Kate Crane Gartz
Page 8
Do you think for one moment our boys could be conscripted again for overseas wars or any other? No, at least they have learned that force does not settle anything, but that all human misunderstandings must be arbitrated. You, however, a preacher of the Gospel, wish to participate in the slaughter of the innocents, and your congregation actually acquiesces in your hideous suggestions. The Turks have seen what the Christians can do.
I thought the church did enough to discredit itself during the war, and was now about to turn over a new leaf and live up to Christ’s teachings; but I see it still has its black sheep. Let England get out of Constantinople. What right has she there, anyway, occupying territory of an alien people, who have some rights? We cannot give “civil liberty” to other countries until we achieve it for ourselves.
You are pro-British before you are pro-American; you deprecate the fact that Admiral Bristol was blocking British enterprises and favored American concessions. If you and your people want more war, get out and do the fighting yourselves, and see how it feels.
Very sincerely,
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
September 24, 1922.
REV. JOHN M. DEAN,
PASADENA, CAL.
I see it is useless to “arbitrate” with you, as we cannot agree on the first premise—that War itself is the atrocity. I do not need to know how to read or write, much less to study history or the Bible, to know the difference between right and wrong. The object in studying history and the Bible, is for education and improvement, to discard old and worn-out methods and to try to attain a higher goal through reason instead of force. Because man has been a savage in past ages, and because of history and precedent—that is not a justifiable reason for continuing it for all time.
As for the woman whose son was killed by the Turks—was that not enough? Must she needs have some other mother’s son killed, too, to have her revenge? The Old Testament says an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth—but Jesus expressly repudiated that evil doctrine, and bade us do good to those who injure us.
Yes, I am always glad to “advertise” my Pacifism. We are all proud of our attitudes, or we should not have them. In fact I should be in jail for mine, where some of my friends still are. I do not feel that it is a crime to be a peace advocate! I have no more sympathy for the Turk who kills than I have for the English, American, or German who kills. What about France occupying the Rhine with its Black troops, molesting German women by the thousand, which is infinitely worse than killing? So, who is to be the judge as to which nation has the monopoly of wickedness, cruelty and injustice? I repeat, War is the great atrocity.
Sincerely,
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
October 2, 1922.
HEBER H. VOTAW,
WASHINGTON, D. C.
Dear Sir: I see by the evening papers that you are Superintendent of Federal Prisons, as well as brother-in-law of the President. I had supposed that your office was so far away from the President that he did not know about the outrageous conditions existing in all the prisons.
You doubtless have heard of prison reform, as all the rest of us have. But you do no more than we do. Our country is still in the Dark Ages as far as our treatment of prisoners is concerned.
Just a few of the things that ought to be done: Prisons to be more like sanitariums, so that men will come out better than when they went in. An opportunity for education instead of idleness. A chance to work to earn money for their dependents. Guards to be a better class of men. Rooms instead of cells and iron bars. No dungeons and cruel solitary confinement.
Can you not see that these penal institutions are models for all the world, and that these men, all of them victims of our cruel system of society, come out better fitted to cope with it than when they went in.
Sincerely,
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
November 25, 1922.
EDITOR,
The Sentinel,
HANFORD, CAL.
Your article of November 22nd, entitled “Parlor Bolshevist Seeks Notoriety,” has been called to my attention by one of your townsmen, who believes in me. I am glad that I saved some clippings about Ricardo Magon, martyr to the cause of human liberty, that I may be the one to enlighten you, for you are densely ignorant, not only about the man, but about the cause for which he gave his life.
Time was when the soul of America took an intense interest in all people struggling for liberty, and greeted their representative heroes with banquets and processions, and named streets and hats for them, as in the case of Louis Kossuth. Carl Schurz was made an ambassador, a general, a United States Senator and a member of the President’s Cabinet. But now a man with a new idea and a heart bleeding for the woes of the world is so misunderstood, not by the “man in the street,” but by writers on our daily papers, such as you, who deliberately poison the minds of thousands of people daily.
And you say I want “cheap notoriety,” because I cry out for justice and human brotherhood! Do not you know that I could obtain notoriety in some easier and less costly way than that which I have chosen? Of course, you know I could have my name and picture in the “society column” any day I chose, did I not prefer to champion a cause which such “society” hates! Why do you not accuse some worker of the Red Cross or other humane cause, of “seeking cheap notoriety”?
Sir, there is nothing “cheap” about that which I want. Let my notoriety be that of standing on the mountaintops and screaming the world, that we are an unjust, cruel people, and unless we open our eyes very soon, the great collapse that is threatening the world will surely overtake us!
Sincerely,
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
December 1, 1922.
EDITOR,
The Los Angeles Times,
LOS ANGELES, CAL.
Dear Sir: Your editorial on William Bross Lloyd is a little late, and, of course, as usual, you have no sympathy with political prisoners, of which we should never have had any if we had lived up to the Constitution. And you cannot appreciate the greatness of men who go to jail rather than give up their ideals for the betterment of humanity.
A few years ago America looked on revolutionists from across the seas as great heroes, erected statues to them and invited them to our Senate as guests. But now we clap them into jail to die of neglect. Such treatment could not be, except that you poison the minds of millions of people, and make them think that a hero is a traitor, and should be treated as no criminal should ever be treated.
What is your object? Are you not rich enough? Or does it amuse you to deceive people and to get yourself disliked?
Sincerely,
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
December 4, 1922.
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
LOS ANGELES, CAL.
Dear Sirs: I think it is your duty to explain to the world just what your reasons are for barring magazines such as the “Nation” and “New Republic” from the schools; the very best magazines, the most educational in the United States.
In spite of your prohibition, the truth must come out. Students must be free from the slavery of embalmed ideas. Our schools should stands for freedom, the heritage of our forefathers, and young people should not be hampered in their search for knowledge by the fears of the propertied classes.
Sincerely,
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
December 9, 1922,
GENERAL JOHN PERSHING,
WASHINGTON, D. C.
Dear Sir: You are a militarist, Debs is a pacifist. You stand for flag and country, he stands for human beings. You cannot be expected to understand him, but he understands you.
Jane Addams leads the movement for No More War Under Any Circumstances. All women should follow her, and then so would the men.
Yes, let us all live up to the Constitution; but then we might all get into jail! There are many men now in jail for claiming rights which the Constitution grants them.
Sincerely,
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
(Telegram)
December 10
, 1922.
PRESIDENT HARDING,
WASHINGTON, D. C.
I weep for my country that has seen fit to let a man like Ricardo Magon die in prison. Five years of his life have been snatched away from his precious family here in Los Angeles, and all because his whole life was spent fighting for human freedom.
You may call it treason—and it is treason to the capitalist system, perhaps; but it is loyalty to the welfare of mankind.
Again and again we have appealed to you in vain, and now the state will not even pay his burial expenses, which I shall feel honored to do.
His family and all the families of those in prison for exercising their constitutional rights should be subsidized by the state which brought sorrow to their lives. More power to martyrs such as he, whose name will live, while the names of those who tortured him are already dead.
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
December 18, 1922.
Los Angeles Times,
LOS ANGELES, CAL.
Dear Sirs: “Merry Christmas to every poor family in Los Angeles.” Such is your slogan, and that of all the fraternal organizations; once a year, for one day—for one meal, in fact. But what about the other 364 days? Can you not visualize a system of humanity wherein every human being will be entitled to three meals a day, 365 days a year? A society in which no one who is willing to work will be forced to accept charity; in which no son of God will go hungry, and while another son reaps an income of $265,000 a day! Cannot the whole world see the infamy of such an uncivilized civilization, man-made, but blamed upon God?
We keep on spending millions to house superstitions, while the “son of man” is housed in squalor and degradation. Can we not realize that the spiritual well-being is dependent on the physical, not once or twice a year, but all the year round? Why not agitate for a system that would guarantee the fullness of life for all? Instead of listening to a new idea, we persecute it with relentless ferocity; we make martyrs for future generations to honor. How blind and stupid! Can’t we see that the more miserable the masses become, the sooner comes that revulsion that has caused ruin in other countries? Why do we not wish for others that which we wish for ourselves?
Sincerely,
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
December 20, 1922.
My Dear May: I am surprised at the kind of clippings you send me, taken from “Commercial and Financial News,” as if that were authority enough for your point of view. First, speaking of “undermining the navy,” I for one do not object to anything that undermines our slaughtering machinery, which we were supposed to discard in 1918. Neither do I object to “pacifist propaganda,” nor that the Communist party issued an appeal to soldiers not to fight strikers, the producers of wealth for patrioteers. These strikers naturally wanted some of the “democracy and freedom,” and “no more war” for which they fought on Flanders field.
Remember one thing, there would be no “wild agitators” if there was not a world of injustice. Do you realize we spend 93 per cent of our annual income on war and its fruits, and what right have we so to use the people’s money? Only 7 per cent left for all constructive work!
I will answer that editorial on Magon. It is disgusting that men are allowed to wield pens in such infamous misrepresentations, and people like you believe them. Like everybody else of your class, you don’t commence to think of the worker until it hits your own pocketbook. I’d rather be called any bad names than be a colorless follower of the parasitic class, whose only job is absorbing all the worker creates, and who think they are “charitable” and “philanthropic” when, once a year, at a charity bazaar, they hand back a modicum of what they have expropriated.
It is marvelous to me that you and your Lake Forest class can be happy for one moment. Stop to think how thin is the crust on which you build your temples! You live lives wholly devoted to selfish interests, and you do not give a stray thought to the “less fortunate.” What right have we to enjoy life at the expense of any other human being? No, perhaps I am not happy, but I have at least the thought that I am with the struggling masses in their search for that better, freer world, which the capitalists have thus far failed to establish.
SISTER.
December 26, 1922.
MRS. MARY WARE DENNETT,
NEW YORK, N. Y.,
Dear Mrs. Dennett: Thank you for the invitation to serve upon the Legislative Committee of the Voluntary Parenthood League, but being so far away I am, of course, unable to accept.
It is amazing that you and Mrs. Sanger have had to fight all these years for probably the most vital measure before the people today. It should not be necessary even to ask for it. The knowledge of birth control should be every adult human being’s inherent right. I go even further and say that the promiscuous and thoughtless bringing of children into the world should be prohibited by law. Think of the endless dire consequences entailed by thoughtless parenthood! This information about limitation is always available to the “well-to-do,” but denied to the women of the working class. And the poor children must take the consequences of their parents’ ignorance.
As a matter of fact, what right has the state to interfere in a matter so personal and vital as the creation of a human being?
Sincerely,
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
December 26, 1922.
DR. FRANK CRANE,
URBANA, ILL.
Dear Sir: In answer to your daily letter entitled “A Blot Upon Christmas,” bemoaning the fact that we still have political prisoners behind the bars four years after the war: I was surprised and pleased that you finally came out for them; but you spoiled it all by saying, “Of course most of the people of the United States have not the slightest sympathy for them.” That is far from the truth, for most all the people deeply deplore and resent the very idea of a political prisoner in this “land of the free.”
Years ago we received with open arms political prisoners and exiles from foreign shores; we had parades and raised monuments to men such as Kossuth and Kosciusko. But now we clap such men in jail. As for their being “crooked sticks” and “trouble makers”—they are idealists and protagonists of a better social order, deliberately misunderstood by the powers that be.
Yes, the foundation of the country was and should be liberty, but it is far from being the case these past four years. We still have the unconstitutional espionage law, and are arresting and jailing men for merely belonging to their own organization, whatever it may be.
No, men should never be locked up for opposing the government. The Declaration of Independence states explicitly that we not only have the right, but it is our duty to criticize, change or even abolish our Government. It belongs to us, and we are responsible for its continuance or its discontinuance—and no man temporarily in power has any right to close our mouths for saying so. The ideas for which men are jailed gain force and power behind the bars; but the powers that be are too blind to see that.
Sincerely,
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
January 22, 1923.
RAYMOND ROBINS,
PASADENA, CAL.
Dear Sir: I have listened to your speeches during the last few days with great interest, and am thankful for the many shots fired into this citadel of conservatism and reaction. But I am sorry that a man with your background and upbringing and vision did not stay with the proletariat, and continue to wrestle with their problems. I have not quite so much sympathy with the capitalist; he does not need any. I noticed you said last night, in Dr. Freeman’s church, that the church should be good to the capitalist when he was right and good to labor when it was right. Apparently you do not realize that capitalism has grown to be a Frankenstein monster, devouring and slaughtering and imprisoning human beings who protest against its ruthless and unjust methods. Had you not discovered that “clean lump of gold” way up in the Yukon which made you “economically free” would you not feel quite differently? Suppose some capitalist were getting his economic freedom at your expense!
I was also
hoping for a good word about Russia. But perhaps that was the reason your subject was changed at the last hour, at the California Institute of Technology. The truth about Russia is the last thing this country wants. Our own John Haynes Holmes, after his recent visit to Russia during the past summer, reports that, “the Russian experiment is the greatest idea ever conceived by the mind of man.”
About God: if there was a God, it seems to me that none of us would have to worry, all would be well with the World; because, He being Omnipotent, the World would not be in the unchristian chaos in which we find ourselves today. Nor would you have to intercede by prayer in behalf of those child laborers in Illinois of whom you spoke, and whose liberation from the clutches of Christian capitalists came through the vote of a much despised saloon-keeper of the underworld. No, God is an unknown and unknowable entity of whom we can have no knowledge whatever. Our job is to try to function through human consciousness toward a better society here and now; anything else is outside our sphere.
Let us follow a truly noble leader like Debs, a man who has no hate in his heart for any human being, only pity for those who so blindly persecuted him, being unable to understand his great love and devotion to the cause of human freedom and economic justice.
Sincerely,
KATE CRANE GARTZ.
February 15, 1923.
EDITOR,
The Valve World,{1}
CHICAGO, ILL.
Dear Sir: In your “Old Fogy” article you are again “blaspheming” Russia and calling Lenin and Trotsky pygmies; which shows that you have never read anything of their ideas and achievements for a better world than old Russia gave, or than any other government on the face of the globe is now giving. You have only listened to newspaper propaganda.
As for “banishing God and heaven,” have you or any other man ever seen any evidence that the “Supreme Power of the Universe” showed any interest in our little world or any other? A sorry spectacle it is now for His Majesty to gaze upon! Where is His omnipotence? It is well that Russia had vision enough to banish a great superstition, and direct its energies toward making a better world here and now, not only for Russia but for all the world. All hail to Russia for opening the eyes of the world, and saying that religion as we have it today is the “opiate of the people.” Russia is leading the people toward a cooperative system of society, wherein all shall share in the good things of life—not only the non-producers, as now in our deadly competitive system.