her marriage, $65,000, and bank balance, $304,472.
Charlotte von Gorrisen, Hamburg, Germany, formerly Charlotte Anderson, daughter of the late Elbert J. Anderson, of Newport, R. I. Small interest in the estate of her father.
Alice von Buchwaldt, Bremen, Germany, and Anna Maria von Bose, Dresden, Germany, daughters of William Wilkens, deceased, of Baltimore. Each has a life interest in a trust fund under the will of her father of about $180,000.
Natalie Burleigh von Ohnesorge, Provinz Posen, Germany, daughter of Sarah B. Conklin, of New York. Life estate in a trust under will of her father, $140,000.
Florence Grafin von Schwerin, Munich, Germany, formerly Florence Wann, of St. Paul, Minn. Daughter of the late John Wann, deceased. Property taken over, $20,000; life interest in trust created under the will of her father, $40,000. Interest in the trust created by deed of trust of her brother, Thomas Leslie Wann, consisting of valuable real estate in St. Paul.
Children of Sophie von Bohlen und Halbach, Baden, Germany, formerly Sophie Bohlen, daughter of Gen. William Henry Charles Bohlen, of Pennsylvania. She died in 1915 and her children, all residing in Germany, became beneficiaries of her estate, including trust funds totaling $1,500,000.
Helen H. von Stralenheim, Dresden, Germany; Louise von Trutzchler zum Falkenstein, Vogtland, Germany, and Josephine von Arnim, Dresden, Germany, daughters of David Leavitt, deceased, late of New York. Each has life estate one-fifth of $225,000 trust.
Sophie von Arenstorff, Frankfort-a-Oder, Germany. Under the will of Edward G. Halls, deceased, late of Chicago, above enemy, a granddaughter, has a life interest in three-tenths of the estate, valued at $267,000.
Katie von Kracker, Mecklenburg, Germany, formerly Katie Elias, daughter of the late Henry Elias, of New York, life interest in one-half of a trust valued at $300,000.
Mr. Palmer’s assertion that Germany set the example by seizing American property in Germany cannot be sustained by him.