by Nigel West
The bureau asked Tinsley for definite information with regard to Meisner-Denis, Rutherford, Hastings and Cribben. Tinsley replied identifying Rutherford with the Rutl of Graff’s instructions, and this was corroborated by a letter in which Mrs Rutherford informed her husband that she had received $200 dollars on a particular date.
Cribben was a tobacco and motorcar dealer who put up at the Maas Hotel in Rotterdam. By the end of 1916 therefore, the bureau could piece together the information supplied by Graff and [XXXXX] and, applying it to the case of Bacon, deduce that a spy centre subordinate to Antwerp existed at New York under the direction of Albert A. Sander. This correspondence was conducted by ‘Charlie’ who had been writing to Meisner-Denis, but in October the Germans, having discovered through Bacon’s experiences that the British were on the track of Meisner-Denis, replaced him by Rutledge Rutherford, who thenceforth would stand in the same relation to Bacon as Hastings to [XXXXXX]. Moreover all this gang of American spies used the same arbitrary code and secret ink.
Rutherford was signalled to the ports for arrest, Hastings and Cribben for search and shadowing. If Hastings was met with on a ship going to America, he was to be sent to London. Enquiries set on foot in England resulted in establishing certain facts concerning Rutherford.
Rutledge Rutherford, an American journalist, landed in England on 3 April 1916 with a passport issued in Washington on 16 March. He applied for a permit to go to Holland and gave Amsterdam and The Hague as his destination, his object being to study with a view to publication in the American press the food supplies of the armies and food shipments to and from Holland, as also the work of the Belgian Relief Commission in Holland. On 13 April he had procured a letter to Mr Young, the Commission’s representative at Rotterdam. As references Rutherford gave Frederick Wile of the Daily Mail, and C. Hermann Senn, also connected with the press.
Rutherford, who had known Senn before the war, called upon him in London and asked him for information as to the food supply in England and Europe, and also as to the War Office. He promised to send articles to Senn from Holland but did not do so. Rutherford left for Holland on or about 19 April, but there was no trace of his journey at Gravesend. In Holland, Rutherford met Charles Edward Russell, a Socialist American journalist employed by the Newspaper Enterprise Association who had come over to England with his wife on 26 June and had left for Holland on 5 July to enquire about foodstuffs and wages in that country. Russell returned to England on 15 July and went to Dublin on the 25th, returned to London on the 26th and left for France en route to the United States on 4 August. On account of these journeys and of his connection with Rutherford, the bureau looked upon Russell with suspicion. The French police gave him a good character but he published an article in America on the suppression of the Irish Rebellion of a distinctly hostile tendency to Great Britain. When America came into the war, Russell took part in vigorous propaganda for the Allies, and is said to have left the Socialist party because it was pro-German. On the other hand, he himself wrote that the Socialists had turned him out of their party while he was in Russia on a mission for President Wilson and that he went willingly. Eighteen months later his wife wrote a letter praising the Bolsheviks and saying, ‘Ed is a real Bolshevist.’ This puts a different complexion on Russell’s break with the Socialists.
From Holland, Rutherford sent articles to the Pittsburgh Bulletin in Pittsburgh, and the Forecast and the Standard in New York. Rutherford also contributed articles to the New York American. On 24 August 1916 he warned the editor of the Daily News in London of the approaching submarine blockade of England and on 10 November he wrote to the Pittsburgh Bulletin that interruption of food supplies would prove England’s ruin. A replica of this, as well as other articles of a like nature, were stopped on 26 December. Enquiries made in America established the fact that A. A. Sander, another contributor to the New York American, was the manager of the C. P. Watt, or Central Powers War Film Exchange, and had as his associate a man named Charles Wunnenberg.
Meisner-Denis and Rutherford observed such caution that Tinsley could obtain no proof of their connection with the German Secret Service, but early in February the proofs were supplied by Frederick Graff, who handed in two more sheets of undeveloped secret instructions for New York. These were dated 28 and 29 October, and referred to Mrs Rutherford’s pension, and to steps which New York must be taken to recover letters addressed to Meisner-Denis. Orders were to be given that Bacon would no longer be paid from Holland, but a monthly remittance was to be sent in the name of Mr W. T. Mc.N. (Virgil V. McNutt, of the Central Press Association) through the American Express Company. Letters to Rutledge were to have an en clair message about the presidential election and a message in secret ink on the back. Letters of that kind arrived well and regularly.
The bureau received the developed sheets on 9 February 1917 and on the same day Bacon made what seems to be a full confession. He had been recruited for service by a Bohemian named Posselt, had been introduced to Albert Sander, and finally engaged to go to spy in England by Charles Wunnenberg, alias Robert Davis. This was the ‘Charlie’ referred to in the secret instructions. In order to obtain his passport Bacon induced Virgil V. McNutt to engage him as unpaid correspondent to the Central Press Association. Wunnenberg then gave Bacon instructions in the use of the secret ink, which could be developed only at Antwerp. Reports were to be sent to Rutherford at the Hotel Maas in Rotterdam, who would forward them via Berlin to Antwerp, but in case of urgency Bacon was to write to Meisner-Denis or van der Kolk. From London he sent two reports to Rutherford during September. He wrote to Meisner-Denis as money was running short and getting no reply, he went to Holland and there saw Rutherford and Schultze, who was much interested in the details of his journey from America. He was paid some £200, with which he bought a draft on the American Express Company in London. Soon after returning to England, Bacon went to Ireland and from Dublin posted to Rutherford a letter containing a secret message. This was not intercepted.
Bacon was tried by court martial, found guilty and condemned to death on 26 February. The sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, but, at the request of the American authorities, he was released by the Home Office, which granted a licence under the Imprisonment Act and went back to America to give evidence against Albert Sander and Charles Wunnenberg, who had been arrested at the end of February. After a drastic bill against espionage had been passed by the Senate on 20 February, Sander and Wunnenberg were condemned to two years’ imprisonment and a fine for conspiring to spy upon a government with which the United States was at peace. Eventually Wunnenberg made a confession, and Bacon was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment in the United States.
Albert A. Sander, formerly employed by William Randolph Hearst on a German newspaper, and Charles Wunnenberg, a naturalised American of German birth and by profession an engineer, carried on their activities as German agents under cover of a film company. At the address of the company they set up the German American Literary Defence Committee with the object of fomenting sedition in Ireland and India.
In the spring of 1915, Wunnenberg had been introduced to Dr Passe of Cologne who had sent him to New York to recruit journalists as spies. After getting in touch with Sander, Posselt and Ford who were on the staff of the Irish paper, Wunnenberg returned to Passe and was then introduced to ‘Wilhelm’ and Schultze of the Antwerp bureau. He want to Antwerp, learned the use of a secret ink, the information that was required, and then went back to America with instructions that his agents were to write to Meissner-Denis and to Philipson, at Skidergade 21, Copenhagen, who would forward the reports to Germany. Wunnenberg recruited Rutherford, sent him to England and Holland, and then was wired for himself. Wunnenberg sailed for Europe on 18 May, picking up Rutherford and took him to Hamburg and Berlin. From Berlin, Rutherford went to Antwerp and Wunnenberg to Wilhelmshaven, where he was instructed in the use of bombs for blowing up ships. Afterwards he went to Copenhagen and concerted measures with Russian naval and military
officers for betraying ships carrying stores from America to Russia into the hands of the Germans. Wunnenberg found the man Wreslauer who could give shipping facilities to the Russian buyer. Wunnenberg also recruited Sidney Lush, who carried despatches to Denmark for Germany about the importation of war films into America for propaganda purposes. His cover for the importation of these war films made a contract with the Central Powers to market all the films which the Central Powers could supply.
In order to finance the press scheme, drafts were drawn upon Adolph Pass of the Pass Kramer Hatband Company in New York by Charles Wunnenberg in his own name and $1,200 was drawn in two cheques on Philipson in Copenhagen. Some of this sum was sent to New York in the name of Robert Davis, the real Davis having allowed Wunnenberg to conceal his German name by the use of that alias. Afterwards Wunnenberg stated that all wireless messages were addressed to Mankratz in Hamburg, afterwards identified as Eugen Wilhelm, Philipson in Copenhagen, and Meisner-Denis at The Hague. Agents were sent out to work up the Irish and the Hearst Press against Great Britain, and in February 1917 an agent was sent to America for propaganda purposes and to enlist men who were to enter the British Navy and place bombs on ships. Bansof, who was buying for the Russian government, acted as buyer for Great Britain also and sent reports from London to ‘Wilhelm’ at Antwerp.
After arresting Albert Sander and Charles Wunnenberg, the Americans tried to get hold of Charles Hastings and Rutledge Rutherford. Hastings, who had lost the confidence of the Germans, left Holland willingly with the American emissary, was interrogated at Scotland Yard on 14 and 15 March, returned to America on 31 March, and was tried and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. Rutherford, more deeply compromised, fled to Antwerp and was sent to Stockholm where he stayed for a few days. He then returned to Germany and worked in Hamburg for the Continental Times. His private letters were despatched to America through the agency of Heinrich Grund. At one time Rutherford used the postal address of Mahler. An attempt made by the Germans to send him to Switzerland failed as the Swiss legation would not grant him a passport. The Antwerp roll notes that in 1916 Rutherford had done good service in England and later on in Holland, where he obtained general information from English journalists and sent serviceable reports from Holland regularly, and that in 1917 he was compromised in Holland and Scandinavia and could not return to America owing to the watch kept by England.
Hans Eils declared that Rutherford recruited the spy Rothardt, who came to England for four weeks and wrote six or seven letters from Hull, Edinburgh, London and South Shields. This presumably was J. C. Roodhardt, designated A-93, who accepted German pay but applied for work to the British Service. He lay hidden in Holland and was eventually dismissed by both services in 1917. Rutherford therefore stands foremost among American journalists who are known to have supplied information to the Germans.
Three others who took an interest in Irish affairs were watched at the instance of the bureau. Of these Charles Russell, mentioned above, was known to Rutherford. Robert Mountsier, who travelled with a lady companion, and went to Penzance and Ireland, knew Bacon. Arthur Gleason of the New York Tribune, with which Rutherford was also said to be connected, went to Ireland with a recommendation from the Foreign Office. The Under Secretary for Ireland, being warned by the bureau, handled Mountsier and Gleason carefully. The other American, Peter Cribben, who knew George Bacon and was seen off to America from Holland by Rutherford in November 1916, there can be little doubt. In 1915 Cribben was working as a mechanic in a garage. Then the Tomplerman Steamship Company sent him to Holland about the cargo of the SS Virginian. While there, Cribben placed orders in the United States for large quantities of goods including apples and pig-iron. He was a man of no character and Major Carter believed him to be a spy and warned the US Army’s Intelligence Department.
The agents mentioned connected to this case who appeared on the Antwerp List were: A-82 Meisner-Denis, Lieutenant of the Landwehr (retired); A-42 Arthur van Graff; A-58 George Vaux Bacon; A-30 Rutledge Rutherford; A-77 Wilhelm Duell, alias Thuringsen; A-13 Charles Wunnenberg; A-105 Adolph Pass, supply officer of the Rhenish District; A-93J C. Roodhardt, alias Rothardt; A-107 Georg Mahler, who worked with Ground and transmitted reports with regard to Dutch shipping.
To these must be admitted [XXXXXX] and Charles E. Hastings, whose names are not quoted in the copies of the Antwerp List supplied to the bureau.
It was alleged that Rutledge Rutherford had become a member of the London Press Club, a report that was neither contradicted nor corroborated, but the fact remains that he satisfied the Germans, and the case of Anthony Spalding affords a good illustration of how this could be achieved.
Spalding was a journalist of twenty years’ standing and of some position. He had been for three years assistant editor of the Bombay Gazette, then six years on the Manchester staff of the Daily Mail and after chief sub-editor of the Daily News in Manchester. At the end of August 1914 he was appointed an assistant censor in the Press Bureau, on the recommendation of the president of the Newspaper Owners Federation. Spalding was engaged in the cable room of the Press Bureau and it was his duty to enter in a notebook all decisions taken by the presiding chairman of censors with regard to the circulation or stopping of specific items of information and to guide the other censors in their work by the light of these notes.
From March 1915 until February 1917, Spalding wrote some twenty-five letters to one Charles Stead, a colour merchant in Manchester, which contained specific news relating to naval and military movements, new inventions, damage done by air raids, foreign alliances, and the private and public affairs of government officials in high places. Stead and Spalding were intimate friends and the letters were written for the information of Stead only. He, however, communicated them to other persons, in particular to Charles Richmond Way, a traffic assistant at the Manchester Ship Canal Company, and also had some of the most important letters typed by his female clerk.
On 23 February 1917 Way showed these letters to William Goodman, a merchant of Manchester, and Goodman who was a special constable communicated with the police. The police saw Way who promptly handed over copies of some of the letters and gave the name of Charles A. Stead who, when interviewed, prevaricated but finally under pressure admitted that the letters had been written by Spalding and produced the whole bundle of them. Stead and Way were arrested on 27 February, and charged under DRR 18. From their statements it was clear they were aware that it was dangerous to be in possession of such letters. The case was at once reported to MI5 by the Chief Constable of Manchester who sent an inspector up to town with the letters. After due verification Spalding was arrested quickly at the Press Bureau on 28 February and his house was searched and particulars of his bank account obtained.
No evidence of hostile connection was found and the three men were admitted to bail; Spalding however was kept under observation. It was proposed to try the three men by court martial. It was accordingly arranged that Stead and Way should be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the magistrate, re-arrested and admitted to bail and bound over to appear in London for a summary of evidence to be taken on 24 March. At the same time the opportunity was to be given them to claim their right of trial in a civil court. The necessary notices were issued by the London District. Meanwhile an attempt to trace the information to its source showed that some of it could not have come from the Press Bureau but might possibly have been gathered from the staff of The Times. The information was ascertained to be substantially correct, at the same time Spalding’s dealings with stockbrokers showed that he had not made correct use of his professional opportunities. Spalding, Way and Stead all claimed their right to be tried in the civil court and at the DPP’s suggestion it was decided that as there was no evidence of hostile intent or corruption against any of the accused, Stead and Way, who had been merely receivers of information should be dealt with in a court of summary jurisdiction and they appeared at Clerkenwell Police Court on 19 April to be fined £100 and £60 respective
ly with £20 costs each.
Spalding was committed for trial in the civil court and his case was heard on 26 April before Mr Justice Low. Counsel for the defence had reckoned on being able to meet a charge of collecting and communicating information likely to be useful to an enemy, hence Spalding at first pleaded not guilty, but the indictment was so drawn that of the seventeen counts of receiving, collecting and communicating information, only four were coupled with the clause alleging utility to the enemy, and in face of the documentary evidence it was not possible to deny the more general charge. Hence, at counsel’s suggestion, Spalding withdrew his former plea and pleaded guilty to fifteen out of the seventeen counts. He was put into the witness box and in his cross-examination he admitted and expressed sorrow for his indiscretion but defended himself by stating that two of his slips were mere records for purposes of his work as assistant censor and that as regards the letters he had obtained his information either from gossip in the press club, or in conversation with other members of the Press Bureau, and not directly from the cables and other documents to which his work gave him access; that moreover these outside sources often supplied much more detailed information than official sources.
In face of the very reason for which a Press Censorship was established such a defence was inadmissible, and the judge sentenced Spalding to three years’ imprisonment. Spalding appealed and the sentence was reduced to twelve months’ hard labour. One of the most secret pieces of information Spalding stated he had received from Mr Acland, editor of the weekly edition of The Times. Mr Acland was summoned to Scotland Yard and in examination gave the impression that he was concealing something from the authorities. Further action was contemplated but the efforts of the editor of The Times and lack of evidence on which to base a prosecution caused the matter to be dropped. During the case Mr Justice Low commented on the absence of any specific regulation in the Defence of the Realm Act making it an offence for a censor to divulge any matter whether of a public or private character which had come to his knowledge in the exercise of his duty and pointed out that some of Spalding’s worst offences could not be dealt at all under the regulations and he laid down the principle that disclosure of any information, whether significant or insignificant, obtained in the course of duty was a breach of faith and should be punished severely as such. Further, he recommended that persons employed as censors should avoid the society of journalists and the purlieus of press clubs.
