A thing like this is worth memory to-day, in view of what has happened at Louvain and Aerschot and other scenes of Belgian outrage. The germ of Prussian barbarism must have been in the race, but Stieber and his kind have fostered it and caused its growth to the extent that has made of Germany a name of shame among the nations of the earth.
CHAPTER TEN.
AGENTS PROVOCATEURS.
This subject of political work, apart from espionage proper on the part of German agents, is a delicate one, for proof is not only hard to come by, but direct proof is practically non-existent, owing to the nature of the work. The most that can be done is to take cases of political work which, on the face of them, are such that no honest citizen would attempt: by a process of mental elimination one may arrive at the source of such work, though the result of the process is little more than conjecture. Still, half a dozen or so of results, all pointing the same conclusion, are of value, and, in spite of the absence of definite proof, police-court and criminal-court trials and the like, there can be no reasonable doubt that the work of the _agent provocateur_ goes on, and that the central office at Berlin pays in order to keep it going.
Harking back once more to Stieber, it will be remembered that, at the outset of his career, he took service in a mercantile firm, and identified himself with German Socialism of the revolutionary kind. He learned at first hand the power which Socialism has among the working cla.s.ses; he learned that, with very little reality behind the promises, it is easy to make a workman do nearly anything, if only the promises as regards the future of the working cla.s.s are large enough. He came to his own as a master in espionage and treachery--by betraying the men to whom he posed as a leader--at almost the first beginnings of the German Socialistic movement, and he watched that movement grow as the years went on. He saw that working men had a pa.s.sion for organising in defence of their rights, and that they could be led by nearly any appeal which proclaimed their rights, no matter how extravagant the proclamation might be.
Further, he saw that in Germany, under the Empire, workmen"s rights would never win them anything--repression was too efficiently conducted, and there was no good in the workmen"s movement for him; so he joined in with the forces that unto to-day (1914) govern Germany and suppress all that makes for real democratic government. Stieber was an opportunist, and knew well which side would best reward him.
Later on in his career he gained opportunities of studying the social conditions involved in the political const.i.tutions of other countries; after 1870 the const.i.tution of France interested him, and, studying it as he studied all things, with a view to the furtherance of his plans, he saw that much nominal power was placed in the hands of the people-- illiteracy and ignorance were no bars to the free expression of opinions, and, further, a man might agitate and stir up discontent among the working people to his heart"s content, compared with what might be done in Germany, and there was no aristocracy nor any bureaucracy to say him nay. Now, said Stieber, if these workmen could be stirred up in a way that would make them distrustful of the governing cla.s.ses: if cla.s.s could be set against cla.s.s, unions formed, and the men led to strike and paralyse industry at a given time--say, at a time when Germany wanted to make war--the benefits accruing would be immense; but not to France.
We have no definite proof that modern Syndicalism and its evils arose out of Stieber"s efforts. We have certain evidence, and certain coincidences, that are nearly as good as definite proof. For instance, there is no actual proof of this contention in the fact that the incident of the _Panther_ and Agadir, which so nearly precipitated the whole of Europe into war, was practically coincident with one of the worst strikes that the history of British industry can show; but there is proof that, for years past, German agitators have been teaching both British and French workmen the way to organise "in defence of their rights," and have been advocating Syndicalism and the weapon of the general strike as a panacea for all evils to which the cla.s.ses subject the ma.s.ses.
With the economic aspect of the question we are not concerned for the purpose of this book, and lest we be misunderstood let us pay tribute to the fine loyalty of the leaders of labour in this country; to such men as Will Crooks, who have helped to bring the nation into line in the hour of national peril, and are men worthy of all honour and all praise.
We are concerned more with certain coincidental happenings, like that of Agadir and our own great strike, and certain other happenings which point to the same conclusion--that Germany has tried, by means of industrial unrest, disaffection, and other means, to weaken the hands of potential enemies in the hours when strength was most needed.
First of all, it must be noted that the two chief essentials to the mobilisation of troops for war, and the placing of a navy on a war footing, are an efficient railway and transport system, and the a.s.surance of an adequate coal supply. We may call it a coincidence, and no more, that the two industries which have made most progress towards Syndicalism and the use of the general strike, both in England and France, are those of transport and coal-mining. The first piece of evidence may be regarded as coincidence pure and simple, and it is only when the coincidences mount up that they may be accepted as evidence of weight.
In order to render effective the railways of the country, which as far as France is concerned are on strategic plans toward the western frontier, Germany has increased its establishment of railway engineers to fifty-four military companies. That is to say, no matter what sympathetic action might have been taken by German railwaymen in case of an international strike, the German railways could still have run with full staffs, and every man was trained to his place on the lines that would be concerned in the mobilisation and placing of troops on the western frontier of the country, to act against France. No Syndicalist movement could shake German power--the defensive action was too strong for that. Further, the railways of the state system, organised with a view to mobilisation of troops rather than peace requirements, are controlled not by capitalists, nor by political figures, but each by a colonel of the German Army, at the head of his military division of railway engineers, and the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of these railway engineers are qualified railwaymen; their military duties consist in the efficient performance of railway work. For it is no use forging a weapon that will, in time of need, prove as dangerous to the holder as to the one it is aimed against.
As a final guard against trouble of this kind, Stieber laid down as a definite rule in 1884:
"That no native of Alsace-Lorraine, even though performing his military service in Germany, should be either recruited or admitted in any capacity whatever for employment on the said railways."
As to general offensive action, the first sign thereof lies in the vote, in February of 1893, of a credit of 80,000 thalers "to defray the expense of foreign publications useful to the policy of the Empire,"
combined with the appearance, in France, of the famous "Mesnard pamphlet" five months later. The pamphlet in question was a deliberate incitement to the men employed on French railways to take matters into their own hands and carry Republicanism on to sheer anarchy. "If you want your employees to be attentive and polite to the public," says the author, "try to give those employees a somewhat better idea of whom it is they toil and sweat to benefit. At present all that we know is that our work is not done precisely for the love of the thing, nor does it result in any improvement for ourselves. This being so, our sole object is to keep our situations and get through with our tasks. As far as the public are concerned, we take no notice of them, while they for their part behave in the most abusive manner toward us...
"The employees should elect their chiefs themselves in accordance with the principle of universal suffrage... It would be merely logical if the employees had the right to choose who should give them orders, and to turn out those who proved unjust or incapable...
"The last resource of railway workers in search of justice is a strike.
A strike is a legitimate weapon, and the fact cannot be contested. If it is suppressed, its suppression const.i.tutes an abuse of the rights of the stronger party. With the organisation which the syndicate cannot fail to have in a short time, we shall have arrived at a position at which we can contemplate the possibility of a general strike of all the railways and of similar inst.i.tutions if necessary. It is highly important that everybody should think over this problem. No partial strikes, but patience and then a general strike..."
Then, fearing lest mobilisation of the Army of France should defeat the ends to which this pamphlet was designed, its authors went on to say that railwaymen would not be forced to mobilise to prevent a strike.
"We know our duty as patriots, and we know when we must be soldiers; but if you gentlemen, you officers, do not know it, then leave us alone to manage our own affairs, or we shall call in the Prussians."
These extracts from the pamphlet itself show its general tenor, but though one may search through all its pages there will be found no definite and legitimate ground for the proclamation of the general strike which "Mesnard" advocates so stirringly. The whole publication, which must certainly rank among the "foreign publications useful to the policy of the [German] Empire," is an attempt to stir up cla.s.s hatred, to get the men to mobilise against military service at a given word of command, and to paralyse the railway services of France when German aggression should consider such a step necessary. For the evidence has become too strong for us to take this as mere coincidence, nor did the French Government regard it as such. Even the railwaymen"s unions of France repudiated the doc.u.ment, and one of the heads of a trade union in France stated openly as his opinion that it was the work of Germany and an attempt at the establishment of German influence. The pamphlet itself, which was widely circulated among railwaymen until government action stopped its distribution, came from Geneva, one of the headquarter stations of the German secret service, and the residence of one of the most highly placed officials in the espionage system.
The direct effect of the Mesnard pamphlet was small, but evidently the policy that it outlined was found worth following. The first great demand of the Syndicalists on behalf of the railwaymen of France was made at the time that the Dreyfus trial was causing definite friction between France and Germany in official circles. On this occasion a general strike was actually declared, but it was a fiasco. Yet again, railway troubles in France grew ever greater as relations grew strained between the two countries toward the dawn of the second decade of this century. The Agadir incident was coincident not only with labour troubles in England, for if the railways of France could have been paralysed at the time of a declaration of war by Germany, the result would have been equivalent to a decisive German victory over French troops in the field.
Inquiry into Syndicalist work in France and England alike will show that the funds of the Syndicalists have benefited, if they have not been mainly supported, by German contributions. Then, again, if one examines the career of the average fiery, anarchistic orator, who declaims against law and order, and does his best to stir up men irrespective of national rights, it will be found in many cases that the orator in question is in some way connected with Germany. He may not be a German, but he is in such a position that German influence is at least possible--and Stieber himself was apparently heart and soul with revolutionary German workmen, while in reality he was busy betraying his a.s.sociates to the secret police whom he subsequently governed. The working man himself is disinterested, and believes that he is acting for the best in his own behalf, and in that of all oppressed humanity. But his leaders cannot always be regarded in an equally charitable light.
German efforts do not stop here. Almost simultaneously with the outbreak of hostilities a placard was distributed broadcast in Ireland, with a view to ensuring the desired action on the part of the "revolting province." The placard in question has been attributed to the few Fenians still remaining in Ireland; but such an aspersion on the character of these men is the rankest injustice, for even the most rabid of the anti-English in Ireland have realised that a world-war transcends domestic affairs, and Irishmen of all shades of opinion have shown themselves ready to fight the battles of freedom against Prussian militarism. The placard in question is decidedly a "foreign publication useful to the policy of the [German] Empire," and it reads as follows:
Irishmen--FOOLS!
Have you forgotten that England is your only enemy?
Have you forgotten Kathleen-ni-Houlihan, that you are willing to shed your blood to win England"s battles?
Have you lost your wits, that you believe all the ridiculous lies published against the Germans in the Jingo papers?
Have you forgotten how the English treated the Boers?
Have you forgotten "ninety-eight?
Have you forgotten the Manchester Martyrs?
Have you forgotten the K.O.S.B. murders?
Have you forgotten that the Future lies in your hands?
Have you forgotten that England"s difficulty is Ireland"s opportunity?
G.o.d save Ireland!
Thus the _agent provocateur_ at his very worst. Germany has confessedly set out to make war by "all the violent means at her command," but not by violent means alone. Such work as this placard makes evident, though, shows plainly how Germany has mistaken the temper of a people, for the Munsters and the Irish Guards have given their answer to the questions put. The flagrant error and waste of effort is like that of Von Holeben, who, when German Amba.s.sador to America, strove to stir up strife between America and England until his efforts became common talk in Washington, and Berlin was forced to recall the blunderer. Yet more efforts of the same kind have been made in America since the outbreak of war, and at least one highly placed German official has received definite notice from Washington that he must either stop his work of sowing discord or leave the country.
These are but instances. The whole history of Syndicalism, the whole history of setting cla.s.s against cla.s.s in the case of industrial unrest, and of Irish disturbances in recent years, point to some influence working independently of the rights and betterment of the cla.s.ses concerned in the agitations. In the case of Ireland, we may a.s.sume that the majority of Irish patriots have the best interests of their countrymen at heart; but the placard of which the contents are quoted above never emanated from any Irish patriot; it was a definite and ineffectual attempt to stir up the worst pa.s.sions of which humanity is capable in the hour of England"s greatest need, at a time when all Irish patriots were voicing unity and support to their Government, whether they were Home Rulers or Orangemen--the action of Ireland has proved that. In the case of working men"s unions, the action of the men themselves has always been to a definite end, both in England and in France; to the end that they might obtain better conditions of life, just laws to govern their work, and the elemental rights of man. But, in addition to these things, there have been of late years agitators who would claim for the working men of the two countries that Germany had most cause to fear, not only the rights of their cla.s.s, but a right to disregard the rights of all other cla.s.ses, and take absolute power into their hands at a signal from some leader. Efforts have been made to induce men to strike for little, for nothing; to cause them to render a whole country powerless by their action, and to do indirect injury to themselves. Such action as this points to the working of a force not necessarily beneficial to the workmen themselves, but certainly inimical to the country to which the workers happen to belong. And, always keeping in mind Stieber and the debas.e.m.e.nt of aim he has brought on his own country, together with the fact that industrial unrest is in the first place a German product, we may say that coincidence does not account for all the Syndicalist efforts that have been contemporary with rumours of war.
CHAPTER ELEVEN.
STEINHAUER"S WORK.
The trials of Schulz, Graves, and others who have made appearances in the British criminal courts recently--or comparatively so--showed us the spy at work in extricating information; they demonstrated one phase, and a dangerous phase at that, of the business. No recent trial, however, has proved of such importance in connection with a study of the system as that of Ernst, which, quite apart from the doings of the accused man, shows the work of Steinhauer, the Potsdam director of the fixed agent, or "post office," as the fixed spy is designated in the slang of espionage. Since the case of Ernst is still _sub judice_ at the time of writing, only the bare official report can be given, at least as regards the conduct of the accused; but even with this limitation there is more to be learned from the case of Ernst and his alleged doings than from any other recent case, for the allegations of the prosecution involve evidence as to the headquarter office at Potsdam managed by Steinhauer, who supervises the working of the fixed agent as well as that of travelling spies and secret-service headquarter methods--evidence which is sufficiently plain and complete to substantiate all the statements made as regards the foreign work of the German secret service in the course of this book.
Karl Gustav Ernst, hairdresser, of Caledonian Road, Islington, was first charged on August 4, 1914, with contravening the Official Secrets Act with a view to his being dealt with under the Aliens Restriction Act.
He denied knowledge of the charge against him, which he described as "ridiculous," and, after remand, was ordered deportation. Conveyed to Brixton prison, to await a suitable opportunity for his being sent to Germany, he appealed to the Home Office for release. His appeal included claims to the effect that he was absolutely innocent of any crime, that he had nothing whatever to do with the Official Secrets Act, and that, since the police had produced no doc.u.ments in court, they had evidently discovered nothing of an incriminating nature at his place in Caledonian Road, where he _had carried on business as a hairdresser for sixteen years_, with a Pentonville official among his customers.
Inquiries proved the truth of a claim that he made to the effect that he was a British subject, which rendered it impossible to detain him under the Aliens Restriction Act. He was consequently released, and rearrested outside the prison gates as a spy on the country in which he had voluntarily become a citizen by means of naturalisation. The charge against him now is that is he traitor as well as spy.
His position with regard to the original charge and sentence of deportation is worthy of note. For sixteen years he had been in business in Caledonian Road; that is to say, he had resided in his place for such a length of time that there were no grounds for suspicion against him on the part of the inhabitants of the district. He was a part of the life of the place, almost an old inhabitant, when his doings rendered him worthy of the notice of the police. This is characteristic of the fixed agent in French centres, as already stated here.
On September 28, 1914, the present case was opened against Ernst by Mr Bodkin, who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions at Bow Street Police-Court. The charge was to the effect that Ernst had "obtained and communicated, and attempted to obtain and communicate to one Steinhauer, certain information calculated to be useful to an enemy."
Mr Bodkin stated that the prisoner first came under the suspicion of the authorities in October of 1911, and it was evident that from then until January of 1914 he had been a spy in the pay of the German secret service. The man who was practically Ernst"s master was one Steinhauer, a member and organiser of the German secret service, whose name had figured in practically every espionage case investigated in this country for the past three or four years.
Acting under Steinhauer"s orders, the prisoner was alleged to have been deputed to accomplish certain duties which fell under two heads. In the first place, it was alleged that he was to receive from Steinhauer, who was located in Germany, letters enclosed in envelopes which gave them the appearance of ordinary business communications, and to post them in England to various members of the organisation. In the second place, it was alleged that he was to make inquiries on his own account with regard to persons and places which, in the opinion of Steinhauer, would be useful to the German secret service. His salary consisted of out-of-pocket expenses and a retaining fee of one pound a month, which, when Ernst pointed out the risk attaching to what he was doing, and the importance of his work, was increased to one pound ten shillings a month. Mr Bodkin stated that "the system was perfectly well-known from the commencement in 1911, and the hairdresser"s shop in Caledonian Road was accordingly kept under observation."
The observation included the opening of letters addressed to the accused, which were traced and the tracings filed before delivery of the originals to Ernst. There were included among these letters a large number of communications from Germany, chiefly from Potsdam, and Ernst himself sent many communications to Potsdam and Berlin. His letters were posted in different districts of London, while the letters coming from Germany to him were written on English note-paper and enclosed in English envelopes, which the prisoner had forwarded to Steinhauer for use--in one instance the paper and envelopes had been sent as "samples,"
the package being so weighty that Steinhauer had to pay excess postage at the other end. By opening both outgoing and incoming correspondence the authorities were placed in possession of a ma.s.s of valuable information as regards not only Ernst, but also other members of the system in England.
For the purpose of the correspondence with Ernst, Steinhauer was alleged to have adopted the alias of "Mrs Reimers," and Ernst himself, the prosecution stated, changed his name from time to time, having letters addressed to his shop as to "J. Walters, care of K.G. Ernst," and sometimes to "W. Weller." These two names were the prisoner"s own suggestion to Steinhauer. The latter sent letters not only to Ernst himself, but also missives to be forwarded to various places, including Chatham, Sheerness, and Portland Harbour. These letters were opened by the authorities under powers which they possessed for dealing with such cases, and tracings were taken before the letters were delivered.
Ernst was requested by Steinhauer to find out all that he could about certain persons named, on the ground that they were connected or believed to be connected with the Intelligence Department of the War Office. One of the firms upon which he was called to make inquiries and report had an office in the City opposite to the office occupied by the late Captain Stewart, who figured in the German courts in an espionage case, and subsequently was imprisoned in a German fortress. In one of the envelopes sent to Ernst by Steinhauer were two letters, one of which was addressed to a British sailor, and the other to a German located at Portland Harbour. Further, the prosecution alleged, Ernst was in constant communication with persons named Kruger and Krumer, in connection with espionage work, while one of his letters referred to a magazine article which described the defences of the East Coast.
Another letter contained reference to the espionage case against Parrott, which took place in the autumn of 1912. After January of 1914, Steinhauer requested Ernst to make inquiries about a person living in Somerset, and to this Ernst replied that he could not spare the time to do so, though he had previously gone up to Sheffield on business of a similar nature.
Here, with the taking of some formal evidence, the first hearing of the case closed, and at this point Mr S.Y. Tilly, who had been retained for the defence of the prisoner, said that if he had been in possession of the information outlined by Mr Bodkin it would have made a difference in his procedure in the case. He had been a.s.sured by the prisoner and the prisoner"s friends that Ernst was a perfectly straightforward British subject: but, in the circ.u.mstances revealed by Mr Bodkin"s statement, he felt compelled to withdraw from the case.