Chapter 248: of the laws of 1864, published April 15, 1864, (3)

In the strained relations between the colonial authorities and the home government, the presence of the troops in Boston acted as a constant irritant. The ruder class of the town’s population, sailors, ropemakers, and apprentice lads, were imbued with the sentiments of the patriotic party, but lacked the restraint and self-control that marked its leaders. The soldiers became a constant butt for the rough witticisms of the lower town element; they were taunted with the epithets of “bloody-backs” and “lobsters” in derision of their uniform. They were constantly dared to fight, and continually reminded of the restriction that forbade a movement of aggression without the orders of a civil magistrate. Several times individual soldiers were provoked into fisticuff contests, and frequently came off second best in such encounters with the town roughs. Upon the whole, the troops showed commendable restraint, and, in spite of the bad blood between them and the populace, for nearly two years no open clash took place.

On the night of March 5, 1770, an incident occurred which, trivial in itself, led to momentous consequences. A guard stationed at the Custom House in King’s Square was set upon by a crowd of roughs, and assaulted with a volley of snowballs. Summoning assistance, the single soldier was reënforced by a squad of six under command of Captain Thomas Preston. The town crowd, instead of dispersing, continued its insults, while its number was constantly swelled by fresh recruits. During the excitement someone rang the town fire bell, and the surrounding populace poured into the square to witness the nonexistent conflagration. The restraint of the troops reached the breaking point. In the mêlée an order to fire was believed to have been heard. The soldiers leveled their fusees and fired into the crowd, the first volley killing four bystanders and wounding several more. Aghast at the consequences of their act, the offending squad withdrew to the near-by barracks, leaving the “town-born” to bear away their dead and wounded.

The excitement in the city grew apace throughout the hours of the night. The townspeople gathered in the streets, while as the news spread abroad hundreds flocked in from the countryside. The town committee met at once, and demanded of the governor that the troops be removed to the castle in the harbor. After much hesitation and parleying on the part of the authorities, the request was granted, and orders were reluctantly given to evacuate the city barracks. Preston and his firing squad were arrested and placed in the town gaol. The exasperation and resentment of the populace threatened dire consequences.

On March 8 occurred the public funeral of the victims, and the passions of the townspeople were fanned to a still hotter flame; it was said that fifteen thousand people followed the four coffins to their last resting place, and that threats of vengeance were openly expressed. The trial for murder of Preston and the soldiers in the colony’s civil courts soon followed. Excitement against the accused ran high. Nevertheless, to the honor of Massachusetts the indicted were given a fair trial, while two of the colony’s ablest advocates, John Adams and Josiah Quincy, Jr., offered at the risk of their reputations and popularity to defend the accused. Under these circumstances Preston and all but two of the soldiers were acquitted. The latter received a light sentence for manslaughter.

In the meantime the town committee, fearing the adverse effect of this incident upon the British authorities, and dreading the probable misrepresentation of the facts before the British public, prepared a defense of the colony’s position which they published in a pamphlet entitled: _A Short Narrative of the horrid Massacre in Boston, Perpetrated in the Evening of the Fifth Day of March, 1770. By Soldiers of the XXIXth Regiment; which with the XIVth Regiment Were then Quartered there: with some Observations on the state of things prior to that Catastrophe._ Printed by Order of the Town of BOSTON, and Sold by EDES and GILL in Queen-Street And T. & J. FLEET in Cornhill, 1770.

Attached to this pamphlet was a folded plate, which, according to an inscription in the lower right-hand corner was “Engraved Printed & Sold by PAUL REVERE BOSTON.” Recently Mr. Frank J. Wilder, of Boston, a member of the State Historical Society, presented to its Library one of the early reproductions, now become rare, of this celebrated engraving. The receipt of this interesting gift, which now hangs in the military history room of the Museum, has directed attention to the history of the print, which proves to be of no less interest than is the print itself.

Paul Revere, later so prominently associated with the first struggle of the Revolutionary War, was of Huguenot descent, a native of Boston, and had for some time served the colony as a gold- and silversmith. His first efforts at engraving were confined to silver plate; later he began to produce engravings drawn on copper plates and printed on paper. One of the earliest of these productions was a view of Boston showing the disembarkation of the troops. Revere was an ardent patriot, and in all probability formed one of the crowd of spectators in King Street Square when the soldiers fired upon the populace. In the Boston Public Library is still preserved a sketch by his hand of the site of the massacre, with indications on the diagram showing where the victims fell. This drawing was no doubt used during the trial of Captain Preston and his soldiers.

Revere was likewise in close personal relations with Edes and Gill, the publishers of the exculpatory pamphlet, and he often prepared wood cuts for the paper they issued, the Boston _Gazette and Country Journal_. An interesting illustration of his work appears in the issue of this journal for March 12, 1770, where above the column devoted to an account of the public funeral of the victims appear four miniature black coffins. That these were the work of Revere we learn from an old account book, found among his papers, wherein, under the entry for March 9, is a charge to Edes and Gill of six shillings for “Engraving 5 Coffings for Massacre,” while pinned to the page is a paper pattern the size and shape of the tiny coffins appearing in the newspaper. The State Historical Society of Wisconsin possesses a copy of this old journal, and there may be seen the heavily black-leaded page, on which mourning is displayed for the Boston dead, and the prints of the “coffings” engraved by Revere, on each of which is cut a skull and crossbones over the initials of the victim. On that of the youngest of the four appear the words: “Ae. 17,” with a scythe and hourglass indicative of his having been cut off in the flower of youth. On the same page with the account of the tragedy and the funeral occurs the following interesting letter from Captain Preston:

BOSTON-GAOL, Monday, 12th March, 1770.

Messieurs EDES & GILL,

Permit me thro’ the Channel of your Paper, to return my
Thanks in the most Publick Manner to the Inhabitants of this
Town--who throwing aside all Party and Prejudice, have with
the utmost Humanity and Freedom stept forth Advocates for
Truth, in Defence of my injured Innocence, in the late
unhappy Affair that happened on Monday Night last: And to
assure them, that I shall ever have the highest Sense of the
Justice they have done me, which will be ever gratefully
remembered, by

Their much obliged and most obedient humble Servant,

THOMAS PRESTON.

Let us now examine the picture which Paul Revere prepared to be presented, with the official pamphlet, to the view of the British public in order to affect its opinion of the action of the troops. The engraving is 8½ by 9¾ inches in size, and is colored by hand in red, blue, green, and brown. In the background is the Boston town hall, now known as the “Old State House,” with its graceful clock-tower rising into a pale blue sky. At the upper left hand is a chubby, cheerful-looking crescent moon. The public square is framed on both sides by its enclosing buildings, over the portal of one of which, at the right, is the inscription “G R (for Georgius Rex) Custom House.” Higher still, along the entire façade of the building stretches the imaginary and ironical designation “Butcher’s Hall.”

In the foreground of the picture, and in front of the Custom House stands in a menacing attitude the file of soldiers, very red of coats and black of boots. Each has his gun outstretched with its bayonet pointing to the crowd, while the clouds of smoke that roll around and behind the figures testify that the guns have just been discharged among the unhappy bystanders. At the extreme right of the line of soldiers stands Captain Preston with uplifted, menacing sword. Opposite the firing squad is the crowd of citizens, some of whom have fallen to the ground, or are being supported in the arms of their comrades. From the breasts and temples of the wounded streams of blood pour forth and dye the pavement roundabout. The crowd is in great agitation. One venturesome townsman lifts his hand as though he would push back an advancing bayonet. Another clasps his hands in horror to his breast. Some of the bystanders have turned as if to flee, but most of them are engaged in succoring their wounded comrades. One man in brown coat and green vest is being tenderly lifted by two friends; his head falls helplessly to one side while a bright red jet of blood pours from his breast over the green waistcoat. One of the victims lies on his back, his head drawn up as if he were in agony, one hand clasps his breast, from a wound in which a crimson stream flows forth. The boy victim lies motionless on the ground, a pool of blood from his forehead dyeing the pavement near his head. In front of this whole group stands a composed, indifferent-looking dog, quite unmoved by the tragic scene behind him. The quaint costumes and stiff attitudes of the actors in the picture, the shapeless, ill-drawn legs of the soldiers, and the stolid, expressionless faces of the participants indicate that the engraver was a tyro in his art. To the observer, however, these defects in some measure enhance the interest of the picture and give it the charm peculiar to primitive productions.

The inscriptions above and below the print add to its intrinsic interest. The passionate appeal for sympathy for the slain made by these inscriptions indicates the depths of feeling aroused by the massacre. Across the top is printed, “The BLOODY MASSACRE perpetrated in King Street BOSTON on March 5th 1770 by a party of the 29{th} REGT.” Underneath the picture is the following remarkable effusion, probably from the pen of Paul Revere himself, who frequently indulged in such attempts at literary effort:

Unhappy BOSTON! See thy Sons deplore.
Thy hallow’d Walks besmear’d with guiltless Gore.
While faithless P----n [Preston] and his savage Bands,
With murd’rous Rancour stretch their bloody Hands;
Like fierce Barbarians grinning o’er their Prey,
Approve the Carnage, and enjoy the Day.
If scalding drops from Rage from Anguish Wrung
If speechless Sorrows lab’ring for a Tongue,
Or if a weeping World can aught appease
The plaintive Ghosts of Victims such as these;
The Patriot’s copious Tears for each are shed,
A glorious Tribute which embalms the Dead.
But know FATE summons to that awful Goal
Where JUSTICE strips the Murd’rer of his Soul;
Should venal C----ts the scandal of the Land,
Snatch the relentless Villain from her Hand,
Keen Execrations on this Plate inscrib’d,
Shall reach a JUDGE who never can be brib’d.

_The unhappy Sufferers were Messs_ SAML GRAY, SAML MAVERICK, JAMS CALDWELL, CRISPUS ATTUCKS & PATK CARR _killed. Six wounded_; two of them (CHRISTR MONK & JOHN CLARK) _Mortally_.

Two hundred copies of the pamphlet were issued in the first edition, and for his work upon the plate the Revere papers tell us that the engraver received five pounds. A number of variants of the original plate appeared within a few months of its production. One was reduced in size to accompany an octavo edition of the pamphlet. This latter engraving was 4½ by 6⅝ inches. It had no inscription at the top but underneath bore the following words: “The Massacre perpetrated in King Street on March 5{th} 1770, in which Mess{rs} Saml Gray, Saml Maverick, James Caldwell, Crispus Attucks Patrick Carr were Killed, six others Wounded two of them Mortally.” The different proportions of this plate give to the picture more sky and foreground than the one we have described above. The second edition of the pamphlet with the smaller engraving was reprinted without change in London by E. & C. Dilly and J. Almon in the same year that the _Short Narrative_ appeared in Boston.

Two other London editions of the pamphlet were issued the same year by the publishing firm of W. Bingley in Newgate Street. One of these has for its frontispiece an engraving 8½ by 12 inches in size, with the following inscription across the top: “The Fruits of Arbitrary Power; or the Bloody Massacre, Perpetrated in King Street, Boston by a Party of the XXIX Regt.” Underneath is printed Revere’s original poem, without the accompanying names of the victims. On the left of the poem the following verse is surmounted by a skull and crossbones within a wreath: “How long shall they utter and speak hard things? And all the workers of iniquity boast themselves? They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage. Ps. XCIV, 4, 5.” On the right of the poem appears the design of a liberty cap in clouds from which issue forks of lightning and two broken swords. Underneath is printed, “They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it. Ps. XCIV, 6, 7.” Some of these prints have been found with only the two devices and without the scriptural quotations.

Still one more print appeared in London in 1770 which shows marked variations from all those previously described. These were all variants of Revere’s original plate, and differ only in size, proportions, and inscriptions. The print which we now describe is so different in composition and so much better in execution that it would seem to be the work of another artist than Revere. Not only are the proportions of the picture changed, but the handling of the perspective is much better, the drawing of the figures, and the expression of the faces show the handiwork of a genuine artist. The arrangement of the figures is the same, but the soldiers’ legs become quite possible members of their bodies, able to bear a man’s weight. The fallen figures lie in better and easier attitudes. The grouping of the crowd is less confused, and in the background appear the heads of two women wearing bonnets, that are not seen in the original Revere prints. Moreover, there is no dog in the foreground and no moon in the sky of this latter print. The question arises whether some other artist adapted Revere’s composition, materially improving it in so doing, or whether Revere himself secured his suggestions for his work from the author of this latter print. This is answered by a letter found some years since among the Pelham-Copley papers in the British Public Record Office and printed by the Massachusetts Historical Society in one of its recent volumes of _Collections_.

Henry Pelham was a young half brother of the famous colonial artist Copley, and the original of the latter’s lovely picture, “The Boy with a Squirrel.” Young Pelham lived in a family of artists and himself early displayed considerable talent. He learned engraving from his father Peter Pelham, one of Boston’s earliest engravers. The following letter was written by the younger Pelham to Paul Revere:

Thursday Morng. Boston, March 29, 1770.

Sir,

When I heard that you was cutting a plate of the late
Murder. I thought it impossible, as I knew you was not
capable of doing it unless you coppied it from mine and as I
thought I had entrusted it in the hands of a person who had
more regard to the dictates of Honour and Justice than to
take the undue advantage you have done of the confidence and
Trust I reposed in you. But I find I was mistaken, and after
being at the great Trouble and Expence of making a design
paying for paper, printing &c, find myself in the most
ungenerous Manner deprived, not only of any proposed
Advantage, but even of the expence I have been at, as truly
as if you had plundered me on the highway. It you are
insensible of the Dishonour you have brought on yourself by
this Act, the World will not be so. However, I leave you to
reflect upon and consider of one of the most dishonorable
Actions you could well be guilty of.

H. PELHAM.

In the absence of any defense by Paul Revere, and in the presence of the better engraving made along the lines and with the same general arrangement as that claimed by Revere, it would seem that we must convict the latter of the plagiarism with which Pelham charged him. Some of the latter’s prints were issued, since among his papers is the charge in March, 1770, of three pounds nine shillings by one Daniel Rea “To printing 575 of your Prints @ 12| Pr. Hund.” Pelham was a much abler artist than Revere; moreover, it should be noted that the latter prints upon his engraving only the words, “engraved, printed, and sold by Paul Revere,” all of which might have been the literal truth, had he utilized the design of the younger artist. None the less his appropriation without compensation of his young neighbor’s design is much to his discredit, and detracts from the interest and enjoyment with which we examine this most famous and interesting of Paul Revere’s engravings.

The vogue for this picture of the massacre has been very great from the time of its first printing until the present. We have seen how many editions appeared in 1770. These spread rapidly throughout all the English colonies in America. So popular did the prints become that as early as 1785 a new edition became necessary, while the original prints were much in demand, and formed part of early collections of Americana. Originals of 1770 are now so highly prized that single copies sell for anywhere from $750 to $1,000. In 1832 an excellent reproduction was issued, which has in its turn become rare enough to command $50 upon the market.

How much the publication of the original prints had to do with the profound sensation that the “Boston Massacre” awakened everywhere among the American colonies we have no means of judging. Certainly the representation was calculated to arouse intense resentment against the British soldiery, and this feeling may have contributed to the alacrity with which the colonists took up arms in defense of their liberty. From a trivial encounter between imperial troops and the Boston mob, the incident arose to a position of international importance. Its pictorial presentation, therefore, has become a part of our national history.

DOCUMENTS

SOME LETTERS OF PAUL O. HUSTING CONCERNING THE PRESENT CRISIS

The advent of the world struggle which still rages between the forces of autocracy and democracy found our nation as a whole, and many of us as individuals, unprepared to meet the new conditions and to withstand the test of the new issues with which we were confronted. But it did not find the mind of Paul Husting wanting in the needful qualities of intellect, or his soul in those of courage.

In the brief period of service as senator from Wisconsin he revealed himself as one of Wisconsin’s greatest sons, and his untimely death in October, 1917, was a genuine calamity both to state and to nation in their hour of trial and danger. Not often does the opportunity occur to a historical journal to publish documents fraught at the same time with a high degree of historical value and of interest for their bearing on issues still current. Such an opportunity, we think, is afforded the WISCONSIN MAGAZINE OF HISTORY in connection with the documents which follow. The letters speak for themselves and aside from certain minor typographical corrections we present them unedited. However, we cannot refrain, in concluding this introductory note, from calling the reader’s attention to the significance of the dates of the several letters: the first, following the sinking of the _Lusitania_; the second, at the time the embargo-on-munitions discussion was rife; the third, following our entrance into the world war.

Mayville, Wis., May 14, 1915.

---- ----,
----, Wis.

Dear Sir:

Your letter of May 10th, enclosing clipping from a Chilton newspaper, was duly received and read. The clipping which you have enclosed entitled “The United States, an Ally of England against Germany and Austria-Hungary” is a very coarse and vituperative and un-American attack on President Wilson and his administration. In this article, the President in substance and effect is portrayed as a weakling, a tool of England, a hypocrite, who pretends to be what he is not, and with sanctimonious phrase is trying to mislead the people. The administration is charged with being in a secret pact with England against Germany and winds up with asking the people of this country how long they are going to stand the disgrace of having such a government.

I do not believe that I have the honor of your acquaintance but, nevertheless, I feel that the article sent me and your letter should be replied to because there are other papers and other men engaged in carrying out this sort of propaganda.

There are, I know, a number of good and patriotic citizens of this country, who, because of lack of information, and because of their intense sympathy for relatives and friends now fighting in the old country, have permitted themselves to be misled in the belief that this country has unjustly, and, contrary to the laws of nations, permitted the shipment of munitions of war to European countries. There are, however, also, a number of men and newspapers who are merely repeating and spreading a propaganda originating in the old country with a design and purpose to weaken their own government and aid and strengthen one of the belligerent nations. I hope that I am addressing you as one who may be put in the first class mentioned.

Your criticism of President Wilson must be the result either of blind partisanship, of a lack of familiarity with the facts relating to our present foreign relations, of a failure to fully comprehend the exact meaning and difficulties of neutrality, or of a desire to plunge this country into [the] European embroglio without considering whether we have any cause or excuse for entering that awful conflict. Considerations of partisanship are so loathsome in times of great national crises that I believe you incapable of entertaining such and I freely acquit you of such base motives. The high-minded attitude of former President Taft ought to be sufficient to deter everyone from seeking to make political or partisan capital out of the present delicate situation. I cannot conceive that you feel yourself in closer allegiance to Germany than you do to this nation, for then your words would not be those of an American citizen but of one who is an alien, at least in thought, and not entitled to the protection or blessings of our free government. I assume that you are laboring under a misconception of the facts and upon the assumption that you have been misguided, I am writing you fully in reply to your letter.

I find no fault with American citizens or American newspapers (in this, of course, I include those printed in the German language) that sympathize with Germany as against England nor do I find any fault with the criticism directed against England’s war policy or methods. Our government has repeatedly remonstrated and protested to England against the interference with our commerce with neutral countries, in the shipment of non-contraband of war to belligerent countries, in the unlawful seizure of our vessels, and in the general interference with our rights as a neutral nation. I wish to add my objections and express my resentment against England for her studied and persistent violations of many provisions of the international law. We have protested and have done everything that we lawfully and justly could do to support and maintain our rights, short of going to war. Withal, however, no American ships or lives have been lost as a result of England’s operations upon the sea and no passenger boat carrying citizens of the United States has been sunk.

In the obstruction of our commerce and our dealings with foreign nations, Germany has gone as far as its ability permitted and is certainly subject, in this respect, to the same criticism and resentment that we have directed against England. It seems that England and Germany in the operation of the war in retaliation and in reprisal have set aside the international code and are justifying anything and everything upon the ground or plea of necessity. So long as this mode of warfare is directed against one another of the belligerent countries or their citizens, while we stand horrified and appalled, we may still have no just cause for interference. We have suffered these inconveniences and losses to our business because not only our government, but our people desire peace, and, furthermore, because we have no desire to interfere between the belligerent countries. Now, while at most, Germany can only claim that, in respect to the hindrance to our commerce, she has done no worse than England, yet, in addition to this, ships flying the American flag have been assailed and sunk by her and American lives taken without justification and now the world is appalled by the destruction of over 1,200 lives ruthlessly taken and men, women, and children have gone down to their death defenseless and undefended.

It is no defense or justification of this act as against our country that some other nation by its unlawful acts compelled the country at fault also to commit unlawful acts by way of reprisal.

It is no defense to say that American citizens who lost their lives were warned and that they lost their lives through their own contributory negligence. No warning to commit an unlawful act is a defense or justification of such unlawful act. Such warning, in fact, negatives the idea of accident and evidences premeditation and design to commit the unlawful act.

We know that the _Lusitania_ was sunk, that more than 100 American lives were lost, and we must hold the country directly responsible for a deed which has shocked the civilized world and which appears to have been in violation of the law governing, and practices obtaining in, civilized warfare. Notwithstanding the horror and resentment aroused in the public mind, our President is still striving to avert war!

What would you now say if a German liner with Americans aboard had been sunk by an English torpedo under like circumstances and our President would not have counseled war against the offending country but would still have stood for peace? Would you not have said then that this country was favoring England and would you not have reiterated and repeated your slander that this country is an ally of England’s?

In the slanderous clipping sent me, it is charged that this country is pretending neutrality when in fact, by not forbidding the shipment of arms and munitions of war, we are violating the law of nations governing neutrals.

This slander against our country has been repeated over and over again by thoughtless men and by partisan newspapers. It originated across the sea with those who well know the falsity and hypocrisy of the charge and who have passed it on to a well-meaning and sympathetic, but over-zealous and mistaken, people and press for the purpose of accomplishing a selfish end. This slander has been fostered and given currency also by some designing men and by some designing newspapers who appear to have forgotten their duty to their country and who appear to be concerned more with the effect that the present war has upon some foreign country than with its effect upon our own country.

The laws of nations are the rules which determine the conduct of the general body of civilized states in their dealings with one another. Its doctrines are founded on legal, not simply on ethical ideas; since they purport to be rules of justice, not counsels of perfection, the foreign policies of a country are not founded upon feelings of moral rightness but upon precedents, treaties, and opinions of those recognized as authority.

International law is a part of the law of the land and, since the interest of the United States with foreign nations and the policies in regard to them are placed by the Constitution in the hands of the federal government, its decisions upon these subjects are _obligatory upon every citizen_.

The above are some of the elementary principles of international law. These nations which are protected by these provisions also are subject to corresponding duties and obligations. Those which invoke the law must obey the law. International law, being the joint product of civilized nations, adopted and made by the common and joint consent of nations, of course, can not be repealed or amended by any one nation but only by the mutual consent of all countries. If it were otherwise, each country would make its own international law to be amended or repealed at the will of such country and thus would have no effect either upon itself or any other nation.

Now we have an international law and its provisions are well defined and recognized. Now is there any provision in this law which forbids or makes unlawful the shipment of arms by citizens of a neutral country to a belligerent country or which gives a neutral country the privilege to forbid such shipment? No. Then why not? Because it has been the law since civilization began for citizens of neutral countries to engage in commerce as they chose and at their risk, subject only to the right of belligerents to intercept and seize contraband of war in transit to a belligerent enemy. In all the wars in which this country has been engaged, the citizens of the countries now warring in Europe have recognized and countenanced this practice of selling arms to our enemy while we were at war and we have neither protested nor complained against it, fully recognizing that the citizens of such countries were entirely within their rights, that we had no just cause for complaint. We recognized that it would have been a violation of international law if at that time the said countries had prohibited the shipment of munitions of war with a purpose clearly manifested to aid or benefit either ourselves or our enemy.

For scores of years those countries now engaged in the European war have been arming themselves and fortifying their country with the positive knowledge that sooner or later a conflict of the kind now raging would occur. England, France, and Russia did and so did Germany and Austria. They also well knew that, under the provisions of international law, the shipment of arms and munitions of war was permissible subject to the interception and seizure of them by belligerent enemies. Long before this war, which they knew was inevitable, started Germany and Austria had the opportunity and the influence to have changed the international law and there is no doubt that the United States would have joined them in this amendment. Far-seeing as its statesmen are and having well in mind the provisions of international law, yet, notwithstanding, Germany entered this war with the law as it now stands.

If international law had, at the beginning of the present war, prohibited the shipment of munitions of war from this country and the United States nevertheless had violated the rule and permitted the shipment of munitions of war, _then_ it could be charged and convicted of a violation of the law and a breach of neutrality by the country adversely affected by such violation. Why? Because we would then have been guilty of an affirmative act unlawfully changing the established law to the injury and prejudice of a country with whom we are at peace without its consent. Such act would have been a breach of neutrality because, international law having been established by mutual consent, we would have no right to repeal and amend that law without the consent of those adversely affected by the change.

Now to prohibit and prevent the shipment of munitions of war by an affirmative act on our part, at the behest and for the exclusive benefit of one of the countries now at war, without the consent of the nations adversely affected thereby, would be a violation of international law and would constitute a breach of neutrality on our part which would be indefensible from the standpoint of good faith and good friendship to all on our part. Now it must be remembered that the United States government is not engaged in the shipment of munitions of war to other countries. A good many misguided and uninformed people have been led to believe that this country as a nation is thus engaged. It is true, that citizens of this country as a matter of business are engaged in manufacturing and selling to individuals, from whatever country they may come, munitions of war, as citizens of Germany, Austria, and other belligerent countries have done since time immemorial. President Wilson has not approved such shipments. It is entirely probable that, from a moral standpoint, he abhors the manufacture and sale of instruments and commodities to be used in the slaughter of human beings. He is a man of peace, and, if he had his way, wars in the future would be an impossibility.

But, as President of the United States,--a country which is in no sense responsible for this war--a country whose sole and passionate desire is to keep out of this conflict--Woodrow Wilson must execute the laws as he finds them and must maintain the neutrality of this country in accordance with the law of nations. This he has done patiently, persistently, and consistently, notwithstanding that blind and bitter partisanship, now on one side, now on the other, has done its best to shove him off his balance.

Permit me to say that you, and men like you, and newspapers publishing like articles commit a base and cruel slander on the President and on your country when you state otherwise. This country, of all the countries of the world, has kept its obligations and its poise.

In war-maddened Europe both England and Germany have attempted to annul the law to suit the exigencies of the moment. Our country, however, has contended, and, clearly within its rights, has demanded the observance of the law of nations and has refused to recognize the right of the warring nations to annul or to amend the same to our damage or in derogation of our rights.

How, then, in view of these facts, could we hold belligerents to their lawful duties if we were at the same time to violate the law and put ourselves in the same class with them. But this is what you and other critics ask this country to do. It is clear that you do not want this country to be neutral; you want it to take an affirmative and active part by governmental action to help one country and hurt another. Your and my government is endeavoring to maintain the status quo of a real neutrality. Those who are responsible for this movement which you approve of are endeavoring to shake and disturb it. Those who complain of our want of neutrality are complaining only because we have not become an ally of the country they favor.

If we listened to the insidious demands made by these countries that would have us violate our lawful obligation to respect the law of nations by affirmatively aiding and assisting their side, would we not be stopped from demanding reparation for the misconduct of the other countries who have been prejudiced by our unlawful and unneutral act? And would not such a flagrant breach of international obligation on our part justify reprisals against us, or worse than that, probably eventuate in a war with those countries who would thus be unlawfully and unfairly prejudiced by our act?

These countries who would have us place an embargo on arms and munitions with an eye solely to their advantage might well favor an act on our part which would plunge us into war with their enemies and thus make us their own ally. From the standpoint of _their_ own material advantage, and owing this country no duty whatever, it is easy to understand the motive back of their wishes.

But what motive, I ask, prompts you or any other American citizen who, owing a duty only to this country, should have in mind at all times primarily the welfare of his own country, to aid and promote a foreign propaganda, which has for its object and end the plunging of this country into war with one side or the other.

I say I acquit you of any base motive and can only believe that your utterances and your actions are the result of a want of information and understanding and not a willful desire on your part to injure the country which you are bound to support.

You could not be either misguided or mistaken, however, if you had not blindly accepted as true the statement of facts and the statement of international law as promulgated by a foreign government and its emissaries rather than the statements of fact and the statements of law promulgated by your own government. What right have you to doubt the utterances of our President, who is serving this country with that singleness of purpose which has always distinguished the acts of our presidents?

What right have you to believe the utterances of emissaries, who have been sent from abroad with a singleness of purpose to serve their own government at whatever cost to ours by sowing discord and falsehood among our people and who are trespassing upon our forbearance and are violating obligations which we believe a visitor to our shores owes to our people?

To put it in another way, may I not ask you, as a citizen, what reason or right you have to believe or expect that a foreign country and its emissaries are safe advisers for the citizens of the United States to consult or follow? And may I not also ask you, what there is in the life of President Wilson as a man and his record as a president that warrants you or any American citizen or newspaper in believing or asserting that he is not a man to believe or a safe president and counselor to follow? These questions answer themselves.

This country is now confronted with a crisis. Notwithstanding the wave of popular indignation that has been aroused in this country, the President is straining every nerve to preserve peace and still maintain the honor and dignity of this country. You, and others that have been uttering the same charges that you have, have made the task more difficult than it otherwise would be. There appears to be a feeling in some foreign countries that our country is divided.

A short while ago, a prominent citizen of a foreign country, whose utterances are recognized as semi-official, stated in substance that, while his country was a unit, that that was more than could be said of the United States in all cases.

In the Milwaukee _Journal_ of Wednesday, May 12th, a translated article from the Frankfurter _Zeitung_ was quoted as stating “that because of the fact that we have naturalized German citizens and a number of natural-born Americans of German descent that a war between this country and Germany would be impossible because of the necessity of placing these citizens in the detention camp and that it would require our entire army to watch over them.”

These statements can only mean that the belief is entertained in that country that, in case of certain eventualities, this country would be divided and that certain of our citizens would side with Germany against our government. Such a belief if indeed prevalent in that country is a serious obstacle to a peaceful termination of our negotiations in the present crisis.

But to those of us who have read the history of the Revolutionary War, of the rebellion, and of every other war in which we have been engaged as a nation--those of us who love and admire our German friends and neighbors, who are familiar with their spirit of American citizenship and patriotism, who have lived amongst them and have felt and feel one with them, know that these statements are unfounded and we resent them as a base calumny upon some of our most respected citizens. It is an insult to American citizenship. It in effect amounts to a charge of disloyalty and treason against some of our best citizens. Such a statement should be publicly resented, however, first of all by those against whom this slander is directed, not because their loyalty and patriotism is doubted here, but because it is doubted elsewhere. It is necessary for the world to understand and know that America is united as one man. This will do more to keep us out of war than all the clamor and all the pressure that can be brought to bear upon our President to abandon our neutrality and to violate our international obligations.

Permit me to say that in a time like this it is your duty and the duty of every citizen of the United States to stand loyally and patriotically back of our government. Not only as a matter of law is it your duty but from a natural sense of obligation as a citizen of a great nation, whose benefits and blessings you enjoy, and whose existence you are at all hazards bound to preserve. We are fortunate indeed that we have a president like Woodrow Wilson at the head of our affairs at this time. A man less capable, less patriotic, less intelligent, less courageous might have precipitated us in the war before this. He is now standing four square to all the winds that blow, in an endeavor to preserve peace with honor, dignity, and safety to ourselves. Let all of us unite to do all we can to keep firm and [word illegible] any extreme and ill-considered speech.

In times like these, permit me to say that we should not only feel but act together. This is no time for petty partisanship or petty politics. This is a time for deliberation and moderation in thought, word, and deed. It is a time for the submersion of all our differences, sympathies, and feelings in a unity of purpose and desire for our country’s good.

In conclusion, permit me to say that all of us who may trace our ancestry across the sea no matter to what particular country, should be the first to speak out loudly and clearly that our undivided loyalty and allegiance is with America, always, no matter what may be our tie.

Yours very truly,
PAUL O. HUSTING.

Washington, D. C., Apr. 1, 1916.

Rev. ---- ----,
----, Wis.

Dear Sir:

Your letter of some time ago, expressing the disapproval of the pastors of the Lutheran Conference of the Iowa Synod held in Beaver Dam, in January, of my attitude on the embargo on munitions question was duly received. The letter appeared in the Milwaukee papers on the Saturday before and therefore its contents were familiar to me before receiving the same by mail. The reason that this letter was not answered was because it seemed to me that it called for no reply but that it was merely intended to give public expression to your disapproval by your Conference of my attitude and vote on these questions.

Now in reply to yours of the 20th inst. and also to that above referred to let me first say that I regret very much that any act or attitude of mine as Senator from Wisconsin should meet with the disapproval of any number of my fellow citizens. I am not insensible of the support that I received from many citizens of German extraction in the last campaign nor do I think that there is anybody representing the state of Wisconsin who is more anxious to please and to retain the confidence, respect, and good will of his fellow citizens of German extraction or ancestry, for that matter, than I am, provided that I can do so without acting inconsistently with my oath of office or my sense of duty.

In justification of my attitude let me say then that my vote and my attitude on our foreign relations are the result of deep-seated convictions based upon study and a great deal of thought upon this subject and I am maintaining such attitude and convictions upon the subject (notwithstanding that some of my fellow citizens disagree with me) because I am convinced that if I did otherwise I would be committing my country to a wrong and dangerous policy--a policy which not only might, but which probably would, force us into war and this is a result which I understand neither you nor any other citizen desires, if it can honorably be avoided. Holding such convictions (at least honestly formed) I feel that would be violating my oath of office and my duty as a Senator if I voted contrary to my convictions in order to please you or others. This I manifestly cannot and of course will not do. I consider it my first duty as a Senator and as a citizen to support and sustain my government in a crisis like this.

The criticism expressed in your letter is confined to two matters only, namely: First--My attitude on the embargo question. Second--My vote on the Gore Resolution. And you tell me that my attitude on the one and my vote on the other is not in accordance with the wishes or sentiments of the people of Wisconsin.

The substance of your criticism is contained in the sentence which I quote from your letter: “We therefore have a perfect right to expect that those men, whom we sent to represent _our_ interests, whom we sent to represent us before the President we have elected, should vote as we would vote, if we had an opportunity to cast our vote. We know full well that you are not an instructed delegate, this being impossible, and yet you ought to vote as you know that your constituents _require_ you to vote.”

Now let me ask you upon what you base your assertion that I am not voting the way the majority of my constituents “require” me to vote? The people of the state of Wisconsin have never yet recorded or had an opportunity to record their sentiment or opinions on these questions, and consequently I have no means at my command that will enable me to inform myself as to how my constituents would “require” me to vote. I believe that you will admit that you have no means of ascertaining or knowing how the people of Wisconsin would “require” me to vote and that you are merely assuming that all the people of Wisconsin feel as you and your associates do upon these matters. I believe furthermore that you will admit that sympathizing with Germany as you do that you are not an impartial and unbiased judge of the facts involved in the issue. I am sure that there are thousands of others in this state who believe and claim that the people of Wisconsin are overwhelmingly supporting President Wilson’s attitude on both of these questions. Of course these expressions of opinion come from many who also are not impartial and unprejudiced or unbiased in the premises although I may add that I have received scores and scores of letters from men of German ancestry who hold a like opinion to mine. With such conflicting opinions as is perfectly natural to be the case in a state of mixed population like Wisconsin even you must admit that the sentiment of the people of our state is by no means unanimous on the subject matter. At the beginning of and so long as our country was not in danger of being drawn into this terrible war, I also indulged myself in sympathizing with a certain side in this world’s struggle. But for over a year this country has stood and now stands on the very verge of a volcano and no one could, nor now can, know when we will be drawn into its crater. Consequently, ever since this danger has arisen, I have tried to dismiss from mind all interest in connection with the war except in so far as it affects or might affect the interests or rights of our people and our country and I harbor no motive in my consciousness in connection with my office other than to protect and promote our own country’s rights and interests. With such motive and such thought, I feel that I ought to be able to vote upon this European situation fairly and impartially as between the belligerents. I am at least conscious of this: That whatever attitude I take and whatever vote I cast is cast with reference solely to its effect on this country and regardless of its effect upon the welfare of any other country in the world.

Now under such circumstances do you think that I should allow your sympathies or the sympathies of your associates or my sympathies to outweigh and overcome my settled convictions, and that I should violate my oath of office as United States Senator and act and vote in direct contradiction to what I conceive to be my duty as a Senator and as a citizen of the United States? I cannot think that you would have me do so. I cannot in a letter repeat my reasons, which I have so often stated in public speeches and interviews, why I am opposed to our government placing an embargo on munitions of war and, consequently, I must refer you to such speeches and interviews for such information. I can only state that such action on the part of our country would in my judgment be a gross breach of neutrality which not only might, but probably would, involve us in a war with those foreign countries adversely affected by such action on our part. I voted against the Gore Resolution because I am opposed, _by governmental action_, to curtailing or abandoning the rights of our citizens upon the high seas or wherever they have a right to be, as an act unworthy of a great nation and of a great people, and, furthermore, because I am sure that with the passage of such a resolution our troubles in that respect would not have been ended but would have only just begun. With the abandonment of one right, we would soon have been called upon to abandon another and still another, and, having said “A,” we would not only have had to say “B” but we would have had to continue clear down the alphabet to “Z,” and we would finally find ourselves bereft of all rights cravenly and uselessly abandoned by us to wrong-doing countries. Personally, I would not now travel on the high seas unless I was obliged thus to travel and I would not ask or in fact advise any friend of mine to travel upon the high seas under present conditions, but what I am opposed to is that our government by affirmative action should warn our citizens not to travel upon the high seas and in effect then to license the world to kill and slaughter our citizens in the act of exercising their God-given and lawful rights so to do. Such authoritative action would be a puerile abandonment of the rights of our citizens and of our country and a cowardly withdrawal of the protection which our flag owes to our people and would not only invite the contempt and aggression of the belligerent nations but would bring us into contempt in the eyes of our own citizens themselves.