The German Spy System from Within

by Anonymous

Chapter Twelve.

Other Recent Cases. Bibliography.

The work of the supply ship captured recently in a port on the east coast of Scotland hardly comes within the limits of this book, but it is significant as showing the daring of German methods, which apparently include the obtaining of supplies from an enemy’s country by means which endanger neutral shipping—so long as the neutral ships can be found to take the risks. It was noted by the naval authorities that German submarines had been displaying activity at such a distance from their legitimate ports of supply as to render probable and almost certain the existence of other sources of supply. A watch was consequently kept for suspicious neutral shipping, and in the end a capture was made.

A vessel came into port and proceeded to load for departure, and the customs officers could find nothing wrong with her. Her papers were in order, her cargo contained nothing in the nature of contraband of war, and there was no cause for detaining her, as far as could be seen. But there were noted on the deck of the vessel, neatly coiled, cables and cables, enough to furnish a whaler on a three-years’ sailing voyage and leave over sufficient to start a ropemaker in business. All over the decks bulky coils of hawser lay, and though, at any other time, the hawsers might have passed without notice, it was felt by the customs men that the superabundance of rope justified further investigation than had already been bestowed on the boat.

So one of the coils was unfastened, its wrappings removed, and the cable itself was uncoiled. Then was it found that there was merely a shell of rope, which served as covering for a steel drum containing oil fuel suited for the use of submarine engines. And there the story ends.

The other case which I propose to quote shows equal audacity. At the Guildhall Court there appeared, on October 5, George Newton Spencer, who described himself as a clerk, and gave his address as Lubeckerstrasse, 33, Hamburg, Germany. He was charged with “unlawfully inciting Mr Frank Henry Houlder (Houlder Brothers, Limited, Leadenhall Street and Liverpool) to trade with the enemy.”

Mr Humphreys stated in opening the case for the prosecution that the charges against the accused were based on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1914. The accused was a British subject (as they all seem to be) who had been long resident in Germany, and had been clerk to a shipping company with a rather long name, but which might be translated as the Transport Shipping Company of Hamburg. The accused appeared to have been sent over to this country by his employers towards the end of September for the purpose of negotiating what, from their point of view, was a most important transaction. Although an Englishman, and of the age of thirty-two years, no difficulty was made by the German military authorities over the accused obtaining a pass to travel in Germany and leave the country. There was little doubt that the object of his visit was known to the authorities, who gave him that permission, although, from the German Emperor’s point of view, he was an alien enemy.

The prisoner arrive in London on September 22, and on the next day he called on Mr Houlder. He introduced himself by producing a document in English, signed by his employers, which contained the proposal which had been made the subject of the charge. The proposal was as follows: There were six ships owned by the company at Hamburg, on which Messrs Houlder had mortgages amounting to about 30,000 pounds. These ships, on the outbreak of the war, and certainly in September—were either in neutral ports, and therefore temporarily lost to their owners, or were prizes of war, and as such temporarily—and probably finally—lost to their owners. The proposal to Messrs Houlder—to whom was payable 20,000 pounds on November 11, and 13,000 pounds on November 15, was to the effect that they should pay over 15,000 pounds to the Hamburg firm, and take over three of the steamers. The result would be that the mortgages on all six of the vessels would be wiped off, and Messrs Houlder would become the owners of them, while the steamship company at Hamburg would have 15,000 pounds in cash to enable them to carry on their business. The fact that one of the steamers was a prize of war in Gibraltar, and would probably be sold as such, made the proposal still more remarkable. Since, under these circumstances, Messrs Houlder could have no title, the Hamburg firm were virtually, asking for cash for nothing.

Mr Houlder did not seriously consider the proposition, but, having made up his mind what to do, told the defendant he would have to consult his solicitors, and mentioned the existence of the proclamation which he assumed would prevent them from carrying out the transaction. Defendant replied to the effect that his employers had communicated with the German Foreign Office—as they had no proclamation—and had received permission to carry out the transaction. He handed Mr Houlder a bundle of documents in German, which showed that the defendant’s employers in Hamburg, before ever they attempted to put this transaction in form, obtained leave from their own authorities, to whom they stated their own frank view-point with regard to the matter. It was set out that monetary benefit to a certain amount would accrue to the Hamburg company as a result of the transaction, and that the vessels were all old freight steamers, of no possible use to the German Navy—neither were they fit for transport purposes. The Berlin Secretary of State for Home Affairs replied that no objection would be taken to the transaction.