Thus the agent provocateur at his very worst. Germany has confessedly set out to make war by “all the violent means at her command,” but not by violent means alone. Such work as this placard makes evident, though, shows plainly how Germany has mistaken the temper of a people, for the Munsters and the Irish Guards have given their answer to the questions put. The flagrant error and waste of effort is like that of Von Holeben, who, when German Ambassador to America, strove to stir up strife between America and England until his efforts became common talk in Washington, and Berlin was forced to recall the blunderer. Yet more efforts of the same kind have been made in America since the outbreak of war, and at least one highly placed German official has received definite notice from Washington that he must either stop his work of sowing discord or leave the country.
These are but instances. The whole history of Syndicalism, the whole history of setting class against class in the case of industrial unrest, and of Irish disturbances in recent years, point to some influence working independently of the rights and betterment of the classes concerned in the agitations. In the case of Ireland, we may assume that the majority of Irish patriots have the best interests of their countrymen at heart; but the placard of which the contents are quoted above never emanated from any Irish patriot; it was a definite and ineffectual attempt to stir up the worst passions of which humanity is capable in the hour of England’s greatest need, at a time when all Irish patriots were voicing unity and support to their Government, whether they were Home Rulers or Orangemen—the action of Ireland has proved that. In the case of working men’s unions, the action of the men themselves has always been to a definite end, both in England and in France; to the end that they might obtain better conditions of life, just laws to govern their work, and the elemental rights of man. But, in addition to these things, there have been of late years agitators who would claim for the working men of the two countries that Germany had most cause to fear, not only the rights of their class, but a right to disregard the rights of all other classes, and take absolute power into their hands at a signal from some leader. Efforts have been made to induce men to strike for little, for nothing; to cause them to render a whole country powerless by their action, and to do indirect injury to themselves. Such action as this points to the working of a force not necessarily beneficial to the workmen themselves, but certainly inimical to the country to which the workers happen to belong. And, always keeping in mind Stieber and the debasement of aim he has brought on his own country, together with the fact that industrial unrest is in the first place a German product, we may say that coincidence does not account for all the Syndicalist efforts that have been contemporary with rumours of war.
Chapter Eleven.
Steinhauer’s Work.
The trials of Schulz, Graves, and others who have made appearances in the British criminal courts recently—or comparatively so—showed us the spy at work in extricating information; they demonstrated one phase, and a dangerous phase at that, of the business. No recent trial, however, has proved of such importance in connection with a study of the system as that of Ernst, which, quite apart from the doings of the accused man, shows the work of Steinhauer, the Potsdam director of the fixed agent, or “post office,” as the fixed spy is designated in the slang of espionage. Since the case of Ernst is still sub judice at the time of writing, only the bare official report can be given, at least as regards the conduct of the accused; but even with this limitation there is more to be learned from the case of Ernst and his alleged doings than from any other recent case, for the allegations of the prosecution involve evidence as to the headquarter office at Potsdam managed by Steinhauer, who supervises the working of the fixed agent as well as that of travelling spies and secret-service headquarter methods—evidence which is sufficiently plain and complete to substantiate all the statements made as regards the foreign work of the German secret service in the course of this book.
Karl Gustav Ernst, hairdresser, of Caledonian Road, Islington, was first charged on August 4, 1914, with contravening the Official Secrets Act with a view to his being dealt with under the Aliens Restriction Act. He denied knowledge of the charge against him, which he described as “ridiculous,” and, after remand, was ordered deportation. Conveyed to Brixton prison, to await a suitable opportunity for his being sent to Germany, he appealed to the Home Office for release. His appeal included claims to the effect that he was absolutely innocent of any crime, that he had nothing whatever to do with the Official Secrets Act, and that, since the police had produced no documents in court, they had evidently discovered nothing of an incriminating nature at his place in Caledonian Road, where he had carried on business as a hairdresser for sixteen years, with a Pentonville official among his customers. Inquiries proved the truth of a claim that he made to the effect that he was a British subject, which rendered it impossible to detain him under the Aliens Restriction Act. He was consequently released, and rearrested outside the prison gates as a spy on the country in which he had voluntarily become a citizen by means of naturalisation. The charge against him now is that is he traitor as well as spy.
His position with regard to the original charge and sentence of deportation is worthy of note. For sixteen years he had been in business in Caledonian Road; that is to say, he had resided in his place for such a length of time that there were no grounds for suspicion against him on the part of the inhabitants of the district. He was a part of the life of the place, almost an old inhabitant, when his doings rendered him worthy of the notice of the police. This is characteristic of the fixed agent in French centres, as already stated here.
On September 28, 1914, the present case was opened against Ernst by Mr Bodkin, who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions at Bow Street Police-Court. The charge was to the effect that Ernst had “obtained and communicated, and attempted to obtain and communicate to one Steinhauer, certain information calculated to be useful to an enemy.”