Chapter C: S. YOUNG in The Richmond Terminal (3)

And has the cause of Clara Barton grown? Yes, gloriously, to the infinite credit of Clara Barton in laying the foundation in conformity to her statement, “To be efficient, the Red Cross must have government recognition, must bear the stamp of national individuality, and be constructed according to the spirit, habits, and needs of the country it represents;—in contemplating the possible realization of my hope and all it would entail and involve, I have been looking carefully and anxiously to the plans of the foundations of the structure we are hoping to build; and I perceive in creating an Institution that shall be National and of the people, the foundations must be as broad and as solid as the whole nation.”

To the credit of the Clara Barton management, and of the succeeding management, of the Red Cross; to the credit of the American people that for twenty-three years previous to the “accusation,” and thereafter notwithstanding, the world has held in highest regard the Red Cross Founder and Red Cross integrity. What of financial support, _for reasons_ that have been withheld, (probably millions) has not been reported. What of financial and moral support accorded to the Red Cross brings a flush of pride to the face of every true American; what of seeming policy toward the Founder also brings a flush,—but not of pride. A public policy, not in harmony with public sentiment, has brought on national disasters—a world disaster.

Mere growth, of itself, is not a virtue; for the upas tree grows, with spreading branches. The best prosperity is that prosperity whose foundation is secure, whose record-history is untarnished. The best philanthropy is that philanthropy which lives in the best atmosphere, breathes of the purest, gives of the soul’s best. To her latest breath Clara Barton breathed love, breathed purest Red Cross philanthropy,—but prayed justice for herself. She had never spoken a discordant word in her life, meaningly; her “enemies” monopolized the discordant words. So far as known, she never made an enemy; her “enemies” were self-made—their self-made record, on the books, reported “in the red.”

Wearing a “political helmet,” those who attacked a helpless woman took possession of her reputation and prospered. At no time in her life has it been shown that in her chosen field, with years of successful experience, Clara Barton was not a good business manager; her “enemies” assumed themselves, _without experience_, to be good in business and took charge of her affairs:—but under _proper_ political protection.

Slander—it is a coward in a coat of mail
That wages war against the brave and wise.

Her “enemies,” shielded behind “charges,” made accusation against her,—_without self-sacrifice_; she exposed herself to attacks of every character known to womankind, and made self-sacrifices for the Red Cross and for country. What is inscribed over the portals of the cell, near Brussels, of Edith Cavell, must be inscribed on history’s tablets, of Clara Barton: “She sacrificed herself for the Red Cross; she sacrificed herself for the country.”

Slander
I saw it tread upon a lily fair—
A maid of whom the world could say no harm;
And when sunk beneath the mortal wound,
It broke into the sacred sepulchre
And dragged its victim from the hallowed grave
For public eyes to gaze upon.

Yea, I have seen this accursed child of envy
Breathe mildew on the sacred fame of her
Who once had been her country’s benefactor.

Human nature hasn’t changed since he, who became the first American President, suffered through the “Conway Cabal,” a cabal not dissimilar in the motives, the charges and the execution, to that through which suffered the first Red Cross President. But George Washington was a fighter; Clara Barton, a woman of peace. The Red Cross President was as patient as was the first martyred American President, under persecution, and who then said “I am nothing, but truth is everything.” She was as innocent and unsuspecting as was our last martyred American President, who said “I have never done any man wrong, and I believe no man will do me one.”

Man, political, cowardly-man constructed the apparatus;—the tongue of woman, the sender; the ear of woman, the receiver. Of all the God-given good of earth, one woman is the best; TWO WOMEN, the worst. The only serious charge in history that will stand against Clara Barton is that she WAS A WOMAN; her most serious “misappropriation,” that of her confidence in _another woman_.

Away the fair detractors went
And gave by turns their censures vent.

Elected for life? Yes. Then resigned? She was not a “war-woman,”—she had never filled a swiveled-chair;—yes, she resigned in the interest of peace and _harmony_. And from the facts, distorted, and the motives, impugned, as to why she resigned were taken the bundle of faggots to add fuel to the flames of her torture.

Slander never wants for material;
Virtue itself provides it with weapons.

As for safety, the ancient criminal fled to the Temple of the Gods, so America’s modern character-assassin fled to the Temple of the Red Cross, and implored silence; for then to recite the historic facts of the martyrdom might cause vibrations that would have shaken to earth the pillars of that sacred temple. President Clara Barton of the Red Cross said: “Its President has spoken not at all, and never will.” Silence reigned. The truth was withheld at the Red Cross receiving station, while untruth sped wireless—and all the world wondered.

The Red Cross! No, the recent Red Cross officials don’t know the facts,—the reputation of the Mother is the child’s richest heritage. The Mother loved the Red Cross child; the child, the Mother—the slander of the Mother, dead, is by the individual, not by the Red Cross. The slander having coiled itself in Red Cross official circles there it lives, and will live, until scotched by the Red Cross or the American people.

For slander lives upon succession;
Forever housed, where it gets possession.

The so-called “investigation of charges” against Clara Barton in 1904 was before the Red Cross Proctor Committee. The “Remonstrants” demanded an investigation, and suggested that Honorable Richard Olney name the committee. The Red Cross unanimously approved the selection. The great Ex-Secretary of State named as that committee: U. S. Senator Redfield Proctor of Vermont; William Alden Smith of Michigan, then a member of the House and later a member of the Senate; General Fred C. Ainsworth, of the United States Army, of Washington, D. C. This in fact was a Red Cross Committee and not, as so-called, a Congressional Committee. “Congressional Committee to investigate” was a threat to frighten a timid woman.

In the so-called “remonstrance” (of record) there is by the “remonstrants,” of whom the “post-mortem accuser” was one, a disclaimer of

(a) “Any dishonesty on the part of Miss Barton in the administration of the affairs of the Red Cross.

(b) “Any charge of misappropriation of any property or any money by Miss Barton; or

(c) “Any improper act or conduct of any kind which involved in the slightest degree any element of moral turpitude.”

Had there been an official charge at that time of “misappropriation of any property or any money,” or any other charge involving “in the slightest degree any element of moral turpitude,” on the part of the Red Cross Founder, charities would have thenceforward ceased to flow into Red Cross coffers, the Red Cross would have collapsed, and the “remonstrants” making such accusation haled into court, on a charge of criminal libel. The “remonstrants” foresaw that the good name of the Founder was the one hope of the Red Cross. The disclaimer was prerequisite to the attainment of the “remonstrant’s” ultimate object, namely: the coming into possession of a popular organization that carried political and social prestige.

Mrs. Logan, the Vice-President, threatened court proceedings unless her name was removed from Red Cross literature, and in consequence it was removed. Not so, Miss Barton. She at all times wished it removed, at one time threatened court action, but she dared not risk the possibly fatal consequences to the Red Cross. She suffered, in heart-aches, because of such conscienceless fraud on the American people, as she often said, that the Red Cross might survive. Thus to the very day of her death, through silent acquiescence in the fraudulent use of her name to secure legislation and the people’s confidence for the new management, she was being terrorized, lest by her own word or act her Red Cross child might come to grief. The _post mortem_ charges are camouflage, a shield to protect the actors in the “tragedy of 1904;” the game as of the cuttle-fish in making the waters murky, when being chased by a superior force;—in this case, that of Truth.

The charges made were:

(a) “That proper books of account were not at all times kept;

(b) “That the property and funds of the Red Cross were not at all times distributed upon the order of the Treasurer of the Society, as alleged to be required by the by-laws of the Society; and

(c) “That a certain tract of land in Lawrence County, Indiana, had been donated to the Society by one Joseph Gardner; that the Society was reincorporated after such donation, and that such donation was never reported to the new corporation.”

It was shown at the investigation that no Red Cross money had been invested in the tract of land referred to; that for reasons the proposed deal was not consummated, and the title lapsed; that proper books of account had been kept, and receipts taken for material and money, but not individual receipts from the sick, the wounded and the dying on fields of disaster—a system of red-tape impossible consistent with good service; that also the by-laws had been complied with in making disbursements through the Treasurer except,—when that too was impossible—during the stress of active relief work in the field. As her every field worker, then living that had at any time served under President Barton, approved her methods in Red Cross work; as the Washington “Society Remonstrants” had no experience in field work, manifesting pitiful ignorance as to what was required, the “charges” of _incompetency_ on the part of the accused received no consideration at the hands of the Committee.