sentenced to twenty-five years at hard labor. That may be all right—it may be the military law, and if it is, I have no comment upon it. But I say that if it is the military law, he, as an officer in the United States army, probably knew it, and in writing that candid letter to the Secretary of War, and coming back here and taking his penalty like a soldier, he did just exactly what he ought to do. He protected the interests of the United States Government at war.
THAT is the end of my defense against Mr. Barnes's assertion that we had an intention in these articles to obstruct the draft and the enlistment, to promote disloyalty, mutiny, insubordination, refusal of duty in the army, and that we conspired to do this. I shall now for about ten minutes take the offensive. I mean that I will show the things we did, which prove that we did not intend any such thing.
And the first is this: Way back in June when there was somebody first appointed in the position which seemed to us similar to the position of military censor, as it was established in Europe, we sent our business manager down to this man, George Creel, and opened our magazine before him, and asked him if there was anything unlawful in it. And although Mr. Barnes brought Mr. Creel here as a witness on his own side at our previous trial, I notice that in this trial he omits any testimony of Mr. Creel, and the reason is that the testimony of Mr. Creel was to the effect, and I am quoting his own words, "That it was the purpose of our visit to find out whether there was anything unlawful in our magazine or not."
That is the first thing. Second we have Creel's letter to me after Merrill Rogers's visit. I think it was in the testimony, too. I am not sure. Creel wrote a letter to me saying that
39
