The German Spy System from Within Part 6

The act was sufficiently unusual to excite comment on the part of the court authorities; but Mr Tilly withdrew.

The second hearing took place on October 5, 1914, when the first witness called, a clerk in the secretary's office at the General Post Office, deposed to having opened and copied the letters which bore as postmark either "Potsdam" or "Berlin." These letters were written in German, and many of the envelopes contained letters which were to be reposted by Ernst to other addresses. Some of the letters to Ernst were signed "St," and one of them, bearing the postmark "Berlin 6-1-12" contained an envelope addressed to "Mrs Seymour, 87, Alexandra Road, Sheerness."

Mr Bodkin explained that this was the pseudonym and address of the man Parrott, who figured in an espionage case in the autumn of 1912.

Another letter to Ernst, the witness further deposed, was dated "Potsdam, January 25, 1912," and signed "St" It contained a request that envelopes, bearing the printed name of the makers, should be sent to the writer. Then, on February 12, the same correspondent addressed Ernst: "Please post the enclosed letters at once, and send me, if you please, fifty envelopes as sample which you sent. Then write me a letter, if you please, a letter in good English, in which a customer asks for letters to be forwarded to him on the Continent addressed to `Poste Restante, etc.'"

There were enclosed with this missive two letters, addressed respectively to "F. Ireland, Mess 2, H.M.S. _Foxhound_, care of G.P.O.," and "A Schutte, 5, Castletown, Portland Harbour." Another letter produced, bearing date of January 23, 1912, signed "St," and dated from Potsdam, contained the following:

"According to information from newspapers, a fireman has been arrested on the English cruiser _Foxhound_. If that is Kr's nephew, then it is certain he was dragged into it through the carelessness and stupidity of Kr. Perhaps you can get into communication with K., but by all means be cautious. If my suspicions are correct, then Kr. will be watched.

Above all--caution. Should you have an opportunity to speak to him then ask him at the same time respecting a certain Schmidt he once recommended to me. He [Kruger] must be cautious, and especially show no address. That is to say, only go there when you know there is no danger to you. I mean, he must not start speaking German to you in the presence of others. Please let me hear something soon."

Mr Bodkin explained that Ireland of the _Foxhound_ was a nephew of a man named Kruger, who took the name of Ireland when he joined the Navy.

Another letter addressed to the prisoner from Potsdam, and dated February 11, 1912, contained the following:

"Many thanks for your valuable letter. In future it will be done so.

Do you also desire that the letters I send you be sent `care of'?

Please reply to me as to this. Please deliver at once enclosed letter addressed to Kronan. Expenses please charge. Best greetings.--St"

A letter sent to the prisoner for reposting was addressed to "H.

Graves, Esq, B.M., B.Sc., 23, Craiglea Drive, Morningside, Edinburgh,"

and in this were three five-pound Bank of England notes. On March 7, 1912, Steinhauer signed his name in full, and enclosed 100 marks, requesting Ernst to obtain for him a copy of a London daily paper, which contained a detailed article on espionage, published a little time before the close of the Stewart espionage case. Copies of the letters sent through Ernst to "Mrs Parrott, Alexandra Road, Sheerness," and to "H. Graves," at Edinburgh and later at Glasgow, were put in as evidence, but these were not read in court. One of Graves's letters was enclosed in an envelope which bore the name of a well-known firm of chemical and drug manufacturers, as detailed in the evidence at the trial of Graves. Mr Bodkin, commenting on this, said that the envelope was probably stolen.

On March 23 "St" (Steinhauer) wrote from Potsdam to Ernst: "K. has excited himself for nothing. The youth is free. I will tell you the story orally next time." Mr Bodkin remarked, by way of explanation, that the youth Ireland had been discharged.

Another letter addressed to Mr Graves, at the Central Hotel, Glasgow, dated April 9, 1912, and forwarded through Ernst, contained bank-notes for 15 pounds--this was very nearly the last letter ever sent to Graves, judging from the time of his arrest and trial. On March 2 a letter from Potsdam contained a request for the prisoner to inquire whether a certain person living near Hyde Park was a busy man, and whether he was connected with the English Government. Then, in July of 1912, "St"

must have grown suspicious of the correspondence having been examined, for he wrote: "There is another point that I wish to impress on you, and that is, always to post registered letters in different post offices or districts. But you do that probably on your own accord." Yet again, in a letter dated September 1, from Potsdam, Steinhauer emphasised the need for caution. "You can imagine," he wrote, "for yourself that we need in all directions only good, sure, and trustworthy people. We must be safe from surprises on the part of the women. Will you take another name instead of Walters?"

Evidence of another travelling spy was afforded by letters addressed to "F. Gould, Queen Charlotte Hotel, Rochester," and to "Charles Graham, care of Mr Gould," at the same address. The one directly addressed contained two five-pound notes, and the "care of" letter contained three of these.

So far, the evidence had concerned letters addressed to Ernst, and then the witness went on to tell of the letters sent by Ernst to Steinhauer.

Witness had from time to time opened these letters, acting under his official instructions, and had found they were posted in London to Mrs or Miss Reimers, care of Steinhauer, at a Potsdam address. They were all in handwriting which he recognised as that of the prisoner, when given the opportunity of comparing the writing, and were variously signed "G.E.," "W. Weller," and "J. Walters." Certain extracts from these letters were read in court by Mr Bodkin, and the following pa.s.sages may be quoted:

"Dear Mr Steinhauer,--Allow me to make a few suggestions which came into my head while reading the case of Grosse. You will be able to see that your agent Grosse had not the slightest consideration for your other agents. No more could be expected from a man who has already done ten years' penal servitude. Therefore, I beg that when you give any one my address, you give a different name, such as W. Weller.

"I have immediately posted both letters. [To Schutte and Ireland.]

Herewith enclosed two sample letters. I should also like to mention that the papers are making a gigantic row respecting the Stewart affair.

To-day several papers had the interview and confession which he has made. W. Weller."

The "sample" letters referred to may be judged from the following, read in court from one of them:

"Dear Sir,--My business has caused me to go to Switzerland for a short time, and, as I shall not be back in London for about two months, I should like you to send on my letters, marked Poste Restante. Any expenses you might incur I will make up on my return to London."

Another letter was as follows:

"Dear Mr Steinhauer,--I should be very pleased if you would address letters to J. Walters, care of Ernst. In future I shall sign my letters J. Walters, so that no mistake can be made... With regard to your other order, I beg you to excuse me, as I don't at all wish to meet Kruger. I have seen him once, and he does not please me. I myself got a letter for somebody, care of the _Foxhound_. I did not post the letter in my vicinity, but in the West End. The newspapers have the sailor's photograph, and he is said to be named Ireland, and to have been born in Germany. I shall have nothing to do with it."

Another letter was mentioned in which the accused was alleged to have referred to what he described as "a fine article" in a monthly magazine with regard to the East Coast defences, and he also enclosed a cutting from a newspaper which detailed the arrest of Doctor Graves of Edinburgh. Ernst's comments on this, as read in court, were: "It shows how dangerous it is to have letters addressed Poste Restante. I only say of myself that for one pound a month I will not live in fear, as I have indeed a good business which maintains me. In April I shall end my second year in your service, and I should like to ask that my salary be increased. A confidential post such as mine is worth 30 shillings a month."

Further letters produced referred to the Parrott case, and one of these contained a cutting from a paper giving a report of the evidence against Parrott in the police-court. When asked if he wished to question the witness, Ernst replied that he was unable to employ a solicitor, and had determined to reserve his defence until he appeared on trial. With that the hearing of the case was adjourned for a week.

The detailed evidence, summarised above, is extremely interesting and enlightening, in that it outlines, with a few gaps, the working of the fixed post system, and further discloses that, in addition to the headquarter stations established at Brussels, Lausanne, Berne, and other places outside Germany, a headquarter station exists by means of which the fixed agents are enabled to communicate direct with Berlin.

Moreover, this case demonstrates very forcibly the measures taken for counter-espionage, and shows that Germany needs another Stieber if the secret service of the present day is to be made as efficient as in the time of the first Franco-German War. Since the alleged treachery of Ernst was in the knowledge of the police from the beginning of the time stated as his period of work, and since the alleged effect of his establishment as a fixed agent was to produce more arrests by the English and Scottish police than useful news for Germany, one is at liberty to entertain very grave doubts of the efficiency of a system which includes such establishments as this. The capture of letters, and their opening and tracing, is worthy of note, especially when it is remembered that not only were the post office authorities able to capture _incoming_ letters--a comparatively simple matter, once their suspicions were aroused--but also were able to trace and find the letters that Ernst was alleged to have posted to Potsdam--not so simple a matter, when it is remembered that he is alleged to have posted his missives from all over London. The chief feature of the case, as reported, is the credit it reflects on the British system of counter-espionage, and the way in which German efforts are neutralised.

The length of time the prisoner had resided in England was in accordance with the system pursued at Berlin, of planting men for use when they had pa.s.sed out from chance of suspicion by reason of their having become to all intents citizens of the country on which espionage is required. The fact of naturalisation is proved to have no significance--nor, since a German retains his nationality if he wishes it, in spite of having been naturalised in any other country, should naturalisation be held as a bar to suspicion. The position held by the defendant, in which he was able to carry on an independent business of his own, is quite in accordance with secret-service methods--these are the men Berlin wants for its fixed posts. The only discrepancy with known methods lies in the rate of pay known to be allowed to fixed agents in French centres, but this may be accounted for by the fact that Ernst is alleged to have completed only a short period (two years or so) in the employment of the Berlin secret service.

Such evidence as the prosecution gave, as shown in the foregoing report, is worthy of very careful attention with regard to the working of the espionage system. For such a post as that which Ernst is alleged to have filled is but a link in a chain, and the chain is a long one.

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 pa.s.sed 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 sh.e.l.l 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 Lubeckerstra.s.se, 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 pa.s.s 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 doc.u.ment 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 circ.u.mstances, Messrs. Houlder could have no t.i.tle, 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 a.s.sumed 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 doc.u.ments 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.

Mr Houlder communicated with the Admiralty instead of with his solicitors, and in the meantime the defendant went to a firm of marine insurance agents and made a similar proposal--this time to the extent of about 13,400 pounds cash benefit to the Hamburg firm. In neither case was any application made to the authorities in England for a licence to break the law regarding trading with the enemy. The total effect of the proposals, had they been carried through, would have been to place the Hamburg company in possession of about 28,000 pounds, with no compensating advantage whatever to the British firms--and the defendant was committed for trial. He received sentence of imprisonment for his treachery on October 14, 1914, after due and proper trial.

The only point worthy of comment in connection with this case is the doubtful morality, in a business sense, of German firms. We may set aside the fact that a contravention of an enemy's law was attempted, for no country would consider or regard the laws of a country with which it was at war, unless they involved principles of definite conduct and were the laws of civilisation rather than the laws framed for the protection of the said enemy in time of war. The point at issue is that a shipping company of Hamburg, by its offer of valueless t.i.tles in exchange for hard British cash, was attempting such a form of sharp practice as would land any British trader in the criminal courts for fraud. One is forced to the conclusion that among many Germans, and even among German firms whose standing ought to guarantee the cleanliness of their hands in business, there is no such thing as honesty, at least where dealing with a foreign firm is concerned. These people asked two London firms to break British law, and to be swindled. By German ethics, evidently, this is fair play and just dealing. It is an effect of the spy system on the moral fibre of the nation, rather than an instance of the working of the spy system itself--though the British subject who pa.s.sed out from Germany at an acute point of the war between the two countries, without being questioned by German authorities, looks perilously like a spy at work, and the nature of his other missions in England, had he been left at liberty, calls for some speculation.

Much may be learned with regard to the present working of German spies by intelligent perusal of the war reports, especially those coming from France, for the Russian theatre of war is so tremendous and so far off that the small details seldom come through--the details small in themselves, but of far-reaching import. As an instance may be again mentioned the way in which German troops, occupying a town, chalk on certain doors "Spare this house"--there is a world of enlightenment in the three words. Similarly, in advance and retreat the Germans have their agents with them or near them, and often the report makes tacit admission of the fact, in such a way that it is clear to one who reads with the espionage system in mind. The work of these agents is as endless as it is dishonourable and deadly--a poison that works just as efficiently as the legitimate weapons of war--and often more efficiently, since one can guard against an open weapon, but against the treachery that uses naturalisation and all things to further the ends of the monster trampling across the earth, there is no guard that soldiers can use as they use their weapons against troops opposed to them.

The bibliography of espionage--German espionage--is a brief one, so far as books of value are concerned. First and foremost stand Stieber's Memoirs, which tell all that Stieber chose to tell--and that is a good deal. The work has been translated into French, but not into English.

There is the "Indiscretions" of Wollheim, a book which gives some idea of the system, but is mainly concerned with incident. The Memoirs of Busch, Bismarck's friend, afford further light on the system, but only in a fragmentary way. "Military Espionage in Peace and War," by W.N.

Klembovski, a Russian Staff Officer, is more a manual of what ought to be done by purely military spies than a book descriptive of the German system. "Espionage Militaire," by Lieutenant Froment of the French Army, is open to the same cla.s.s of criticism, as is to a certain extent "Espionage," by N. de Chilly, though the last named is a more informative book. "The German Spy System in France," an English translation of Paul Lanoir's book on the subject, is a brief but well-compiled review of what Germany has accomplished in the way of espionage since 1870 in France, and although rather pessimistic in tone as regards French counter-measures, ranks as a work of value.

As a rule "confessions" of spies may be disregarded, though they make good melodramatic reading. The nature of the subject is such that those who would tell the whole cannot, and those who can will not. Bearing in mind the effect of thorough espionage on the German nation as a whole, it is to be hoped that in the near future the whole system will be swept away, together with the form of government that gave it birth and room to grow.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN.

APPENDIX.

Since the preceding pages were written, and as proofs are being pa.s.sed for press, the following statement has been issued for publication by the Home Office with regard to British counter-espionage measures:

"In view of the anxiety naturally felt by the public with regard to the system of espionage on which Germany has placed so much reliance, and to which attention has been directed by recent reports from the seat of war, it may be well to state briefly the steps which the Home Office, acting on behalf of the Admiralty and War Office, has taken to deal with the matter in this country. The secrecy which it has. .h.i.therto been desirable in the public interest to observe on certain points cannot any longer be maintained, owing to the evidence which it is necessary to produce in cases against spies that are now pending.

"It was clearly ascertained five or six years ago that the Germans were making great efforts to establish a system of espionage in this country, and in order to trace and thwart these efforts a Special Intelligence Department was established by the Admiralty and the War Office which has ever since acted in the closest co-operation with the Home Office and Metropolitan Police and the princ.i.p.al provincial Police Forces. In 1911, by the pa.s.sing of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, the law with regard to espionage, which had hitherto been confused and defective, was put on a clear basis and extended so as to embrace every possible mode of obtaining and conveying to the enemy information which might be useful in war.