Part 3 (1/2)
The Director of the Political Department (Herr Conrad) gave a further
”_positive a.s.surance that the [American] Legation would be fully informed as to the developments in the case._”
Notwithstanding this direct promise and further ”repeated inquiries in the course of the day,” no further word reached our Legation, and at 6.20 p.m. it again inquired as to Miss Cavell's fate, and the Director of the Political Department again
”_stated that sentence had not yet been p.r.o.nounced_,”
and he specifically renewed his a.s.surance. Two hours later our Minister _from unofficial sources_ heard that all that had been told him by the Political Department was untrue, and that the sentence had been pa.s.sed at 5 o'clock p.m.; _before his last conversation with the Director_, and that the execution was to take place that night.
Accordingly the Secretary of the American Legation proceeded at once to Baron von der Lancken, and again asked as a favor to this Government that clemency be extended. He brought with him a letter from the American Minister, which reads as follows:
”My dear Baron:
”I am too ill to put my request before you in person, but once more I appeal to the generosity of your heart. Stand by and save from death this unfortunate woman. Have pity on her. Your devoted servant, ”BRAND WHITLOCK.”
Accompanying this purely personal note were two substantially similar communications, the one directed to Baron von Bissing and the other to Baron von der Lancken. These communications run as follows:
”I have just heard that Miss Cavell, a British subject, and consequently under the protection of my Legation, was this morning condemned to death by court-martial.
”If my information is correct, the sentence in the present case is more severe than all the others that have been pa.s.sed in similar cases which have been tried by the same Court, and, without going into the reasons for such a drastic sentence, I feel that I have the right to appeal to your Excellency's feelings of humanity and generosity in Miss Cavell's favour, and to ask that the death penalty pa.s.sed on Miss Cavell may be commuted and that this unfortunate woman shall not be executed.
”Miss Cavell is the head of the Brussels Surgical Inst.i.tute. She has spent her life in alleviating the sufferings of others, and her school has turned out many nurses who have watched at the bedside of the sick all the world over, in Germany as in Belgium. At the beginning of the war Miss Cavell bestowed her care as freely on the German soldiers as on others. Even in default of all other reasons, her career as a servant of humanity is such as to inspire the greatest sympathy and to call for pardon. If the information in my possession is correct, Miss Cavell, far from s.h.i.+elding herself, has, with commendable straightforwardness, admitted the truth of all the charges against her, and it is the very information which she herself has furnished, and which she alone was in a position to furnish, which has aggravated the severity of the sentence pa.s.sed on her.
”It is then with confidence, and in the hope of its favourable reception, that I have the honour to present to your Excellency my request for pardon on Miss Cavell's behalf.”
This note was read aloud to Baron von der Lancken, the very official who had refused to answer the first communication of the Legation with reference to the matter, and he
”expressed disbelief in the report that sentence had actually been pa.s.sed and manifested some surprise that we should give credence to any report not emanating from official sources. He was quite insistent in knowing the exact source of our information, but this I did not feel at liberty to communicate to him.”
Baron von der Lancken proceeded to express his belief ”that it was quite improbable that sentence had been p.r.o.nounced,” and that in any event no execution would follow. After some hesitation he telephoned to the Presiding Judge of the Court-Martial and then reported that the emba.s.sy's unofficial information was only too true.
His attention was further called to the express promise of the German Director of the Political Department to inform the American Legation of the sentence, and he was asked to grant the American Government the courtesy of a ”delay in carrying out the sentence.”
To this appeal for mercy Baron von der Lancken replied that the Military Governor (von Bissing) was the supreme authority and that he ”had discretionary power to accept or to refuse acceptance of an appeal for clemency.” He thereupon left the representative of the American Legation and apparently called upon von Bissing, and after half an hour he returned with the statement that not only would von Bissing decline to revoke the sentence of death, but ”that in view of the circ.u.mstances of this case, he must decline to accept your plea for clemency or any representation in regard to the matter.”
Thereupon Baron von der Lancken insisted that Mr. Brand Whitlock's representative (Mr. Hugh Gibson, Secretary of the Legation) should take back the formal appeal for clemency addressed both to him and to von Bissing, and as both German officials had been fully advised as to the nature of the plea, Mr. Gibson finally consented. Baron von der Lancken a.s.sured Mr. Gibson that under the circ.u.mstances ”even the Emperor himself could not intervene,” a statement that was very quickly refuted when the Emperor--aroused by the world-wide condemnation of Miss Cavell's execution--did commute the sentences imposed upon six of the seven persons who were condemned to death with Miss Cavell.
During the earnest conversation which took place in this last attempt to save Miss Cavell's life, the American representative took occasion to remind Baron von der Lancken's official a.s.sociates--although it should not have been necessary--of the great services rendered by the United States, and especially by Mr. Brand Whitlock, in the earlier period of the German occupation, and this was urged as a reason why as a matter of courtesy to the United States Government some more courteous consideration should be accorded to its request. At the outbreak of the war, thousands of German residents in Belgium returned to their country in such haste that they left their families behind them. Mr. Whitlock gathered these women and children--numbering, it is said, over 10,000--and provided them with the necessaries of life, and ultimately with safe transportation into Germany, and having thus placed this inestimable service to thousands of German civilians in one scale, the American representative simply asked, as ”the only request” made by the United States upon grounds of reciprocal generosity, that some clemency should be given to Miss Cavell. The refusal to give this clemency or even to accept in a formal way the plea for clemency, is one of the blackest cases of ingrat.i.tude in the history of diplomacy.
On October 22nd there was issued from Brussels a ”semi-official” but _anonymous_ statement, charging that in the reports of the Secretary of the American Emba.s.sy, from which the above quoted statements are mainly taken, ”most of the important events are inaccurately reproduced.”
No specification of any inaccuracy is however made, except the general denial ”that the German authorities with empty promises put off the American Minister” and also the equally general statement that no promise was given to our emba.s.sy to advise it of developments in the case.
A vague, general, and _anonymous_ denial, issued by men who seek to wash their hands of innocent blood, cannot avail against Mr. Gibson's clear, specific, and circ.u.mstantial statement. The Secretary of our emba.s.sy states that on October 11th ”_repeated_” inquiries were made of Herr Conrad, the official in charge of the Political Department of the German Government in Belgium, _the last inquiry being at 6.20 p.m. by the clock_ (an hour after the victim had been sentenced to death), and that on each occasion a.s.surance was given to the Legation that ”sentence had not been p.r.o.nounced” and that he (Conrad) would not fail to inform us as soon as there was any news.
Does Herr Conrad deny this?
The Brussels ”semi-official” statement has the hardihood to state to the world that the American Minister (Brand Whitlock) had admitted that ”no such promise or a.s.surance was given,” and it places the responsibility upon M. Deleval, the Belgian legal counselor of the American Emba.s.sy.
But this impudent lie is speedily overthrown by the positive statement of our Minister at Belgium to our Amba.s.sador in London as follows:
”From the date we first learned of Miss Cavell's imprisonment we made frequent inquiries of the German authorities and reminded them of their promise that we should be fully informed as to developments. They were under no misapprehension as to our interest in the matter.”