MIXED RECEPTION

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 4483, 3 September 1940, Page 4

MIXED RECEPTION

REWARD FOR HITLER THE AMERICAN OFFER KIDNAPPERS ” PLOT The proposal to “ snatch ” Adolf Hitler and deliver him for trial before the Lcacuc of Nations, announced by Samuel Harden Church, President ot the Carnegite Institute, in a letter to the 'New York Times,’ stirred the imaginations of amateur kidnappers, reports that journal. In various parts of the world reactions to the scheme ran the gamut of partisan emotions wrath, ridicule, amusement ana seriousness. With 50 responsible Pittsburgh men and women pledged to pay a reward of 1,000,000 dollars for the capture ot Germany’s Fuhrer, the State Department in Washington cautiously called attention to the neutrality enactments. It was suggested that some provisions might be involved. There was no comment from the White House. In Congress some representatives thought that seizing Hitler was a good idea Others called the plan warmongering that tended to involve the United States in the war. Hamilton Fish, of New York, suggested the possibility of Nazi reprisal, saying President Roosevelt might be worth the lesser sum of 100,000 dollars to the Germans. Generally in Washington the reward , offer for bringing Hitler to trial for “crimes against the peace and dignity cf the world ” was regarded as having embarrassing angles. A source close to the German Embassy, according to the United Press, said the offer should have been made not on May Day but on April Fool’s Day. It was indicated that no pretest was contemplated. GERMAN LOFTINESS From Berlin the United Press quoted official sources as saying the scheme was “so ridiculous and so utterly stupid that it can be assumed Germap officials will decline to take any notice of it.” London newspapers featured the story on their front pages. The British Broadcasting Corporation tempted its listeners with this statement: “Here is to-day’s business , offer. A million dollars reward has been'placed on the head of Herr Hitler by an American.” On the American diplomatic front a neutral finger was pointed by the State Department at this passage of President Roosevelt’s neutrality proclamation of September 4, 1939: — “The statutes and treaties of the United States and the law of nations alike require that no person within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States shall take part, directly or indirectly, in the said war, but shall remain at peace with all of the said belligerents, and shall maintain a strict and impartial neutrality.” Some legal minds suggested that the olan to seize Hitler came uneasily close to violating the criminal conspiracy statutes. One official cited section 25, title 18, United Statos Code. This provides a 5000 dollars fine and three years’ imprisonment for anyone who sets afoot or provides money for “any military or naval expedition or enterprise ” against a foreign prince, State or people with which the United States is at peace. VIEWS IN CONGRESS Among the representatives, Emanuel ' Celler, Brooklyn Democrat, was all for the 1,000,000 dollars reward offer, while John J. Dingell, Michigan Democrat, said that “another society should be formed to double the ante, but the bounty should be paid only bn the stuffed hide if Hitler being surrendered to the organisation.” Mr Fish characterised the Pittsburgh plan as part of the “war hysteria that’s covering the United States,” “Such an absurd proposal only calls for retaliation,” Mr Fish told the United Press. “ Some group of Germans might now offer not 1,000,000 dollars but, let us say, 100,000 dollars for the capture of President Roosevelt upon delivery by submarine and aeroplane at Berlin to appear on charges of having aided and abetted the enemies of Germany.” Representative Allen, of Pennsylvania, said the plan was, of course, not neutral, but that any American could “do as he wishes so long as the Government does not help him.” E. V. Izac, of California, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said, “I guess these people are just giving vent to feelings that probably are shared by 99 per cent, of the American people and may be shared in Germany.” Senator King, of Utah, most cutspoken critic of Hitler in the Upper House, told the United Press that “the whole thing is perfectly stupid and silly.” More vivid reactions came from persons with no concerns for diplomacy and no official connections. A professional strong man in Houston, Texas, sent this telegram to the ‘Times’: “ Will go after Hitler and bring him back. Must have hundred-thousand-dollar drawing account and transportation to Germany made possible.” A man in Los Angeles wired that he would underwrite an additional 1,000,000 dollars for the capture and trial of Hitler on an indictment he had prepared. OFFER FOR ALLIED LEADERS However, a young man who sounded serious telephoned from Troy, New York (he paid the toll charges) and pledged 10,000 dollars for the capture of Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain and Premier Paul Reynaud of France, “dead or alive.” The youth was Victor Frederick Himmelwright, a senior studying industrial engineering at the Rennsalaer Polytechnic Institute, He said he would ask the man who was his guardian until he came of age to post a bond for the money in a bank of South Orange, New Jersey, his home town. Himmelwright said he was an Allied sympathiser and was acting in their best interests in seeking to dispose of the Allied leaders. He also said h.s offer would balance the breach of neutrality caused by Mr Church’s offer. Pcultney Bigelow’, old-time friend of Germany’s former Kaiser, was indignant when asked for his opinion. “It’s too silly, it’s too absurd,” he exclaimed. “ They ought to present the 1,000,000 dollars to Hitler to help the wounded.” In a telegram from Blowingrock, N.C., a group of citizens protested the “ ridiculous offer in Pittsburgh using the name of Cornegia Institute m making the offer for the capture of Adolf Hitler,” and added: “We hung the Kaiser in 1917. Now they propose to hang Hitler on the same trumped-up charges.”

But from New Canaan, Conn., came a telegram of “Joy and gratitude” for “a bold and humane plan equal to the highest in our national record.” E. T. Weir, chairman of the National Steel Corporation, a member of the Duqucsne Club in which Mr Church said the plan was discussed for two or three months, announced that he had no connection with the proposal. He said his Srst knowledge of it came from the newspapers. In an open letter to Mr Church, Carl W. Ackerman, Dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, denounced the plan as an “inflammatory project ” calculated to involve the nation in the war. He characterised Mr Church as “War Maker No. 1.”