Reds in America - Richard M. Whitney


"Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security."

"The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risque congratulations, which may soon turn into complaints. Prudence would dictate this in the case of separate insulated private men; but liberty, when men act in bodies, is power. Considerate people, before they declare themselves, will observe the use which is made of power; and particularly of so trying a thing as new power in new persons, of whose principles, tempers, and dispositions they have little or no experience, and in situations where those who appear the most stirring in the scene may not possibly be the real movers."
—The Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke. Reflections on the Revolution in France, October, 1790.

Turning over the pages of Burke's Reflections, the thought is constantly dominant—even if no other sources of information were at hand—that the points of similarity between the French Revolution and that which recently occurred in Russia far outnumber those of dissimilarity. The revolutionaries of France were as much adepts at the dissemination of catchwords and slogans as their Russian prototypes of a later day. Some of the rallying cries, as for instance "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," have persisted in their psychic malfeasance even to the present, and the literature of the French Revolution abounds with phrases which crop out in the wordy exudates of Lenin and Trotsky. The correspondence of Jean Baptiste Carrier has been recently published, and it is difficult to realize that the scenes of terrible cruelty which Carrier describes are not those in which the central figure is a Dzerzhinsky or a Moghilevsky or that Carrier's loathsome sacrilege is not that of a Bukharin.

The machinery of organized revolution which produced such a change in France has been well described by Mrs. Nesta Webster, and the most startling truth is clearly brought out that the organization through which the chief conspirators accomplished their purposes of destruction was manipulated through Minorities, secretly organized, and working in secondary and tertiary minorities, also secretly organized, ultimately influencing vast numbers of people who knew not the objective and cared less. The direction of the movement, therefore, always came from the top. It must be admitted that the Revolution was in small part only, a reaction against abuses which were rapidly in process of abatement, and which, such as they were, furnished talking points to the curbstone agitators. Mr. Theodore Roosevelt showed his keen historical insight and freedom from the influence of Carlisle's Prussianized history when he wrote to Mr. Felix Frankfurter, one of our modern revolutionaries:

"Robespierre and Danton and Marat and Herbert were just as evil as the worst tyrants of the old regime, and from 1791 to 1794 they were the most dangerous enemies to liberty that the world contained."

This organization of disorder in France carried its fighting front into foreign countries and counted upon reverberations as a part of its political capital at home. Friends of the Revolution in England, many of them fanatical in their devotion to the cause of democracy as pictured by its philosophers, organized, agitated, assembled, talked, and raised much money to help the cause along; so much so that many were of the belief that it was British government gold upholding the hands of the protesting party. As clearly defined but with less intensity, the same organized movement appeared in the United States. Its advent caused George Washington and his coworkers considerable anxiety for they evidently could not understand its true significance. It can be said verily that the scars of that agitation are still apparent in our political life. They are the first deviations from the standard of a representative republican government as conceived by the framers of the Constitution, who were attempting to build something which could protect minorities against the liquid rule of a mob.

It was in contemplation of such things that Edmund Burke was prompted to write his Reflections. The times furnished an opportunity for s bit of wise political philosophy, just as applicable to-day with our eyes turned towards the north-east, as it was in the days of Burke when he was viewing events from the safe side of the English Channel. The lessons are all worked out, ready for study. As this book will show, we have with us a group of people numbering about 30,000 at the most, ninety percent of whom are aliens and cannot vote, who are closely bound by ties of a harsh discipline, fear of treason, hope of loot, and an easy future. They are ruled by a clever, more or less secretly organized minority. As a minority, this party hopes, or rather its minority leaders hope, to dominate an inarticulate and unorganized majority. It is this latter mass, in which it is so difficult to stimulate reactions but which once stimulated are so difficult to stop, that was finally roused in both France and Russia. The revolutionary leaders themselves know it for we find William Z. Foster telling his fellow conspirators in the convention of Communists at Bridgman, Mich.:

"The fate of the Communist party depends upon the control of the masses, through the capture of the trade unions, without which revolution i$ impossible."

There is a certain candor about this which is refreshing even if spoken to fellow Communists and in a secret session. Foster also said in the tame speech:

"We no longer measure the importance of revolutionary organizations by their size."

Foster has evidently studied the history of revolutions and the psychology of minority control. Then again Foster said:

"Communists get things done and paid for by others."

Quite so. Some of us have been watching the revolutionary movement for years, and with Foster, the opinion is unanimous that if the following three things happened, the movement in the United States will collapse in a hurry.

  1. Cessation of governmental support to socialistic projects, which are on the periphery of the revolutionary program.
  2. Withdrawal of advertising support on the part of the several large corporations from quasi-Bolshevik magazines and other similar publications.
  3. It is also suggested that benevolent old ladies and gentlemen (some of them not so very old either) clamber off the Bolshevik bandwagon and stand on a real rock-ribbed American platform, giving their funds to assist in maintaining the best government on earth as it was originally conceived.
  4. It is to be granted that the giving of money for an object thought worthy stimulates a satisfied feeling which is quite desirable, but it is equally true that starving children in Russia are not fed by the absent dollar—not at all. Up to this point at least, it is impossible to disagree with Mr. Foster.

    But we must turn aside for a moment and determine just what kind of an organization this revolutionary party is. A line of thought is suggested by the Communists themselves. The Bridgman Convention adopted a "Thesis on the Relations of No. One (illegal branch) and No. Two (legal branch)." It was written by a committee of which J. Lovestone was chairman, at that time executive secretary of the Communist party of America, and must therefore be accepted as authoritative.

    "The revolutionary party can avoid suppression into a completely secret existence . . . by taking advantage of the pretenses of 'democratic forms' which the capitalist state is obliged to maintain. By this means the Communists can maintain themselves in the open with a restricted program while establishing themselves with mass support."

    In other words, the revolutionary party assumes the pretense of democratic forms in order to secure the support of the masses and this pretense is assumed only during the transitory phase which precedes the climax of a proletarian dictatorship. Things are said sometimes which do not work out in practice—especially with the Bolsheviks. Therefore, it behooves us to examine the machinery of world revolution and see for ourselves whether it is assuming the "pretenses of democratic form."

    Authentic evidence is fortunately right at hand. Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts addressed the Senate of the United States January 7, 1924 and gave a clear insight into the workings of world revolution right at its center in Moscow. Then followed the hearings before a Sub-Committee of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate under the chairmanship of Senator Borah "pursuant to S. Res. 50, declaring that the Senate of the United States favors the recognition of the present Soviet Government in Russia," a resolution which was introduced by Mr. Borah himself. Mr. Robert F. Kelley and Mr. A. W. Kliefoth, both of the Division of Eastern European Affairs, Department of State, testified, and placed on record voluminous documents to back their conclusions.

    The Russian Communist Party—This basic organization has never numbered more than 700,000 out of a general population of 120,000,000 and at the present time has about 387,000 members, largely confined to the urban centers. The party is highly disciplined, thoroughly organized, and is also a fighting as well as a political unit. Its members may be called upon to go anywhere, either singly or in numbers, in some respects resembling our own militia. New members are recruited after a probationary period of at least one year, often extending to five years, during which each candidate is subjected to the most rigid observation and trial. At the present time, no one can join who is not of the proletariat (urban industrial workers).

    "At the party Congress held in April, 1923, it was decided that for one year, only industrial laborers were eligible to be enrolled in the party, and they must be seconded by two party members. All other applicants, it was decided, are to remain candidates for another year."

    Political reasons for limiting the membership to industrial workers are obvious.

    "After admittance into the party, the new members must survive periodic combings of the party roster, during which their reports as practicing party members are minutely scrutinized. . . . The object of these cleansings is to eliminate all those who are not sincere communists."

    Members are penalized for the slightest infraction of rules, lighter offenses being followed by suspension or expulsion from the party while greater transgressions are punished by those heavier penalties imposed under the statutes designed to discourage counter-revolution. Each member is pledged to propagandize against religion and is not allowed to enter a place of worship. Church marriage is a frequent cause for discipline. The Izvestia, official organ of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, published an article March 31, 1921, in which,

    "a notice [was given] to all members of the Russian Communist party in regard to the strict fulfillment of Article 13 of the constitution of the Russian Communist party, which compels all members to carry on antireligious propaganda."

    In return for such fealty to the party, members are carefully cared for in many ways. Shortly after the revolution when food was scarce, members of the party were first in line during the distribution of the food packages. They all have jobs under the government:

    "Senator Pepper, I understand you to say that you did not know of any case where there was a member of the Communist party who is not also an office holder of the Soviet government? Naturally, this works both ways.

    "There is not known a case of a single member of the higher governmental organs, either in the Federation or in the so-called Russian Soviet Republic, who is not a member of the Russian Communist party."

    Then, there is the good old-fashioned Tammany method of getting the party heelers out of trouble. An official report* of the Central Control Committee of the Russian Communist party, made at the last Congress, states:

    " . . . All our work is carried on in contact with the courts and with the state political administration, in view of the fact that often in the courts there are pending cases of members of the party. The judicial organs inform us about the comrades in regard to whom there is judicial evidence.

    We acquaint ourselves with this evidence, as not infrequently there have been cases where comrades have been put into the dock solely as the result of personal intrigues. In such cases . . . we have raised the question of the expediency and advisability of a public trial in court lest we undermine the party authority of our comrades."

    The party also has a "monopoly of legality" and no other political associations are allowed under heavy penalties.

    "I refer to the fact that we are the only legal party in the country, and have, in this wise, as it were, a monopoly of legality . . . . Let us speak clearly—we have a monopoly of legality. We do not grant our opponents political freedom. We do not give the possibility of legal existence to those who pretend to compete with us." Zinoviev, Pravda, April 2, 1922.

    The All-Russian Congress of the Russian Communist party meets, perhaps, once a year, the last having been the twelfth. It was held in Moscow, April, 1923, and another is scheduled for March, 1924. The delegates are all hand-picked.

    "Mr. Kelley. . . . [Exhibit] No. 21 is a translation from Pravda, May 12, 1923, a speech of Zinoviev, in which be pointed out that the delegates to the party conference [Congress] were carefully selected . . . Selected by a small group of individuals. . . . Selected by the Central Executive Committee."

    The 'selections', we may be sure, are safe ones. Not much voting is done at these Congresses. The business consists largely in listening to the reports of the "big chiefs," explanations of why things do not always happen just so, and exhortations to remain steadfast in the faith. The same individuals always do the talking, usually members of the Central Committee, or important members of the Soviet government. In turn the Central Committee is elected by the Congress:

    "According to the statutes of organization of the party, the supreme power in the party is exercised by the All-Russian Congress of the Russian Communist party, which elects an executive organ called the Central Committee of forty members, who, it is stated, should by preference be 'laborers more closely connected with the proletarian mass.'" Pravda, April 28, 1923.

    The "laborers closely connected with the proletarian masses" are simply "fronts" for as will be seen when it comes to the matter of selecting the Political Bureau of the Central Committee, they are promptly forgotten. The Central Committee meets once in two months, and between sessions of the Congress holds supreme authority. With numerous proletarians on the Committee, it was, of course, difficult to transact business, so a Political Bureau is elected by the Central Committee.

    "Attached to [elected by] the Central Committee, there is a Political Bureau of seven members who have grown skilled in directing political and economic work of our organs . . . . In the second place, the nucleus within the Central Committee, which has become expert in management, is already growing old and must be replaced." Report of Comrade Stalin, Pravda, April 19, 1923.

    The following are given as members of the Political Bureau: Lenin, Zinoviev, Tomsky, Rykov, Kamenev, Trotsky, Stalin. Alternates are: Rudzutak, Kalinin, Molotov, Bukharin.

    Lenin is now dead. Trotsky is reported more or less ill, and in disagreement as to policies with other members of the Bureau. Tomsky and Stalin are not regarded as having predominating influence owing to age and previous political history, though Stalin appears to be making rapid progress. Rykov is perhaps of next importance because of his skill along economic lines. He has been recently elected to fill Lenin's place. Kamenev, whose correct name is Rosenfeld and who married Trotsky's sister, is chief of the intellectual forces of the Bolsheviks, and is a close supporting second to Zinoviev (born, Apfelbaum). Zinoviev is unquestionably, at this time, the dominating member of the Bureau. He is described as "most ruthless; it is he who by the offices he holds in the Communist party and the Communist International is at the head of all propaganda in foreign countries." "Party dictatorship," says Zinoviev, "is the lever which we cannot let out of our hands."

    The Russian Communist party, the Russian Soviet government, and the Third Communist International.—A rather lengthy description of the Russian Communist party machinery has been attempted for three reasons: in the first place, through it a small group of men, if not merely one or two, responsible to none but themselves, dominate, politically and economically, a large mass of people. The structure is that of minorities, openly organized but of necessity secret. Secondly, the structure is characteristic of all communistic organizations. Finally, by a system of interlocking directorates, characteristic of radical and liberal organizations even in the United States, the Communist party machine dominates by its Political Bureau (Politbureau) the Russian Soviet Government (including the Federation of Soviet Republics) and the Third (Communist) International. "The function of the Soviet government is to govern Russia; that of the International to carry out the policy of the party abroad" both in the last analysis under the direction of the Political Bureau. A description by Lenin of the work of the Political Bureau is enlightening in many respects.

    "The principal task of the Organization Bureau was the distribution of party forces and the task of the Political Bureau was the solution of political questions.

    "Naturally this division is to a certain extent artificial, being understood that it is impossible to conduct any policy without making certain classifications. Consequently every question of organization assumes a political significance and among us has grown up the practice that the opinion of one member of the Central Committee is sufficient in order to have any particular question by virtue of this or that consideration held to be a political question.

    "To attempt otherwise to limit the activity of the Central Committee would in fact hardly be of value and in practice could hardly be possible. . . . During the year much of the work of the Political Bureau has consisted of the current solution of all questions arising having relation to policy unifying the activity of all soviet and party institutions, all organizations of the working class, unifying and striving to direct all the work of the Soviet Republics, all questions of an international, domestic and foreign policy, . . . each of us working in this or that party or soviet organization watches every day for any unusual developments in political questions, foreign or domestic.

    "The decision of these questions, as it expressed itself in the decrees of the soviet power or in the activity of party organizations was appraised by the Central Committee of the party. It is necessary to say that the questions were so many that it was necessary to decide them one after the other under conditions of great haste and only, thanks to the full acquaintance of members of the collegium, to the understanding of the shades of opinion, and confidence was it possible to carry out the work. Otherwise it would have been impossible even for a collegium three times larger. Often it was necessary to decide conflicting questions by substituting a telephone conversation for a meeting."

    It is entirely conceivable that when the telephone was out of order, Lenin took upon himself the responsibility of making the decision. This relation, however, is not of so much interest to us as that which exists between the party and the Third (Communist) International. The organization schemes of both are practically the same with slight differences in terminology. The Third International is the creation of Lenin who worked out the details in practice by utilizing the machinery of the Russian Communist party. Congresses are held at Moscow approximately every year, the last (at the time this is written) having been held in Nov.-Dec., 1922. Calls for its assemblage are issued by the Executive Committee, which has the power of seating the delegates and determining the number of delegates which are to represent each country. In turn, the Executive Committee is nominally elected by the Congress, but the method of election raises the question as to whether it wasn't learned from political experience acquired in the Lower East-side of New York. Zinoviev, chairman of the Executive Committee, and unanimously elected president of the Congress speaking:

    "Unless there is objection, I will have the voting take place. I beg the comrades who understand German and sit alongside of the Russian comrades to translate as well as they can to them. The voting will now take place. Has anyone any objection to this list? That appears not to be the case. The list is confirmed."

    And the Executive Committee, having nominated itself, took office until the next Congress. Objection would have been futile, as the composition of the Congress was dominated by the Russian Communist party elements, voting under unit rule. The Congress agenda is prepared in advance, and consists largely of speeches and reports. The same persons appear, year after year. Voting is rarely attempted.

    "And after the vote was taken. In which, of course, the Russian motion was carried, Zinoviev remarks. 'Comrades, this is the only vote during the whole Congress, and it is, after all, only a question of such a little thing.'"

    The Executive Committee of the Comintern delegates the absolute authority vested in it to the Presidium, which it in turn elects. At present, the members of the Presidium of the Comintern, elected subsequent to the Fourth Congress are as follows:

    Zinoviev, Katayama, Shatskin, Clara Zetkin, Neurath, Kolorav, Kusinen, Bukharin, Souvarine, Radek, McManus, Terraccini.

    Little attention may be paid to those who are foreigners in Russia, as the Russian group dominates the organization and the foreigners are not often in Moscow anyway. Bukharin, Radek, and Kusinen are in immediate charge under Zinoviev, their names appearing on documents seized at Bridgman, Mich. Kusinen signs the orders which go out. Zinoviev is a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist party, and Bukharin is an alternate. "The Communist International is the chief channel of communication, organization, and agitation in the United States."

    The Communist party of America—This is the American Section of the Third or Communist International.

    "It must always be remembered that the real revolutionary party—the American Section of the Third International—is the Communist party of America and that the legal party [Workers' party] is but an instrument which it uses to carry on its work among the masses."

    And again:

    "The ruling of the Communist International must be accepted as obligating every member of the Communist party of America, minority or majority, to work diligently in the immediate construction of a legal political party, [Workers' party]."

    That this status is accepted by the American elements:

    "Even though the Communist party shall have come above ground and acts as the section of the Communist International, the underground organization remains as the directing organ of the open Communist party. This status is to continue up to and through the revolution and to the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat."

    So that there is provision made for an illegal party to work as a secret minority within the open legal party. The relations between the two are considered in great detail both at the headquarters of the Comintern in Moscow and by the local leaders. No other relationship is thought possible for effectively carrying on the work of revolution in the United States.

    "The illegal Communist party . . . must continue to direct the whole communist work."

    "The whole open work of all communists . . . must be directed by the Communist party."

    "The entire membership of the underground party, the real Communist party, must join the open party [Worker's party] and become its most active element . . . must at all times hold positions of leadership in the legal party."

    And then again:

    "During the time when the Communist party operates, not under its own name and program in the open, but through a 'legal' political party with restricted program and different name, the same principle is applied by having full control of such legal party in the hands of the Communist party.

    "This is accomplished by having a majority of all important committees composed of Communist party members, and by means of regular and compulsory caucuses of all the Communist party members within any legal unit, bound by the unit rule, a principle which will prevail in some effective form when the Communist party is itself in the open."

    "The convention of the Communist party must be held prior to the convention of the Labor [Workers'] party and determine all policies for the party and all its open organizations."

    The absolute domination of the open party by the illegal party, the connections with the Communist International are therefore shown. The Workers' party however is only one form of activity which is planned and not even does the Workers' party have a monopoly in the political field. The presence of William Z. Foster at the Bridgman convention plainly indicated that his organization, the Trade Union Educational League was designed to work in the field of labor as the Workers' party was designed to work in the field of politics.

    "The general control of ihe No. One [illegal branch] within X [Trade Union Educational League] as within all other organizations must be in the hands of the party, and not in the hands of special committees."

    Within the ranks of conservative labor unions are to be established nuclei, here and there gradually winning over the more or less radical and discontented to a "red" platform and securing the benevolent neutrality of the conservatives. The plan does not call for the adhesion in an organic sense of larger numbers of the labor union members but for secretly organized minority groups. Acting through the labor union organizations, the Communist nuclei exercise an influence which reaches far beyond their immediate membership.

    "The party must use its influence and strength in the trade unions to form delegated conferences of labor organizations. Such conferences decide on a general political campaign including all forms of political action. . . . Our members should initiate such action through the unions."

    "In creating a united front for the working class for their economic struggles, the existing labor unions must remain the instruments of these struggles while the members of the Workers' party must be the instruments to unify these economic organizations."

    The same methods of control are extended to the Communist press. As Foster expresses it, "one of the secrets of control is monopoly of the press," and provision is made that, insofar as possible, all editors of the Workers' party organs shall be members of the Communist party.

    The convention of the Communist party at Bridgman was organized and carried on in true Bolshevik style. Little voting was allowed, care being taken to insure healing in the party dissensions early in the convention. Only true and trusted delegates were present, handpicked as it were. The program consisted principally of reports of committees, orders from Moscow to which the delegates themselves listened on the whole without much discussion. The convention had its presidium.

    "Throughout the Communist movement of the world, the system of 'presidiums' prevails, by which matters of necessarily secret nature are kept in the hands of the most reliable and most trusted members of the party. This is a necessary feature of a revolutionary organization."

    Secrecy of course is necessary to control, and the caution to observe it came from Moscow—the result of extended experience—emphasized by the local leaders.

    "While coming out in the open, the Communist party must not make the mistake of being trapped in the open by exposing its national or district Communist party headquarters, records, or illegal machinery, its underground printing arrangements or the personnel of its Central Executive Committee."

    " . . . The identity of members of No. One [illegal branch] working in offices or upon committees or in units of No. Two [legal branch] as well as their relations to No. One, must not be exposed . . . Get used to speaking in terms that will not in any way reveal connections with No. One."

    The Communist party of course has its Executive Committee and presumably it is elected in about the same fashion as those elected in Moscow. While the Bridgman raid on the party convention was a staggering blow to the revolutionists, the latter have recovered their equilibrium rapidly and have transferred a part of their work to the Workers' party organization.

    The Central Executive Committee of the Workers' party is now composed of: Alexander Bittleman, William Z. Foster, Earl R. Browder, Benjamin Gitlow, F. Burman, Ludwig Lore, J. P. Cannon, J. Lovestone, William F. Dunne, John Pepper, J. L. Engdahl, C. E. Ruthenberg.

    It also has its Political Bureau: Foster, Browder, Cannon, Pepper, Lovestone, Dunne, Ruthenberg

    And it is perfectly safe to assume that this is the inside ring in these United States. John Pepper officially represents the Third International of Moscow in the Committee and in the Bureau. Pepper's correct name, i.e., the one under which he was born, is Pogany and his Communist party name is Lang.

    This picture is complete. For the time it is possible for the average man to gain a conception of the great political machine which controls the destinies of so many individuals in Europe and which would extend its operations to the whole world. The lines of activity and the channels of thought are now an open book. To an extent never before dreamed of, the principles of secret, irresponsible, minority control have been brought to a magnificent perfection. Yet, in the very perfection of its development lies the very danger to which it subjects society at large, the cancer-like infiltration into untouched fields. If one minority can build up and sway such a machine, why not another? That the leaders themselves have recognized this danger is apparent.

    "The Thesis adopted by the Third World Congress on the subject of organization explicitly prohibited the formation of closed factions within Communist parties."

    Of course; the danger is much too real. Another minority might grab the machine.

    It borders on the silly to say that this ponderous organization has been erected for the purpose of bringing about a proletarian dictatorship. That sort of a slogan may be sufficient to keep the proletarian busy with his thoughts while the leaders twist his nose, for "it is necessary for victory to bring about common 'mass action' of workers who are not yet communists." The climax of a proletarian dictatorship is somewhere else. The problem is to locate it, evaluate it, and see to whose interest the movement contributes.

    If we take a glance over the field of international politics, we find bonds of sympathy between world revolution which is international and more particularly Germany which is national. Internationalism has never been anti-German for the reason that Germany has now been "bolshevised" these many years. It has been and is now being ruled by an irresponsible minority. A constant watch on the events of the past few years discloses too many points of sympathetic contact between the leaders of Moscow and Berlin. Policies are shaped to conform to common objectives. Under present circumstances there can be no communist revolution in Germany, no matter how many times it may be walked out as a threat. Under the new economic policy in Russia, communism is abandoned and there has gradually superseded a socialistic form of government which in general lines is the exact duplicate of that which exists in Germany. Is that the real objective of the world revolutionary movement, the struggle for a proletarian dictatorship? The temptation to belief is great when the "stream of thought" among the revolutionaries is all in one direction.

    "The German steam hammer and Soviet wheat will conquer the entire world."

    It seems that the time has come to seriously consider the question: did the Entente win the war only to lose to the sneakery of a back-stairs thief?

    The preparation of the material for this book has been of absorbing interest. Since much of it appeared in the Boston Evening Transcript over a year ago, there have been many bitter attacks and withal much praise. The attacks give little concern because of their source, from radicals of every hue, from Reds to parlor pinks, from the American Civil Liberties Union, a most subversive organization, to members of Congress who pretend to be patriots and while hiding under the cloak of "progressiveism" are in reality playing the game of the world revolutionaries. The pacifists have been particularly virulent, as if they believed in fighting to obtain peace. Praise has come from labor leaders among others, who believe in the open publication of the truth realizing that it hits none who are still loyal to the tenets of those who founded this Republic.

    There are many to whom credit should be given for assistance and advice and with them I would share the honors. The publication of Reds in America in this form would not have been possible without the material cooperation of the American Defense Society, and its Board of Directors. Under the greatest difficulties this organization is attempting to preserve to our succeeding generations an America such as we found it, and this book is one of many evidences of its work. I am also greatly indebted to Mr. William E. Brigham, Washington correspondent of the Boston Evening Transcript, who has been of much aid and comfort because of his determined stand for Americanism and his insistence that the American people shall know the truth of the radical situation. My appreciation is also expressed to Mr. Fred Marvin, editor of the Searchlight department of the New York Commercial who wrote the chapter concerning the trials of the Communists at St. Joseph, Mich., following the raid at Bridgman. Thanks are also extended to Dr. Harris A. Houghton of New York, who has given me many valuable suggestions and who, at my request, corrected the final proofs. The officials of the Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice, especially Mr. William J. Burns, Mr. John Edgar Hoover and Mr. George F. Ruch, have also been particularly helpful in advice and friendly criticism.

    My earnest hope is that this book will be helpful to those students of the science of government who are still befogged in the tractless sea of "liberalism" as now defined and that it will ultimately prove to be a permanent contribution to the bibliography of loyalty to American institutions.

    Washington, D. C.
    February, 1924.