Here’s the complete story written by John L. Spivak in 1935 published in New Masses detailing a Wall Street tycoon plot to overthrow the government with a military coup. It was a real coup, but most Americans have no idea that it ever existed and that J. P. Morgan and other Wall Street big shots were key players.
January 29, 1935
Wall Street’s Fascist Conspiracy
Testimony that the Dickstein Committee Suppressed
By John L. Spivak
An organized conspiracy exists to seize the government by a fascist coup. The Congressional Committee appointed to investigate just such activities has not only failed to follow the trail of evidence to its fountain head – Wall Street – but has deliberately suppressed evidence pointing in the direction.
In these articles the reality of Wall Street’s fascist conspiracy will be made clear; the lineup of financial interests back of the conspiracy will be set forth; and the real role of the Dickstein Committee, which suppressed this evidence, will be revealed.
A suggestion of the existence of Wall Street’s fascist conspiracy was made public in November. The Dickstein Committee then was forced to call Gen. Smedley D. Butler, one of those who made the charges, to testify. And that was the end of the Committee’s interest in proving the charges.
The series of articles will go deeply into the whole situation, of which only a hint trickled through to the public. The suppression of evidence by the Dickstein Committee reveals the Committee’s real character: With an ostensible mission to uncover fascist activities, the Committee actually turned out to be a close collaborator with the would-be fascist rulers of the country; it covered up the conspiracy by suppressing evidence which led too high up in those financial and industrial groups which run Congress, “advise” the President, and dominate the country.
It will be shown that financial and economic class considerations rise above every other kind, including racial and religious ones. The anti-semitic character of Nazism has been abundantly demonstrated in these pages; nevertheless this article, and succeeding ones, will reveal Jewish financiers working with fascist groups which, if successful, would unquestionably heighten the wave of Hate-the-Jew propaganda.
The class basis of social forces is nowhere more clearly revealed than in this situation – capitalists, including Jews, making common cause with anti-semitic fascist and potentially fascist organizations, in an effort to crush labor. The ultimate aim of course is the true fascist one of a “totalitarian state,” with all cultural, educational, and political activities [antithetical] to capitalism suppressed. The immediate path to this objective is the destruction of the labor movement and particularly the militant vanguard represented by the Communist Party.
The Dickstein Committee has deliberately suppressed the testimony of fascist activities which it had in its possession. This evidence was suppressed because financial powers behind the committee are among the supporters of fascist organizations.
Throughout its investigation of Nazi, fascist and Communist activities the Committee has be careful not to involve certain financial interests – such as J. P. Morgan and Co., Kuhn, Loeb and Co., etc. Felix Warburg, head of the Kuhn, Loeb banking house virtually dominates it as well as the American Jewish Committee, a powerful organization active in fighting the spread of anti-semitism. The American Jewish Committee is controlled by wealthy Jews. However, it has a large following among lower and middle-class Jews who are not aware of the maneuverings of the leadership for its own economic interests. The zeal of the leaders in fighting anti-semitism is tempered by the financial interests of some of them – in the United States and in Nazi Germany – and by the active participation of some of them in fascist organizations in this country.
Shortly after the Dickstein Committee was empowered by Congress to investigate “subversive” activities, leaders of the American Jewish Committee began to steer the Congressional Committee’s investigations. In the course of this steering, information was suppressed which reflected upon leading bankers, as well as information of fascist organizations in which they were interested.
Instead of actually seeking evidence of fascist organization and who are behind them, the Congressional Committee ignored Fascism until its menace here was thrust upon them; and then suppressed vital evidence regarding it. The reason: Wall Street interests such as Morgan’s were involved which are tied up with the Warburg interests – which dominate the American Jewish Committee without the knowledge of the overwhelming majority of its membership.
In the course of these articles I shall show:
- That the Dickstein Committee refuses to explain why it suppressed evidence of fascist organizations and of fascist movements.
- That the Dickstein Committee knew of the offer made to Gen. Smedley Butler to organize a fascist army of 500,000 mean, but ignored this information until it was forced to call Butler.
- That having called him, the Committee issued a garbled statement of what he said and not until the national furore died down did it issue even parts of his testimony.
- That Gen. Butler named a fascist organization in which some leaders of the American Jewish Committee are active – and that this testimony was suppressed.
- That a Nazi agent worked in Warburg’s Bank of Manhattan and that Felix Warburg was never called upon to explain how he got there.
- That the Warburg financial interests have heavy investment in Nazi Germany. The American Jewish Committee has steadfastly opposed the boycott of German goods.
- That the most powerful fascist organizations are controlled by financiers whose interests are controlled by J. P. Morgan’s interests.
- That the Warburg financial interests are tied up with Morgan and consequently work with Morgan men.
- That Grayson M-P Murphy, involved in the plot to organize a fascist army, is a Morgan man and one of those who originally financed the starting of the American Legion for “Big Business” and who supports disseminators of anti-semitic propaganda; and that knowing all this the Dickstein Committee never called Murphy to explain his activities.
- That a Hearst man tied up with Morgan interests capture control of the American Legion, which Butler was asked to lead as a fascist army; and that this man, summoned to appear before the Dickstein Committee, was never questioned after he had had a sec … conference with President Roosevelt.
- That the American Liberty League was named by Butler and this fact suppressed by the Dickstein Committee. The League is controlled by Morgan-du Pont interests as well as having Warburg representation on it.
- That the Remington Arms Co., controlled by Morgan-du Pont, was name as the body which would supply arms and equipment to the fascist army and that this testimony was suppressed by the Congressional Committee.
- The Max Warburg, brother of Felix, and directors of the steel trust of Germany, which originally financed Hitler, are in the United States trying to get credits for Hitler’s government in copper purchases.
- The Hearst copper interests were among those being considered at the time Hearst open his anti-red campaign.
Let us first consider Butler’s testimony that he was offered $3,000,000 to organize a fascist army with a promise of $300,000,000 more it became necessary. I shall review it very briefly to refresh the reader’s mind.
Gen. Smedley Butler testified that he was approached by Gerald C. MacGuire, a “$100 a week bond salesman,” with an offer of $18,000 in one thousand dollar bills to go to the American Legion convention in Chicago in 1933 to make a speech in favor of the gold standard; it was after this connection was established that MacGuire suggested organizing the fascist army. MacGuire at that time said he was working for Robert S. Clark, who inherited millions of the Singer Sewing Machine fortune. While working for Clark, MacGuire was kept on the payroll of Grayson M-P Murphy, a “Wall Street broker.” During this period when these negotiations were going on, MacGuire, who had never owned more than a few thousand dollars, suddenly began to handle large sums of money, depositing and withdrawing amounts running far beyong $100,000. The Dickstein Committee, in examining him, found that he could not account for $65,000 which were spent during the trip to the American Legion convention and that he lied repeatedly about what he had done with certain large sums.
So much for the Butler story; what is not known is that long before General Butler testified, the Congressional Committee investigators knew about it. Nevertheless they did not call Butler, though one of the things they were supposed to investigate was “subversive” activities, including Fascism. The Dickstein Committee called Butler only when it learned that The New York Post and the Philadelphia Record were about to publish the story anyway, which they had learned through their reporter Paul Comley French, a friend of the General’s.
The national furore aroused by the story was so great that the Committee had to issue a statement after getting testimony in secret session. When the excitement died down the Congressional Committee issued a summary of the Butler testimony for the press. Butler having been cautioned not to divulge what happened behind the committee’s closed doors, according to the General.
During the course of my investigation into fascist activities in the United States, I persistently asked for the Butler testimony. I was told that “the summation tells the whole story.”
“But why can’t I see the whole testimony? What is there in it which you do not want me to see?”
“Nothing has been left out, except some hearsay evidence,” I was assured. “A few names were mentioned which have nothing to do with the case.”
After my persistence had made it clear that my suspicions were growing, I was handed a copy of the hastily published Butler testimony, marked “extracts.” At the end of the 125 page record was a note in bold face:
The Chairman: In making public the foregoing evidence, which was taken in executive session in New York City November 20 to 24, inclusive, the Committee has ordered stricken therefrom certain immaterial and incompetent evidence, or evidence which was not pertinent to the inquiry, and which would not have been received during a public hearing.
The printed question-and-answer testimony gave more than the summation originally issued by the Committee. I was still curious to know just what “evidence” the Committee considered “immaterial,” my curiosity being heightened when I was told by a person in a position to know and who had never told me anything unfounded, that the request to suppress certain parts of Butler’s testimony had come from Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury. I could not prove it but I had enough faith in my informant to believe it.
More requests for the uncensored stenographic notes of Butler’s testimony met with refusals. The “immaterial evidence” was a carefully guarded secret. Eventually I did obtain these suppressed stenographic notes. With the notes in my possession as well as knowledge of the financial interests within and behind the American Jewish Committee, the leaders of which were steering the Congressional Committee, I called upon the chairman, Congressman John W. McCormack. I had prepared a series of questions for the interview which he had agreed to give me. When I got to the sixth question which probed a little deeper into the suppression of evidence by his Committee, the Congressman became a little nervous.
“Oh, somebody’s been telling you things,” he said.
“No, no one has been telling me things. I have the stenographic notes.”
“Those are executive minutes,” he exclaimed. “I can’t imagine how they got in your possession. I must find out.”
The knowledge that I had the suppressed testimony obviously upset him. The interview had been progressing in a friendly manner until I got to the stage where it seemed that a Congressional investigating committee was being investigated. Suddenly he said abruptly:
“I don’t have to answer your questions.”
“That’s right,” I assured him, “you don’t.”
“And I don’t have to give you and interview.”
“That’s right, too.”
“Well, then, cancel this interview.”
“Okay, I’ll cancel it. But don’t you think you had better answer the questions?”
“I will not answer any more questions. It is obvious to me that they are cleverly arranged – all leading to one point – you want to hang me.”
“No, I don’t want to hang you. I think your committee has hanged itself.”
“I’ll take your notes and the questions and answer such of them as I wish. I want to think them over.”
“That’s okay,” I agreed, handing him the questions.
Some of the brief questions I asked him follow:
Will you define what you mean by Nazism, Fascism, Communism?
Did you ever look into the potential fascist groups like the American Liberty League, Father Coughlin’s organizations, the Crusaders, etc.?
Did you ever investigate why the American Legion passed the gold resolution while MacGuire was in Chicago with a lot of money?
Why wasn’t John Taylor called regarding Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars activities?
Why didn’t you investigate the educators’ charges that Hearst was carrying on fascist propaganda?
What relationship has your Committee with the American Jewish Committee?
When The New Masses published evidence that Ralph Easley of the National Civic Federation was secretly reporting on George Sylvester Viereck, the Nazi agent, while the former was distributing Communism in Germany, Why weren’t Easley’s finances looked into?
The Jewish-controlled concerns in Chicago who contributed to Harry A. Jung’s organization and the money used to disseminate anti-semitic propaganda were know to you. Why wasn’t that evidence made public?
Why wasn’t the relationship between Kuhn, Loeb and Max Warburg established to determine why a Nazi agent found his way into Warburg’s Bank of Manhattan? Why wasn’t Felix Warburg questions about it?
Did you ever investigate the financial tie-ups of bankers and industrialists to determine the motivation in supporting potential fascist groups?
Did you ever investigate Assistant Secretary of War Woodring’s statement that the C.C.C. boys would be “economic storm troops” against “social disorders?”
Did you ever investigate why organizations which start out for monetary reform like the Committee for the Nation ended up by carrying on anti-labor propaganda?
Did you ever question Under-Secretary of State Phillips why he met with Easley to try to stop the boycott of German goods and thus give economic aid to the Nazis?
Did you ever get to the bottom of the report that John W. Davis wrote the gold speech passed at the Chicago convention?
I agreed not to use the statement had made before he cancelled the interview and I gave him the questions with my on them. He promised to give me written answers to “those he want to answer” within three day. On the day he promised his answer I got it. I read it over five or six time. I still don’t know what he is talking about. For the reader’s benefit I give his answers. I think they show the state the chairman is in.
My dear Mr. Spivak:
On Saturday last you called into my office for an interview, as a result of which you with me a number of questions which you intended to ask me. I told you that I would consider them and write you on or before the following Tuesday. I am complying with what I told you, to write you on or before Tuesday Jan. 15.
Pending the report of the committee to the House of Representative I have discussed only a limited way with representatives of the press my opinion of the value of some evidence obtained, and the probably recommendations that impress me personally. The final report and recommendations will be determined later by the full committee.
Assuming the premises upon which they are predicated are correct, and it is plain to me that they are not, some of the questions that you intended to ask relate to matters beyond the jurisdiction of the committee, and its powers of investigation. I, therefore, ignore them.
There are some questions which you intended to ask which I would have hesitancy in answering if asked by other representatives of the press, and while I am not in sympathy with the policies, association or affiliations of the publication which you represent, naturally, I would accord you the courtesy and consideration I would extend to others.
You were particularly anxious to find out if the Nazi movement in this country is as active today as it was when the investigation started. As a result of the investigation, and the disclosures made, this movement has been stopped, and is practically broken up. There is no question but what some of the leaders are attempting to carry-on, but they can make no headway. Public opinion, as a result of the disclosures of the investigation is aroused.
The breaking-up of any intolerant movement, the objective of which is to group American against Americans, or persons against persons, because of race, color or creed, is beneficial to the country and the people as a whole. The same opinion applies to a movement dedicated to the overthrow of government by legal or illegal means, or a combination of both, employing force and violence, if necessary to obtain the desired objective. The use of lawful or legal means is a right which every person or movement possesses to change, in whole, or in part, our government, even though one my not agree with the methods employed, or the purposes and objectives of such a movement. No person of movement has a a right to resort to illegal means to accomplish this end. When such methods are employed, the resort to violence and force, to try and obtain the overthrow of government, whether or not it is or can be accomplished, it is beyond the pale of the Constitution, and of rights guaranteed thereunder.
The reason for certain portions of General Butler’s testimony in executive session being deleted from the public record has been clearly stated in the printed record.
Very truly yours,
John W. McCormack.
All I can say regarding this is that I hope the Committee’s report to the Congress will be clearer.
Still searching for the Committee’s explanation of why it suppressed testimony of Fascism and fascist organization, I called upon Congressman Samuel Dickstein, vice-chairman of the Committee on “un-American” activities. Like many other, I refer to this Congressional body as the “Dickstein Committee,” chiefly because Dickstein first introduced the bill for the investigation; but calling it the “Dickstein Commitee” is a mis… grave injustice to the Congressman. It is not his committee. The financial powers in the American Jewish Committee, which directed the Congressional body, simply played circles around the bewildered Congressman. Dickstein never knew, and I doubt if he knows now, just what happened and why certain specific evidence was suppressed. Throughout the whole investigation he kept blundering into thing which shouldn’t have been blundered into and he could never understand why those steering the Committee opposed probing along lines which would lead to the Warburg-Morgan interests. When I talk with him and pointed out the financial hook-ups he looked sad.
“I wish you had told me that while the Committee was in session,” he said plaintively. I’d have called Murphy and Morgan and Warburg and anyone else involved.”
Dickstein’s activities in the Committee – such questions as he persisted in asking – were chiefly confined to the Nazis. Communism was really dragged into this investigation; and the financial powers behind the Congressional Committee certainly had no intention of investigating Wall Street’s fascist conspiracy until the threat of break the Butler story in the press forced them to make a gesture in that direction. The investigations into Communism was steered by the leaders of the American Jewish Committee, Felix Warburg and his non-Jewish Wall Street colleagues, for three reasons:
- The growing interest in and sympathy for the Communist movement in industries where these financial powers had investments; if the Communist Party could be outlawed it would be of tremendous advantage to the financiers and industrialists guiding the work of the Committee.
- There was a great deal of publicity in the press and propaganda by Nazi agents that “a Communist is a Jew and a Jew is a Communist.”
- A federal law ostensibly directed at Communists as “subversive elements” could be used to keep labor from doing a great many things, whether labor was affiliated with the leftwing organizations or conservative ones like the American Federation of Labor.
Even William Green, president of the A. F. of L., realized that. I was present at the hearing in Washington when Green testified and it was really one of the funniest shows I ever say. There is nothing that Green would like better than to see the Communist Party outlawed, but Green realized that any such procedure would be directed at all labor, and would eventually endanger his own position. Dickstein and McCormack, neither having a fraction of the knowledge of the labor movement that Green has, tried in a dozen different ways to get Green to say that a bill outlawing the Communist Party would be a good thing – and Green persistently assured them that any such move would react against the A. F. of L. and would be fought.
It was a very depressing hearing for MacCormack and Dickstein (who had competed with one another for the most publicity during the life of the investigation). The two Congressmen had issued statements that they intended to outlaw the Communist Party months before the Committee had finished its investigation.
A good idea of the stature of Dickstein can be had by his answer to some of the questions I asked him.
“Congressman, just what do you mean by Nazism?” I asked.
“Well, Nazism is – you see – you know I’d rather you’d get the definition I gave of it in my last speech.”
“Okay. How about Fascism.”
“That’s in there, too.”
I tried again.
“Do you think Fascism is the last stand of capitalism?
“Certainly,” he said. “Powerful wealth is concentrating for it own preservation.”
“And your committee was supposed to investigate Fascism?”
“Yes, Fascism. All subversive, un-American movements.”
“A real investigation of Fascism, or fascist movements in this country would have to take in a study of powerful financial groups and their motivations?”
He looked at me warily, as though fearful of a trap, and nodded solemnly.
“Then why didn’t the Committee investigate the financial tie-ups to determine the motives behind such groups as the American Liberty League?”
“Well, we didn’t have the time or the money, or we would have.”
“What was left out the Butler story?”
“We confined our activities to evidence permissible in a court. We didn’t go into the details because it was hearsay.”
“But your published records are full of hearsay evidence.”
He look at me, startled.
“Well, why wasn’t Grayson M-P Murphy called? Your committee knew that Murphy’s men are in the anti-semitic espionage Order of ’76; it knew that Murphy was supporting Edmondson in sending out his anti-semitic news releases; it knew that Murphy and Clark were hooked up for years selling bonds together – why wasn’t Murphy called?”
“We didn’t have the time. We’d have taken care of the Wall Street group if we had had the time. I would have no hesitation in going after the Morgans.”
“Did you ever go into the fascist – or potentially fascist – groups like the American Liberty League, the Crusaders, etc?”
“No, we went a little into the Black Shirts – it’s an organization like the Nazis but it didn’t amount to anything. We had no time,” he repeated.
“You had Frank Belgrano, commander of the American Legion, listed for testimony. Why wasn’t he examined?”
“I don’t know,” he said. “Maybe you can get Mr. McCormack to explain that. I had nothing to do with it.”
“Why didn’t you call Easley after The New Masses had published secret reports to George Sylvester Viereck, the Nazi agent, and find out about Easley’s finances?”
“To the best of my recollection, Easley was called into executive session. He testified about Communism.”
“I don’t doubt it. But I’m interested in why his finances were not examined since he was distributing an anti-semitic book imported into this country by Viereck.”
“I don’t know.”
“Why weren’t the names of the Jewish concerns whose money when to Harry A. Jung in Chicago and which was used for anti-semitic propaganda, made public?”
“I never say them,” he said. “We have so much stuff I haven’t had a chance to read all of the reports. I wasn’t at the Chicago hearing.”
“And McCormack wasn’t at the Chicago hearing. Then who issued orders not to make those names public?”
“I don’t know.”
“Why wasn’t Edward A. Rumley questioned regarding the Committee for the Nation activities which benefited Nazi Germany and on whose committee Lessing Rosenwald of the American Jewish Committee was active?”
“I couldn’t answer that. You’d have to ask McCormack about it.”
“Okay. Why wasn’t Felix Warburg questioned as to how the Nazi agent F. Z. Mittmeier got a job in the Warburg-controlled Bank of Manhattan?”
“I don’t know.”
“Fascism came at the last moment,” he said, switching the subject. “I knew of only one fascist group – the Black Shirts – and they weren’t important.”
“Didn’t Assistant Secretary of War Woodring’s statement that the C.C.C. boys would be used as ‘economic storm troops against social disorders’ sound like Hitler Fascism? Why wasn’t Woodring questions about it?”
“There was no time,” the Congressman said dazedly.
“But Woodring is in Washington. And so were you.”
“Maybe the Committee felt there was no evidence – maybe.”
It was obvious to me that Dickstein simply did not know what was going on around him, when I pointed out the financial tie-ups of the Warburg interests with Morgan interests, which Murphy represents and the Warburg group with the American Jewish Committee leadership was steering the Congressional Committee he was utterly. These tie-ups will be explained in detail in the next article.
In the meantime I offer the suppressed testimony.
The Congressional Committee had Gen. Butler behind closed doors in a secret session. It did not know what Butler might say and it wanted to be in a position to suppress testimony given under oath if this proved necessary. And it was, for Butler named persons whom the Committee should have called to check various angles – persons high in the political and financial world. There is no need of of my repeating much of the General’s testimony. I shall offer only what the published report by the Congressional Committee said he said and what the carefully guarded stenographic notes show he really said.
Gen. Butler was telling the story of Murphy’s man, (MacGuire’s) talk with him. In the left column is waht the Committee published In the right column is what he actually said – the suppressed testimony being printed in italics.
|The Published Testimony:||What Butler Really Said:|
|Then MacGuire said that he was the chairman of the distinguished-guest committee of the American Legion, on Louis Johnson’s staff; that Louis Johnson had, at MacGuire’s suggestion, put my name down to be invited as a distinguished guest of the Chicago convention.||Then MacGuire said that he was the chairman of the distinguished-guest committee of the American Legion, on Louis Johnson’s staff; that Louis Johnson had, at MacGuire’s suggestion, put my name down to be invited as a distinguished guest of the Chicago convention; that Johnson had then taken this list, presented by MacGuire, of distinguished guests, to the White House for approval; that Louis Howe, one of the secretaries to the President, had crossed my name off and said that I was not to be invited – that the President would not have it.|
|I thought I smelled a rat, right away – that there tyring to get me mad – to get my goat. I said nothing.
“He (Murphy) is on our side, though. He wants to see the soldiers cared for.”
Well, that was the end of that conversation.
|I thought I smelled a rat, right away – that they were trying to get me mad – to get my goat. I said nothing.
“He (Murphy) is on our side, though. He wants to see the soldiers cared for.”
“Is is responsible, too, for making the Legion a strikebreaking outfit?”
No, no. He does not control anything in the Legion now.”
I said: “You know very will that it is nothing but a strikebreaking outfit used by capital for that
He said: “Murphy hasn’t anything to do with that. He is a very fine fellow.”
I said: “I do not doubt that, but there is some reason for his $125,000 into this.”
Well, that was the end of that conversation.
|He (Clark) laughed and said, “That speech cost a lot of money.” Clark told me that it had cost him a lot of money. He thought it was a big joke that these follows were claiming the authorship of that speech.||He (Clark) laughed and said, “That speech cost a lot of money.” Clark told me that it had cost him a lot of money. Now either from what he said then or from what MacGuire had said, I got the impression that the speech had been written by John W. Davis – one or the other of them told me that – but he thought that it was a big joke that these follows were claiming the authorship of that speech.|
|I think there was one other visit to the house because he (MacGuire) proposed that I go to Boston to a soldiers’ dinner to be given in my honor. He suggested that I go up to Boston to this dinner for the soldiers. He said, “We will have a private car for you on the end of the train. You will make a speech at this dinner and it will be worth a thousand dollars to you.”
I said, “I never got a thousand dollars for making a speech.”
He said, “You will get it this time.”
|I think there was one other visit to the house because he (MacGuire) proposed that I go to Boston to a soldiers’ dinner to by given by Governor Ely for the soldiers, and that I was to go with Al Smith. He said, “We will have private care you on the end of the train and have your picture taken with Governor Smith. You will make a speech at this and it will be worth a thousand dollars to you.”
I said, “I never got a thousand dollars for making a speech.”
He said, “You will get it this time.”
|“Who is going to pay for this and this ride up in the private car?”
“Oh, we will pay for it out of our private funds.”
|“Who is going to pay for this dinner and this ride up in the private car?”
“Oh, we will pay for it out of our funds. You will have your picture take with Governor Smith.”
I said, “I do not want to have my picture taken with Governor Smith. I do not like him.”
“Well, then, he can meet you up there.”
I said, “No, there is something wrong in this. There is no connection that I have with All Smith, that we should be riding along together to a soldiers’ dinner. He is not for the soldiers’ either.
|“I am not going to Boston. I f the soldiers of Massachusetts want to give a dinner and want me to come, I will come. But there is no thousand dollars in it.”
So he said, “Well, then, we will think of something else.”
|I am not going to Boston to any dinner given by Governor Ely for the soldiers. If the soldiers of Massachusetts want to give a dinner and want to me to come, I will come. But there is no thousand dollars in it.”
So he said, “Well, then, we will think of something else.”
I said, “What is the idea of Al Smith in this?”
“Well,” he said, “Al Smith is getting ready to assault the Administration in his magazine. It will appear in a month or so. He is going to take a shot at the money question. He has definitely broken with the President.”
I was interested to not that about a month later he did, and the New Outlook took the shoot that he told me a month before they were going to take. Let me say that his fellow has been able to tell me a month or six weeks ahead of time everything that happened. That made him interesting. I wanted to see if he was going to come out right.
So I said at this time, “So I am going to be dragged in as a sort of publicity agent for Al Smith to get him to sell magazines by having our picture taken on the rear platform of a private care, is that the idea?”
“Well, you are to sit next to each other at dinner and you are both going to make speeches. You will speak for soldiers without assaulting the Administration, because this Administration has cut their throats. Al Smith will make a speech, and they will both be very much alike.”
I said, “I am not going. You just cross that out.”
|Then when he met me in New York he had another idea….
Now, I cannot recall which one of these fellows told me about the rule of succession, about the Secretary of State becoming President when the Vice-President is eliminated. There was something said in one of the conversations that I had, that the President’s health was bad, and he might resign, and that Garner did not want it anyhow, and then this super-secretary would take the place of the Secretary of State and in the order of succession would become President. That was the idea. He said that they had this money to spend on it, and he wanted to know again if I would head it, and I said, “No, I was interested in it, but I would not head it.”
|Then when he met me in New York he had another idea….
Now, I cannot recall which one of these fellows told me about the rule of succession, about the Secretary of State becoming President when the Vice-President is eliminated. There was something said in one of the conversations that I had either with MacGuire or with Flagg, whom I met in Indianapolis, that the President’s health was bad, and he might resign, and that Garner did not want it anyhow, and then this super-secretary would take the place of the Secretary of State and in the order of succession would become President. He made some remark about the President being very thin-skinned and did not like criticism, and it would be very much easier to pin it on somebody else. He could say that he was above such routine matters and let the other fellow take of it and get rid of him if necessary. That was the idea. He said that they had this money to spend on it, and he wanted to know again if I would head it, and I said, “No, I was interested in it, but I would not head it.”
|He said, “When I was in Paris, my headquarters were Morgan & Hodges (Harjes). We had a meeting over these. I might as well tell you that our group is for you, for the head of this organization. Morgan & Hodges (Harjes) are against you. The Morgan interests say that you cannot be trusted, that you are too radical, and so forth, that you are too much on the side of the little fellow; you cannot be trusts. They do not want you. But our group tell them that are are the only fellow in America who can get the soldiers together. They say, ‘Yes, but he will get them together and to the wrong way.’ That is what they say if you take charge of them.”||He said, “When I was in Paris, my headquarters were Morgan & Hodges (Harjes). We had a meeting over these. I might as well tell you that our group is for you, for the head of this organization. Morgan & Hodges (Harjes) are against you. The Morgan interests say that you cannot be trusted. They are for Douglas MacArthur as the head of it. Douglas MacArthur’s term expires in November, and if he is not reappointed it is to be presumed that he will be disappointed and sore and they are for getting him to head it.”
I said, “I do not think that you will get the soldiers to follow him, Jerry. He is in bad odor, because he put on a uniform with medals to march down the street in Washington. I know the soldiers.”
“Well, then, we will get Hanford MacNider. They want either MacArthur or MacNider. They do not want you. But our group tells them that you are the only fellow in America who can get the soldiers together. They say, ‘Yes, but he will get them together and go the wrong way’. That is what they say if you take charge of them.”
I said, “MacNider won’t do either. He will not get the soldiers to follow him, because he has been opposed to the bonus.”
“Yes, but we will have him in change (charge)”
And it is interesting to not that three weeks later after this conversation MacNider changed and turned around for the bonus. It is interesting to note that.
He said, “There is going to be a big quarrel over the reappointment of MacArthur” and he said, “you watch the President reappoint him. He is going to go right and if he does not reappoint him, he is going to the left.”
I have been watching with a great deal of interest this quarrel over his reappointment to see how it comes out. He said, “You know as well as I do that MacArthur is Stotesbury’s son-in-law in Philadelphia – Morgan’s representative in Philadelphia. You just see how it goes and if I am not telling you the truth.”
I noticed that MacNider turned around for the bonus, and that there is a row over the reappointment of MacArthur.
|So he left me saying, “I am going down to Miami….”||So he left me saying, “I am going down to Miami….”|
There are other portions of the suppressed testimony such as Butler’s story of the conversation he had in Indianapolis with a man named Flagg who knew all about the fascist plot to organize an army directed by Wall Street financiers. I have been unable to locate a man by that name who is an Indianapolis publisher, as he was introduced to Butler, and I am inclined to think that he was masquerading under a different name and had been send there to feel out Butler. Because of my inability to locate any such person I am not quoting the testimony.
The most significant part of all this suppressed evidence is that the Dickstein Committee dropped it like a hot coal though there was plenty of evidence of a fascist-militarist plot. Nevertheless, when the Congressional Committee had MacGuire on the stand repeatedly, it questioned him about his finances but not one single question was directed at him regarding the American Liberty League, controlled by the du Pont interests (which are tied up with Morgan interests and Morgan interests are tied up with Warburg interests and Warburg interests control the American Jewish Committee which in turn guided this Congressional body) nor of the discussion sworn to under oath about the Remington Arms Co. supplying arms and equipment for the fascist army.
Not a single question was directed at MacGuire regarding the conversation testified to by Paul Comley French. Not a single du Pont or Remington Arms official was called. No – not a single official of the Liberty League on whose body are members of the American Jewish Committee, such as form Judge Joseph M. Proskauer.
If the Congress of the United States really wants to investigate fascist activities why does it not ask this Committee why this testimony was suppressed?
Next week John L. Spivak will present details of who the Warburg-Morgan interests are tied up; and how the Warburg interests control the American Jewish Committee, leaders of which guided this Congressional Committee in suppressing the evidence of the fascist conspiracy by Wall Street financiers. – The Editors.