No Encouragement

Last week was made public a letter written by one Van Valkenburgh of Manhattan to Nicola Sacco. Mr. Van Valkenburgh told Mr. Sacco not to despair, assured him that his "long-suffering" would soon "end in freedom." Said Mr. Sacco, in his reply: "

"... Only an international clamor--a protest--can free us. And yet, while we are so near the tomb, your letter amazes me with its unwarranted optimism. How you are deluded! This is not even common sense, coming from you. I would say nothing if such talk came from a man in the moon, but from you ... this is too much. Do you not know the ends to which the defenders of this decrepit old society will go? ... Are you waiting to see them kill us first so that you can build us a monument? . . . Aside from the fate that stares Bart and me in the face, I would not care to know that labor has not the courage to face the battle with a showing of solidarity that will force the hand of the implacable enemy to desist from what it plans to do. ... That is all. I am not writing this out of prison irritation, nor yet because of their cruelty in bringing us back to this stifling place to torture us some more before they burn us, but I want the comrades to know what kind of creatures they are dealing with. . . ."

So wrote Mr. Sacco and so, apparently, well might he have written, for the trend of events last week continued to offer no encouragement to Sacco-Vanzetti adherents. There had been not the slightest official indication that the case has taken an unfavorable turn for the condemned men, but both the prisoners themselves and their defense committee had seemingly lost faith in Governor Fuller and his advisory committee. The most striking evidence of their pessimism had been the continuation of their hunger strike. Mr. Sacco had been on his hunger strike since July 17; Mr. Vanzetti had been virtually fasting for the same period, though he at least drank coffee during the first few days of the strike, at one time ate a full meal, and last week brought his hunger strike to a definite end. Both men were very weak.

Governor Fuller and his Advisory Committee both completed their investigation and the Governor announced an early decision. Then came another delay in the long delayed case when Alvan T. Fuller Jr., the Governor's 12-year-old son, was stricken with appendicitis and taken to Massachusetts General Hospital for an operation. The operation was successfully performed, but Governor Fuller not unnaturally had his attention diverted from the Sacco-Vanzetti case by his son's illness.

It should be pointed out that Governor Fuller need not choose between pardoning Messrs. Sacco & Vanzetti and permitting their electrocution. He has also the authority to commute their sentences to life imprisonment or to a term of years. In this last case the seven years they have already served would, of course, be counted in their favor. The Governor may also make any discrimination that he desires between the two men--for instance it would be legally possible, though highly unlikely, for him to pardon one of the prisoners and make no intervention on behalf of the other. The only limit on the Governor's authority is his inability to order a new trial.

The Sacco-Vanzetti case became even more an international affair with a rumor last week that a committee of noted Frenchmen was coming to the U. S. to aid the condemned men. On this committee were reported to be Georges Lecomte, of the French Academy, Louis Loucheur, the Countess de Noailles, onetime Minister of the Interior, Louis Malvy, Professor Paul Langevin and Lieutenant Colonel Alfred Dreyfus (retired).

Colonel Dreyfus should be particularly fitted to sympathize with Messrs. Sacco & Vanzetti as from 1894 to 1906 he was the centre of the Dreyfus Case. This case in many ways paralleled the Sacco-Vanzetti case, though to the present generation of U. S. newspaper readers it is hardly more than a name. Many who read the announcement of Dreyfus' visit were surprised to find that the hero of the Dreyfus Case was still alive and active.

In 1894 the then Captain Dreyfus was attached to the General Staff of the French Army. In September, 1894, a French spy, examining the overcoat pockets of one Colonel Schwarzoppen, German Military Attache, found torn scraps of paper which, pieced together, proved to be a letter describing items of secret military information obviously delivered to Colonel Schwarzoppen by some French officer who had turned traitor. Captain Dreyfus was a Jew and as such was held in suspicion by the higher French military authorities. He was accused of treason, convicted by a military court and sent to He du Diable, convict-establishment off the coast of French Guiana.

Then began a twelve-year war between Pro-and Anti-Semites. In 1897 one Major Esterhazy of the French Army was accused of having written the treasonable document imputed to Captain Dreyfus. He was tried, secretly, by a military court and, no Jew, was acquitted. In 1898 Emile Zola wrote an open letter to the French President, accused the general staff of having convicted Alfred Dreyfus because of his race. Zola was tried for libel, convicted, and had to leave France hurriedly to avoid imprisonment. Later in 1898, however, it was shown that some of the prosecution's evidence in the Dreyfus trial had consisted of forged documents. One Colonel Henry, chief of the French intelligence department, convicted of having forged one of these documents, committed suicide.

The Dreyfus Case rapidly developed into a struggle between those who were for and those who were against the army. Finally a combination of Socialists and Radicals secured a parliamentary majority, instructed the government to re-open the case. A new trial was ordered for Captain Dreyfus, who was brought back to France after nearly four years on He du Diable. But it was again a military trial and another verdict of guilty was brought in. This time, however, the court found extenuating circumstances, reduced the sentence and recommended mercy. Whereupon President Loubet of France granted Captain Dreyfus a pardon.

Still the case was not over. In 1902 the French government put through an anticlerical program and the religious issue revived the Dreyfus Case until Alfred Dreyfus demanded another trial finally to clear his name. In 1906 the third Dreyfus trial (this time not by a military organization) was held and resulted in Captain Dreyfus being absolved from all blame whatsoever. The generally accepted version of the Dreyfus Case was that Major Esterhazy and Colonel Henry had made a business of supplying Germany with military information; that advantage of the Anti-Semetic feeling had been taken to victimize Alfred Dreyfus for their wrongdoing. Captain Dreyfus was restored to the active list of the army with rank of Major and was created a knight of the Legion of Honor. So ended a case which had resulted in the discrediting of French militarism and contributed largely to the disestablishment of the French Church.