The Great Sedition Trial of
         1944: A Personal Memoir
 
 
David Baxter
 
 
I have the honor to discuss an historical event in which I played
         a  personal role, the notorious
 Sedition Trial of 1944. As a Christian I  have
         long since forgiven those who were responsible
 for instigating this  persecution
         of American citizens and I have no axes to grind with  anyone.
 Some of what I
         have to tell is merely personal recollection  while some is indisputable fact.
         Historians must make these  distinctions. I write here as a witness to history.
 
 
Before discussing the trial itself it is necessary
         to outline some  background. I've always been 
idealistic and history was my favorite
         subject in school. Accordingly, in my youth I was greatly
 impressed by  Edward
         Bellamy's book Looking Backward. I became an ardent  socialist and
 joined
         the Socialist Party, which was then America's third  largest party. Still, I was also 
nationalistic
         and supposed that  socialism would be best for our country and its people. 
World
         government  was not an issue and I'm sure that most of the socialist followers of
         Eugene V. Debs would have opposed it. We were concerned about America  and its 
economic
         system, which was then about the most ruthless monopoly  capitalism one can imagine.
 
 
Consequently, I was also very enamored of Franklin
         Roosevelt's New  Deal. In the belief 
that the Roosevelt program fulfilled our
         hopes (but  unaware of his world government philosophy),
 our California state
         Socialist leader, Upton Sinclair, joined the Democratic party and ran  for
 Governor.
         I was the last remaining registered Socialist in San  Bernardino County but finally
         gave in and, following Sinclair's lead,  joined the Democrats. For two years I served as president
 of the largest  Democratic Club in California. While the great depression was at its  worst,
 I worked for several years as a W. P. A. supervisor. I believe  that Roosevelt did do some good 
in emergency legislation, the  Reconstruction Finance Corporation, banking reforms to protect
 citizens'  savings, Social Security and the like.
 
 
My interest in political affairs never waned. I wanted to hear both
         sides of every issue. 
Accordingly, you might see me at a Communist  rally, a Klu
         Klux Klan conclave, a Townsend
 old-age speech, a Jewish  anti-Nazi gathering or
         a Silver Shirt meeting. Incidentally, the 
Silver  Shirt leader, William Dudley
         Pelley, was one of my co-defendants in the  Sedition
 Trial several years later,
         along with two Los Angeles  German-American Bund leaders. 
Before the trial I had
         never met Pelley  personally nor corresponded with him, and had
 only been introduced
         to  the German-American Bunders at their open meeting. Yet I was
 later  accused
         of conspiring with them. Actually, at that time I was simply a
  New Deal Democrat
         interested in what was going on in the country  politically.
 
 
I've always been a little slow about jumping to conclusions, but as
         Chesterton once said, 
"The object of opening the mind is to close it  again
         on something solid." Once thoroughly
 convinced of the rightness of  a thing,
         I have jumped in on what I believe to be right with
  enthusiasm. It was after
         war broke out in Europe that I first began  having doubts about
 Roosevelt's honesty.
         I had already become what is  called a "middle of the roader" politically
         and economically, and I now  found myself more and more sympathetic to those who stood
         for rugged  individualism, disliked regimentation, and opposed Roosevelt's cleverly 
         disguised efforts to get the United States involved in a foreign war  that was none of our
 business. Because the President would say one thing  to the people and do exactly the opposite,
 I frankly came to detest the  ground he walked on. Moreover, I became convinced that there
 really was  an international conspiracy that was using our nation as a pawn, as had  been 
the case in World War I. Since I had no access to the press at  that time, I began 
publishing a newsletter.
 
 
Politics indeed makes strange bedfellows. After Hitler and Stalin  concluded a treaty,
 American Communists enthusiastically endorsed those  of us who opposed getting 
into the European war between Germany and the  British-French alliance. The 
Communists even stomached the Jewish issue  that some of us raised and many Jewish
 Communists, who wanted the United  States to join the war against Hitler, left their party. 
All that  changed overnight, however, when war broke out between Germany and  Russia. 
The Communists then turned against us with a vengeance and  eagerly backed F.D.R. 
and American participation in the war to save the  Soviets. Those of us who had been
 anti-war from the beginning were now  even more set against such an adventure. England
 and France were now  practically out of the conflict. Now let the Nazis and Russians slug
  each other while the United States remained neutral, we felt. When the  smoke cleared
 neither of the big European powers would have much  strength left, there probably wouldn't
 be any Soviet Union, and the  United States would emerge unscathed with not a man lost. 
We could also  resolve our own domestic problems without attention being diverted by  war.
 I wrote one article after another and sometimes ghost-wrote  speeches for visiting speakers of
 the American First Committee, of which  I was a member. Apart from the Democratic and 
Socialist parties, it was  the only political organization I ever joined. I also tried to organize  a 
correspondence circle of anti-war people to be called the Social  Republic
 Society, but it was never amounted to anything. Or so we  thought.
 
 
After the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, which even then many of
         us claimed 
Roosevelt and Churchill had schemed to bring about (and which  is now
         known fact), 
America Firsters found themselves in hot water. All  of our political
         supporters in Congress
 and elsewhere disappeared as if  by magic. Even Hamilton
         Fish, Robert Taft, Burton Wheeler
 and Claire  Hoffman were misled and carried
         away by the Administration-created  hysteria. 
They did not even suspect Roosevelt's
         skullduggery in bringing  about the Pearl Harbor attack. 
They all jumped aboard
         the war  bandwagon, except for a very few diehards, of whom I was 
one. To us,
         if a  thing was wrong in principle before an official declaration of war by  the
         President, it was just as wrong afterwards. Despite our limited  numbers and political insignificance,
 some of us then took it upon  ourselves to tackle one of the most improbable jobs imaginable  -
-  a  Peace Offensive. We believed that although America had made a mistake in  getting into 
the European inferno, we could still negotiate an  honorable peace and save millions of lives.
 I then suddenly found myself  thrust into national prominence and my name appeared in several
 major  newspapers. I was actually proposed as a presidential candidate by  Edward Price Bell,
 a retired editor of the Chicago Daily News.  Although Bell was prominent in the Republican party,
 he was just as  opposed to the GOP's Wendell Willkie as he was to the Democrat  Roosevelt.
         
He opposed American subservience to foreign interests as much  as I did. His article
         in the 
Saturday Spectator brought me directly to Roosevelt's attention
         and triggered my speedy 
political demise.
 
 
I was quickly subpoenaed to appear before a California
         State Senate  anti-subversion 
committee headed by Senator Jack Tenney, before
         which I  testified and was labeled a 
"hostile witness." Years later,
         after he  became enlightened, Tenney personally apologized
 to me. After that 
         subpoena a U.S. marshall served me with a "Presidential Warrant" 
signed
         by Franklin D. Roosevelt which ordered me to appear before a grand jury  in Washington D.C.
 I tore up the warrant and told the marshal to tell  F.D.R. to go to hell, where he belonged. 
Roosevelt had no more authority  to order me around than any other citizen. Accordingly,
 a few days  later a marshall served me with a proper subpoena to appear 
and
         I  promptly left for Washington. I had never been in the capital before.
 
 
At the same time, Walter Winchell, Drew Pearson and a raft of others
         went after me
 over the radio. Pearson called me a "fascist" and Winchell
         constantly demanded, "Why doesn't 
somebody do something about it?" When
         I arrived in the capital, the Washington Post kept
 up a page-one  running
         attack against me as a "revolutionist." The other Washington  papers 
were
         more restrained, although one headlined me as a "Jap  apologist," probably because of 
some things I had written in defense of  Japanese-American citizens who had been rounded 
up and sent to  concentration camps without any semblance of legality. Being called a
  "Jap apologist" didn't make me any more popular with the average  American. In those
 days most Americans were hysterical about anything  Japanese after Pearl Harbor, not
 knowing that their own President was  responsible for it. I was practically without friends.
 Anti-war members  of Congress whom I had loyally supported pretended that they had never  
heard of me. People who had known me for years were afraid to be
 seen
         with me. Quite frankly, I felt depressed and disillusioned.
 
 
The Washington grand jury session was pretty fiery. A number of  people
         I had heard of 
but had never met were there from all over the  country, including
         Charles B. Hudson, 
Gerald B. Winrod (a minister and a  spokesman for Social
         Justice and Father Charles Coughlin),  
Congressman Claire Hoffman of Michigan,
         and many others. When I got into  a row with
 the federal prosecutor, William Power
         Maloney, and was cited  by the grand jury for
 contempt, newspapers were full of
         it and my home  town paper, the San Bernadino
Sun-Telegram, ran a screaming
         headline: "Baxter Defies Federal Grand Jury."
 
         
An interesting feature of the grand jury investigation was when a  bailiff entered
         the witness
room and called out several times,  "Jefferson Breem." Jefferson
         Breem was there, all right,
 but he didn't  answer. That was because he was really
         a reporter for the Washington Post
 named Dillard Stokes. It was Stokes
         who wrote the Post  stories which referred to me
 as a "revolutionist"
         and smeared me and  other witnesses from pillar to post. "Jefferson Breem"
was
         one of many  people who had written to me to ask for copies of my writings. After  all,
 none of my work was secret and my writings were in some libraries.  The Hoover Library
 of Stanford University, for example, had requested  and received my literature. Anyway,
 when the grand jury later indicted  about 30 of us who had been witnesses, accusing us 
of sedition, it was  largely on the basis of literature we had sent to Stokes, alias Breem,  
in Washington. In order to try us in Washington as a group, it was  necessary to establish 
that a crime had been committed in the District  of Columbia, thus giving jurisdiction to the 
federal courts there. So  the grand jury, which was obviously controlled by the prosecutor,
  charged us with the crime of sedition, and then established District of  Columbia jurisdiction
 to try us on the grounds that a District of  Columbia resident, "Jefferson Breem," had 
received the allegedly  seditious literature. Thus was the alleged "crime" committed in the  
capital. The defendants were charged with having conspired in the  District of Columbia, 
despite the fact that I had never been in  Washington in my life until ordered
 there by the grand jury. Even then I  was not allowed to have legal counsel.
 
 
After the grand jury hearing I returned to California
         and tried to  rebuild my small outdoor 
advertising business, which the adverse
         publicity had almost ruined. Even my neighbors 
were suspicious of me.  After the
         war a railroad union official told me that some union 
members  had talked about
         tarring and feathering me. They were dissuaded when he  
told them, "I've
         known Dave Baxer for years. Let him have a fair trial  and if he's guilty, I 
myself
         will apply the tar." As it was, two gunmen  sneaked up to our house one night and
         tried to bushwhack me. It was only  when I suddenly leaped out on to the front porch with
 a .38 caliber  pistol in my hand that they fled. My wife remembers that incident very  well. 
She jumped under the bed.
 
 
This may be hard to believe, but the fact is that although I had come  to believe firmly 
that an international conspiracy of Jewish  Sanhedrin-bankers existed and influenced 
the President and government, I  had never heard of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.
 I had  never had the slightest animosity against anyone because of race or  creed. I had
 many Jewish personal friends, whom I was convinced had no  knowledge of an international
 Sanhedrin. Or at least they were my  friends until I was smeared as "anti-Semitic."
         I first
 heard of the  Anti-Defamation League when a cousin of my wife's, who worked
         in the  office
 of a lawyer named Julius Novak in San Bernardino, one day came
         to  our home greatly 
agitated. I had never had anything against Novak, but  our
         cousin said that she was in an 
adjoining room when a delegation she  called the
         "Anti-Defamation League" conferred with
 Novak and she  overheard him
         say, "We'll get Dave Baxter if it's the last thing we ever  do."
 A few
         days later my close friend, the San Bernardino postmaster,  quietly leaked to me that
         an Anti-Defamation League group had called on  him and asked him to inspect my mail.
         I then began to suspect who was  behind most of my troubles and started researching 
this
         organization.
 
 
Actually, the Anti-Defamation League was the catalyst behind the  entire Sedition Trial. 
I couldn't prove it then but I can now. A few  years ago I demanded, through the Freedom
 of Information Act, that the  FBI turn over to me its investigation records of my activities 
during  the early 1940s leading up to the Sedition Trial. I learned that the  investigation 
had extended over several years and covered hundreds of  pages, which I now have. 
The FBI blocked out the names of those who had  given information about me, much 
of it as false as anything could be. I  was never given a chance to face these people and
 make them prove their  accusations. Yet everything they said went into the investigation
  records. Oddly enough, in a great many cases, it wasn't the FBI that  conducted the investigation
 but the Anti-Defamation League, with the FBI  merely receiving the reports of ADL investigators.
 One can hardly tell  from the reports whether a given person was an FBI or an ADL agent. 
But  at the time all this was so hush-hush that I didn't even suspect the  web-spinning going
         on
 around me. I hadn't considered myself that  important. Anyone who wishes to
         inspect my
 FBI file is welcome to do so.  It's a masterpiece of intrigue, cunning
         and deception.
 
 
One day my wife, Bernice, our two youngsters and I were on a fishing  trip in Newport Beach.
 A U.S. marshal came out from behind our rented  cottage, arrested me and, without any 
explanation, whisked me off to the  Los Angeles County jail. Three days later, FBI agents 
whom I knew well  visited me there. They said that there had been a statewide manhunt for
  me and that I had been indicted along with 29 others before U.S.  Commissioner David B. Head 
during which the charge against me was read.  The federal prosecutor was Leo Silverstein, 
a character who looked like a  recycled transsexual. Two American Civil Liberties Union 
attorneys,  A.L. Wirin and Fred Okrand, visited me in jail. For some reason the ACLU  had
 decided to defend me. Its paper announced that while it was unusual  for the ACLU to defend 
"rightists," my case was a clear violation of  civil liberties. So I did not obtain a private lawyer.
My bail was  originally so high that I couldn't make it, but even when it was reduced  I still
 refused to post bond on general principles and spent several  months in jail while legal 
proceedings dragged on. The Justice  Department had so far failed to extradite me to Washington.
 I finally  agreed to go voluntarily, believing that since I wasn't guilty of  anything, a jury
         would
 certainly acquit me. Talk about naivete! A lawyer  warned me: "If they
         get you back there 
they'll railroad you for sure."  But I still had abiding
         belief in impartial American justice and
  bullheadedly insisted in going to Washington
         for trial. Federal Judge  Ralph Jenny finally 
ordered me released on my own recognizance
         and I  returned home to San Bernardino 
to prepare for the trip to Washington.
         I  was almost broke by then, so I asked the government 
to pay my railroad  fare.
         Accordingly, I was told to report to the U.S. Marshall in Los  Angeles
 for transportation,
         which I did. Two marshals reserved a drawing  room on the Sante Fe railroad 
and
         accompanied me. We became quite  friendly and called each other by our first names, 
but
         as we boarded the  train one of the marshals shame-facedly showed me a telegram he 
had
         received from Washington which ordered: "Bring the prisoner back in  chains and handcuffs." 
The marshall said,"Forget it, Dave. You're no  dangerous criminal." "Right," I replied, 
"but you aren't going to lose  your job for refusing to obey orders. You're going to do
         as ordered." 
So  that was that. I never missed an opportunity, when passing
         through a  crowd in a railroad 
station, to call out, "I'm a guest of your
         President, who is also your enemy, as you will 
someday find out."
 
 
An interesting
         sidelight at this time was when my dearly beloved wife  tried to find employment
         to support herself and the children after I  was jailed. She was from an old San Bernardino
 County pioneer family and  well thought of. She had worked in the court house before
 marrying me.  She was hired at the San Bernardino Air Depot and was praised for her  efficiency.
 But shortly thereafter, Col. Adrian Cote, who commanded the  depot, learned who she was 
and dismissed her on the ground that she was  the wife of David Baxter. He then told her in 
a letter, which I still  have, that if she wished to divorce me she could have her job back.
 When  she refused he wrote another letter telling her that she was discharged  with prejudice 
so that she could not get another job. All that happened  before I had been tried or been 
convicted of anything. (As it turned  out, I never was convicted of anything.) 
Yet even the school kids  taunted our youngsters, "You're daddy's in jail."
 
 
After my arrival in Washington I was not permitted
         freedom on my own  word, as I had
 been in Los Angeles, so that I couldn't find
         a job to  support my wife and kids. I was 
hustled off to the District jail without
         counsel or the opportunity to obtain a lawyer. The 
jail admission  officer was
         a big, sloppy-appearing guy who, after asking my name, 
said  to me, "What's
         your address? Where do you want your body shipped?"  Sedition 
defendants
         in the jail nicknamed him "Anus" (Annas was a high  priest at Jesus' trial.) 
He was an ornery rascal who liked to gloatingly  mention the execution chamber in the facility.
 
 
My cell was cold. My hearing was already bad
         and it became worse,  with earaches and
 no medical attention. The food was terrible,
          consisting mostly of plain bread and heavily-peppered
 soup, with one cup  of
         weak coffee. When fellow defendant Leon de Aryan once looked out
 the  barred window
         of the window of the dining room and remarked, "It looks  like rain," 
I
         glanced at my cup and replied, "Yeah, but it smells a  little like coffee." We were finally
 allowed a dish of chocolate pudding  as a special diet. The U.S. Marshal's bullpen in the
 District Court  House basement was even worse. Defendants George Viereck, Ralph  Townsend,
 Bill Lyman, Edward James Smythe and I were thrown into one  large room with a galaxy
 of criminals and suspects of all kinds. The  single toilet without a lid was covered with excrement
 and cigarette  butts, and a leaky old faucet was our only drinking supply. Our "dinner"
         
 consisted of one piece of bread, one slice of baloney, and coffee. 
Talk  about punishment before trial  --  and in our own American capital!
 
 
Bill Lyman was in England when the indictment
         was issued. Instead of  fleeing, he immediately
 booked passage home and surrendered
         himself to  the authorities. But rather than allowing 
him freedom to earn a living
          while awaiting trial, he was handcuffed and put in leg irons in 
the  District
         jail. After several months in jail, Howard S. Le Roy learned  that I was there and
         called on me. At first he was frankly skeptical of  my description of jail conditions, but after
 investigating on his own he  said that he had never known anything like it. Political prisoners
 were  usually treated more leniently and, if wealthy, were generally put  under mere "house arrest." 
Thanks to an old friend, Henry G. Reinsch of  Tacoma, Washington, who had never disowned
 me despite extreme pressure, I  was released on $1,000 bond. I still didn't like
 the bond idea, but it  was better than spending a lifetime in jail without trial.
 
 
Now this may seem
         absurd, but to this day I am thankful that my  enemies were successful 
in their
         persecution. The reason is that while  in the Washington jail I became a convert to 
Jesus
         Christ. You can bet  your bottom dollar that wasn't in the enemy's plans. Yet, thank
         God,  they were actually instrumental in bringing about that very thing. For  years I had been
 a confirmed agnostic, although my wife was a Christian.  It was while reading a Gideon Bible 
left in my cell that this  miraculous event occurred. As I was making notes on alleged biblical
  contradictions, expecting to someday write an article about this, I  found myself more and
 more drawn to Christ. What He said and His  apostles wrote made more sense than I had
 ever imagined. He had the same  enemies I had, but He certainly suffered infinitely more
 than I ever  did. What's more, I had to admit that I was a sinner and needed  spiritual salvation,
 which Jesus alone of all the prophets that ever  lived provided. The shedding of His blood
         
now really meant something to  me. Whatever happened to my mortal body, His enemies
         
and mine would  never be able to conquer my soul. I was so happy about my salvation
         that  it 
wasn't long before we even had a sizable Bible class among the  prisoners
         during the occasional 
recreation periods. A Washington  missionary named Harvey
         Prentice, in charge of the Gospel 
Mission, was a  big help during this period,
         bless his soul. So I returned to  California a Christian, 
much to the joy of Bernice
         and the kids, who ran  out to meet me on the porch late one night upon
 my arrival
         home.
 
 
In
         the meantime the federal courts in Washington threw out the  indictment and I wound 
up
         on Los Angeles's Skid Row trying in vain to  find a job. Every prospective employer was
 warned against hiring me.  Nevertheless, back in San Bernardino I started painting signs
 for  people, was welcomed by city officials who by now had their own ideas  about the 
cause of my trouble, spoke in churches, and soon ran a  thriving sign shop. The enemy
 arranged for another indictment in 1943  but the courts scuttled it. Despite that, a third
 indictment was issued  after Roosevelt appointed a New York lawyer named O. John Rogge
 to the  Justice Department as an assistant attorney general specially in charge  of the Sedition 
Case. Roosevelt also appointed a former Iowa  Congressman, Edward C. Eicher, as Chief 
Justice of the federal court in  Washington with direct orders to try the Sedition Case. 
Rogge was a  protege of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who had planted his
  "hot dog boys" in sensitive government positions.
 
 
Columnist Drew Pearson testified that Attorney General Francis Biddle
          had advised 
against the whole Mass Sedition venture from the beginning,  but
         Roosevelt ordered him 
to proceed anyway, adding, "I will appoint  the judge."
         With Eicher now in place as Chief 
Justice of the U.S.  District Court, the trial
         began on 17 April 1944 with Eicher presiding.
  There were some 30 defendants,
         including some of those originally  indicted. I well remember
 Mrs. Elizabeth Dilling,
         Joseph Dilling, Joseph  McWilliams, Lawrence Dennis, Robert Edmondson, 
Col. Eugene
         Sanctuary,  Robert Noble, Ellis Jones, German-American Bunders 
Herman Schwinn
         and  Hans Diebel, Garland Alderman, Prescott Dennett, Lois de Lafayette  Washburn,
         August Klapprott, Elmer J. Garner, George Deathage, William  Dudley Pelley, James True, 
and others. My name had appeared on all three  indictments, so it seemed that someone had 
a special interest in  wanting to railroad me into prison. Even though several of the  German-American
 Bundists had already been convicted in other trials,  they were added to our group in an effort
 to collectively discredit all  the defendants as alien and "un-American." Actually,
         those who
 arranged  our trial did not consider us the ultimate targets. Our trial
         was meant  to intimidate
 others and set an important precedent. After disposing
         of  us the people behind the venture 
planned to put the leading opponents of 
         Roosevelt's war policy on trial, including American
 First Committee  spokesman
         Charles A. Lindbergh, General Robert Wood of Sears Roebuck,  
several senators
         and congressmen, and possibly Father Charles E.  Coughlin and Henry Ford. 
Our
         trial was intended to be a "warm up" for  trials of really prominent Americans who dared
 oppose Roosevelt's  policies.
 
 
As one paper wrote, "all hell broke loose" when the trial opened. It  was covered
         in every 
American daily newspaper. Along with the Communist  sheets, Marshall
         Field's leftist
 New York paper PM bombarded us on page  one day after day. The
         liberal press was 
somewhat more restrained,  including the Washington Post,
         which had helped to instigate
 the  case. For some reason, though, their former
         star reporter, Dillard  Stokes, alias
 "Jefferson Breem," was missing
         from the courtroom. Most  conservative papers assumed 
a wait-and-see attitude,
         although the Chicago Tribune and the New York Daily News
  forthrightly
         opposed the Justice Department and gave decent, unbiased  coverage of the 
defendants.
         A United Press report published in those  papers in 1943 even went so far as to state:
 
 Under pressure from Jewish organizations, to judge from
          articles appearing in 
publications put out by Jews for Jews, the new  indictment even more than
         the first
 was drawn to include criticisms of  Jews as "sedition." It appeared that
         a main
 purpose of the whole  procedure, along with outlawing unfavorable comments on the
  administration, was to set a legal precedent of judicial interpretations  and severe 
penalties
         which would serve to exempt Jews in America from  all public mention except
 praise, in contrast
         to the traditional  American viewpoint which holds that all who take 
part in public affairs 
         must be ready to accept full free public discussion, either pro or con.
 
 
          I took Bernice and our children with me on this trip to Washington.  After prosecutor
         Rogge
 tried unsuccessfully to revoke my bond, we found  what passed for an apartment
         in a tenement.
 Because I was short of  funds, I had a court-appointed lawyer,
         Hobart Little, who was a 
 fraternity brother of Chief Justice Eicher. During the
         trial Hobart  roomed with Joseph McWilliams' 
lawyer, Maximilian St. George, and
         after  he learned the whole story about the case he took a
 really active  interest
         in defending me. That happened in the case of other defendants  as well,
 much
         to the consternation of the judge and prosecutor, who had  obviously intended to make
         short work of the Sedition Trial. Far from  letting their clients be sacrificed, court-appointed
 lawyers like James  McLaughlin stormed into court and in just a few days had the proceedings
  in an uproar. Mr. Little and I, however, remained calm and were careful  to show respect for 
an American court  --  even this one. The trial got  almost completely out of hand and Eicher 
spent a lot of time banging  his gavel. After at least a dozen attorneys were found in contempt,
 they  came into court wearing buttons bearing the insignia "E.C.C." When the  judge asked about
 the buttons, McLaughlin informed him that the initials  stood for "Eicher Contempt Club."
         The 
attorneys eventually named Eicher  a defendant in a suit they brought during
         the trial accusing
 him of  holding office illegally. He was not a resident of
         the District of  Columbia, as the law required.
 The judge once had to recess the
         trial to  defend himself against our lawyers in 
another court. As I recall, his
          case had still not been settled when he died.
 
 
The trial caused such a scandal that even the staid District Bar  Association found itself
 in an uproar about it. Lawyers not connected  with the Sedition Trial demanded an 
investigation and called the case a  "judicial farce." The Bar Association finally
         appointed a 
committee of  observers to sit in on the trial. A good example of
         the trial's legal  high jinks 
occurred when our little boy, David, came down sick
         and his  doctor reported that he 
suspected diptheria. After spending several 
         hours with David, I returned to the courtroom.
 Attorney McLaughlin then  immediately
         jumped up and said to the judge, "I move that the
 defendant  Baxter be seated
         next to Prosecutor Rogge." That made Rogge furious, but  the 
unrelenting
         pressure on him from some 30 lawyers kept him angry  most of the time anyway. 
He
         was losing his case and knew it. Even the  jury sometimes laughed when a defense lawyer 
needled the prosecutor.  Rogge spent much of his time reading from literature written by
 the  defendants. I could see from the jurors' faces that they were more bored  than impressed, 
waiting for him to present some direct evidence that  the accused were actually guilty of the 
charges he accused them of. He  never did that. Indeed, the thing became so loose that
 before long I was  even on friendly terms with the male jurors I often met in the  restroom, 
although we didn't discuss the trial. After about a month,  when Bernice and I entered the 
cafeteria, some of the jurors who were  having lunch called out, "Hey Dave, you and your wife
 bring your trays  over and eat with us." If they had voted, I doubt
         that a single one of  them would have convicted me.
 
         
Washington's a broiler in the summer. Our tenement was as hot as a  furnace,
         and Bernice
 and the kids really suffered. I found a job working  evenings after
         court sessions doing art work
 and lettering, but it only  lasted a couple of months.
         As usual, someone called on the boss and
  told him who I was. We received a little
         income from my California  business but the fellow I
 had left in charge was a
         poor manager and even  that source finally trickled out. The defense 
lawyers were
         unpaid but  they managed to collect a few small donations now and then which
 they
          shared with us. Mrs. Dilling, Dr. Winrod and a few other co-defendants  were more affluent
 and they collected about $100 each from their  followers for our family and others. I've never 
forgotten those two $100  gifts.
 
 
Fellow defendant Elmer J. "Pop" Garner was 82 years old and very  deaf. He had headlined
 me in his little Kansas paper, Publicity. Garner  could barely afford a cheap boarding room
 and during the noon recess all  he could afford for lunch was a doughnut and cup of coffee.
         
I wasn't in  much better shape, but "Pop" and I stuck it out and even
         joked during  our talks. 
"Pop" Garner was an old Kansas pioneer and
         one of the finest  men I've ever known. He 
couldn't hear a word of his trial and
         died after  a few months. Prosecutor Rogge had his body
 sent back to his widow
          stark naked in a plain pine box. That really enraged not only the  
defendants
         but even several newspapers and many people with common  decency. After
 his death,
         whenever Rogge mentioned old "Pop" before the  jury he referred to him as
         "the conspirator Garner." He never prefixed  the term "conspirator" to any of us still living, 
for we were there with  our lawyers. At least "Pop" Garner no
 longer had to endure the trial or  the Washington heat.
 
 
One torrid day I came home from court and said to Bernice and our
          youngsters, "Let's get
 out of here for a while, board a streetcar and go
          somewhere, anywhere, to cool off." So we
 boarded the first trolley that
          came along, marked "Cabin John." We didn't know where 
Cabin John was,
          or care, just so we could sit in the breeze as the car rolled along. The  
streetcar
         eventually left the city itself and followed the track  through beautiful, cool woods
         along the Potomac River. Bernice had an  inspiration and suggested that we get off at a stop
 and walk along the  river bank. We hiked along, admiring the woods and river, when we 
came  to an abandoned cruiser high up on the bank. It was a really nice little  ship and equipped
 for living. Even the engine was still in place. We  played Robinson Crusoe on it for a while and 
then continued our walk,  coming to a fishing camp a short distance away. We talked with the
 owner  of the camp, a man named Crampton. When we mentioned the boat, he said  that it 
had belonged to a Swedish mariner who had moored it to the river  bank, left and never 
returned. A flood had left it high and dry, and it  was now in receivership. Thinking that we might
 manage a small down  payment on the boat or rent it for the duration of the trial, we had 
         Crampton
 call up the receiver, who lived across the river. A short time  later
         he came over in a boat.
 
 
As it turned out, the receiver was anxious to settle the estate and,  after some haggling,
 told us we could have the cruiser for less than  $200 cash. That was most of the money
 we had left, but to this day I've  never heard of such a bargain. We bought it on the spot.
 Crampton and  some other men brought over some equipment and got the boat into the 
 water. It was in perfect condition and so, a few days later, we left the  tenement apartment
 and moved aboard our new home. During the remaining  months of the trial we lived in cool
 comfort on the river under a big  shade tree that hung out over the water. The kids went 
back and forth on  a gangplank and played in the woods. The fishing was excellent.
I rode  to court each morning on the street car. Of course, the other defendants  and their
 lawyers were always welcome aboard when they could visit us  and we were glad to be 
able to show them a good time. It was at least a  diversion from the bad time the Justice 
Department was giving us in  court.
 
 
After the first few months of excitement, the trial settled down to a  humdrum presentation
 of the government's case, which consisted of a  perpetual reading aloud of defendant
 literature by Rogge. The jurors  were getting fidgety and finally asked how long the case
 would last.  They had had to neglect their business and family affairs and were  obviously
 bored stiff. On one occasion, while Rogge was heatedly  denouncing a defendant as an
 "anti-Semite," one of them glanced at me  and yawned. Later, in the wash room, he
         didn't
 say a word to me, but  shook his head, gave me a slight smile, and managed
         a little wink.
 I  don't think that Justice Eicher ever realized what he was getting
         into  when Roosevelt 
decided to use him. Eicher was a professing Christian  --
           an Iowa Mennonite  --  and the case 
was obviously getting on his  nerves. He
         became more testy as the trial droned on and finally 
asked  Rogge when he was
         going to start presenting solid evidence. The fact was  that 
Rogge didn't have
         any, as was later proved. The case might have  gone on for years.
 
 
Then suddenly one day Judge Eicher asked me to stand up and announced
          that he was
 severing me from the case on the ground that I wasn't able  to hear
         my own trial. That was
 true. My hearing had declined from the  time of my imprisonment
         so that I was now 85 
percent deaf. I wore a  hearing aid but the devices were
         far from their present-day level of
  near-perfection. I couldn't hear a single
         witness on the stand some  fifty feet away and my
 lawyer had to translate for
         me. What caused  Eicher to make his decision is conjectural. 
Several times attorney
          Little had moved for a severance for me because I was deaf, 
but Eicher  had overruled
         him. And yet, after several months, he ordered me to see a  
specialist for a hearing
         examination. After receiving the specialist's  report he severed me
 without even
         a motion from Mr. Little to do so.  Later that day Judge Eicher asked to see
 me
         privately in his chamber.  When we met he smiled, held out his hand, and said: "Go
 back to  California and forget about it, Dave." Frankly, I was glad to be through  with the whole
 ordeal, as were Bernice and Mr. Little, who were there  with me. So I replied, "Well,
         your
 honor, forgetting it won't be easy,  but as a Christian I'm glad to forgive."
         We immediately 
sold the cruiser  and were preparing to take a train to California
         when Eicher again  asked 
to talk to me. This time he said that if we wanted to
         buy an  automobile and drive back he
 would help, and actually handed me a whole
          roll of gasoline coupons. (During the war every 
motorist had to have  those coupons
         to buy gasoline, which was severely rationed.) All the
  same, we returned by train,
         but back in California we had a car and  those coupons certainly
 came in handy.
 
 
Judge Eicher then
         began severing other defendants, even though Rogge was far 
from resting his case.
         The Washington Post (16 July 1944) commented editorially:
 
 The severance of three cases from Washington's mass  sedition trial is the
         best news
 that has come out of this dreary affair  in Justice Eicher's court. It clearly suggests
         
belated recognition of  the mistake that was made in bringing 30 individuals of widely
 varying  temperaments and backgrounds to trial at the same time 
and place for a  series
         of alleged offenses classified as sedition.
 
 One defendant recently died. Another
         is too ill to attend court  sessions regularly. 
A third found it difficult to follow the proceedings
          because of limited hearing. A fourth 
proved to be so obstreperous as  seriously to interfere
         with the progress of the trial.
 In other words,  the exigencies of human life are such as to
         defeat most any attempt
 to  dispose of complicated criminal charges en masse with both fairness
         and  dispatch. 
It is a pity that the Department of Justice did not foresee  this elementary 
objection to mass trials before embarking on such an  adventure.
 
 The fact
         that four cases have been eliminated from the trial is  overshadowed, therefore,
 by the larger
         fact that 26 cases remain before  the court. We hope that better progress 
can be made but no
         end to even  the presentation of evidence by the prosecution is in 
sight after 13  weeks. How
         can the jurymen be expected to remember testimony given
 many  weeks before their verdict will
         be rendered? How can they, in these  circumstances, 
distinguish the varying degrees of guilt,
         if any, among  the 26 remaining defendants? 
We fear that whatever may be the outcome of  this
         trial it will stand as
 a black mark against American justice for  many years to come.
 
         
  Such were the remarkable words of the very paper
         whose own reporter  had plotted with
 the original prosecutor to entrap the defendants
         and  bring them to trial in Washington.
 "Oh what tangled webs we weave, when
          first we practice to deceive." As if to add insult
 to injury, the Post
          issued another blistering editorial some two weeks later headed
  "Courtroom
         Farce." (28 July 1944). The lengthy editorial included these  remarks:
 
 We think the time has come to recognize the unlikelihood  of securing any fair
 approximation of justice from this unhappy  experiment. The end of the Government's
         testimony is nowhere in sight.  Prosecutors have 4000 exhibits to offer in evidence 
and only
         about  one-eighth of them are in the record at present. At its present rate of 
 progress, therefore,
         the trial may run on for several years after the  war is over. 
Meanwhile it is gravely undermining
         confidence in American  justice.
 
 
  The editorial concluded:
 
 After all, this is a trial of men and women accused of  sedition, not a contest in 
befuddlement.
         In our opinion the trial can  continue its present course only at the 
cost of serious impairment
         of  our judicial system and the reputation of those
 responsible for this  travesty.
 
         
  Apparently the Post didn't consider itself
         among those  responsible for what it now called
 "this travesty." In
         any case, the  paper indignantly withdrew its reporter, James Chinn, from 
the
          courtroom. Post Managing editor A.F. Jones told a PM reporter:  "I'm not going to keep 
a man tied up on a lot of baloney." Seeing the  way the trial was going, it's clear that the 
Washington Post was  now anxious to obscure its own role in bringing it about. The paper
 was  now calling the case a "black mark against American justice for many  years to come" 
and a "travesty."
 
 
What remained of the ill-fated Sedition Trial ended abruptly when
          Justice Eicher died 
suddenly of a heart attack on 30 November 1944. That  trial
         could have killed any judge
 with a Christian conscience and any  semblance of
         fairness. I felt genuinely sorry about 
Justice Eicher's  death. Although Rogge
         was still reluctant to end the business, he
 now  had a new judge to contend with.
         Justice Bolitha Laws, a veteran federal  judge in
 the District of Columbia, took
         over and promptly made it clear  that he was a no-nonsense
 jurist who wanted definite
         and purposeful  action. After Roosevelt died suddenly and 
mysteriously in April
         1945,  Rogge admitted to Justice Laws that he had a weak case, 
but with the  European
         part of the war over, he asked for time to visit Germany to  interview 
Nazi officials
         and get evidence. After all, he had accused the  defendants of having 
conspired
         with Adolf Hitler and German officials  in the indictment. Laws granted Rogge's
         request for a continuance in  order to question former high Nazis in Germany. Several months
 later  Rogge again appeared before his honor. He was empty-handed. None of the  Nazi 
officials had ever heard of me. They knew that one defendant,  George Sylvester Viereck,
 had been a registered American agent for the  German government before the war, when 
such representation was  (and is) quite legal. Most foreign governments retain
 respected  Americans who are registered to represent their interests.
 
 
Justice Laws repeatedly asked Rogge if he wanted
         a new trial. When  the prosecutor kept
 hesitating and even expressed doubt about
         the  government's chances of winning, 
Laws blasted the Justice Department for
          its "lack of diligence" (in his exact words), 
and dismissed Rogge for
          good. The new President, Harry Truman, then fired Rogge.
 It later turned  out
         that Rogge had been a good friend of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin,  was
 involved
         in numerous Communist front groups, and had visited Russia  where he spoke
 in
         the Kremlin and laid a wreath at the grave of American  Communist Party co-founder
         John Reed in Red Square. His wreath was  inscribed, "In loving memory from grateful 
Americans." Along with movie  actor Charlie Chaplin, Rogge was an American delegate
 to a world  Communist "peace conference" in Paris and was a lawyer for many  Communists
 in trouble with the law. He was the attorney for David  Greenglass, the atomic spy who 
saved his own life by turning state's  evidence against his sister and brother-in-law, Ethel
 and Julius  Rosenberg. The Rosenbergs went to the electric chair for turning over  U.S.
 atomic secrets to the Soviets. John Rogge, Roosevelt's choice to  prosecute the
 Sedition Trial and Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter's  right-hand man, was thus eventually
 exposed for what he was. No wonder  he was so fanatical in his hatred against the Sedition 
Trial defendants,  all of whom were anti-Communists. After Justice Eicher severed me from
  the case, Rogge met me in the deserted courtroom and called me a  "fascist" to 
my face. "Fascist" is a favorite term Communists apply to  their enemies.
 
 
With Rogge out, an assistant attorney general
         who had helped him  named T. Lamar Caudle
 took over. Probably prompted by the
         same people  who had been behind Rogge, Caudle
 tried to continue the persecution
         and  appealed Justice Laws' decision to the U.S. Court of
 Appeals. But that  court
         turned him down, using strong language. Caudle was himself later
  convicted of
         "fixing" the income tax of a St. Louis merchant named Wolfe  and he received
         five years in the federal penitentiary.
 
 
It should be noted that during those five years and three  indictments, the public was
continuously propagandized against us in  radio broadcasts and best-selling books. I was
 attacked in at least five  books. One was the famous best seller Under Cover by John
 Roy Carlson. It turned out that "Carlson" was one Avedis Derounian, a writer for
         the 
Communist Daily Worker  newspaper. Radio propagandist Walter Winchell
         had collaborated
 with him  on the book and then advertised it over nationwide
         radio. Derounian,  alias "Carlson,"
 was later found guilty of libel
         in United States  District Court in Chicago. Trial judge Barnes 
commented in sentencing
          that Derounian would "write anything for a dollar" and that, after
          hearing the evidence, he would not "believe anything Derounian said  under oath." A similar
 best-selling book of the time, warmly promoted by  Winchell, Drew Pearson and then 
U.S. Senator Claude Pepper of Florida,  was Sabotage: The Secret War Against America. 
The authors were  Michael Sayers and Albert E. Kahn, later reported by congressional  investigators 
to be members of the Communist Party. But at the time the  public was given to understand 
that all these propagandists were just  good American patriots exposing America's enemies.
 
 
Well, five years
         of this was enough for me. I went to work, paid off all our bills, worked
 for
         the Santa Ana (California) Register  for a couple of years, wrote a syndicated column,
 studied theology, and  thought I was through with politics. But not the real conspirators 
who  had all but ruined our family life and seen their court case blown to  smithereens. A 
couple of years after the trial, one of the Congressional  spokesmen, Adolph Sabath of
 Illinois, began beating the drum to start a  whole new Sedition proceeding and started
 pressuring the Justice  Department.
 
 
So now I'll tell you why I'm not made of the stuff of heroes. I gave  up. My nerves were
 half shot from the five-year persecution. At that  time a "friend" visited to tell
         me that if I
 wished to make my peace  with Mr. Sabath and avoid further molestation,
         I could write 
Sabath a  letter apologizing for my alleged "anti-Semitism"
         and assuring him that  because
 I had become a Christian and was confining myself
         to religious  affairs, I would not return 
to political activity. At first I strongly
          rejected this "offer." Furthermore, I really wasn't 
anti-Jewish as
         such,  and felt that that point should be clarified. 
(Of course, the  Anti-Defamation
         League was quite another matter.)
 
 
I was concerned about my children and my wife, Bernice, who begged me  to ask Sabath's
 mercy. She pleaded, "Dave, we can't stand any more. We  don't want to die. 
For my sake and our children's, please don't let us  go through this again."
 
 
I caved in and
         wrote the required letter to the Congressman. I  received a cordial reply. 
The
         pressure on the Justice Department stopped  as suddenly as it had begun. 
The incident
         demonstrated the terrifying  power to manipulate the United States government
         wielded by hidden  forces. I was now out of the game, broken and disillusioned. I had
         given  my all to be a solid American but there's a limit to every person's  endurance. I 
recovered enough to become a well-known newspaper editor,  theologian and writer 
for many Christian magazines. And I sometimes  became involved in issues requiring 
that I take a firm stand one way or  another. Thank God, I still have some of that spirit at
 76 years of age.  I have no regrets about the Sedition Trial. Bernice and I celebrated  our 
golden wedding anniversary in 1983. Our children are now middle-aged  and successful. 
We are still firmly dedicated to our Christian faith  and American nationalism, with charity
 toward all and malice toward  none.
 
 
For the sake of the historical record I would still like to see the  U.S. Congress acknowledge
 that an injustice was done against 30 American  citizens in the Sedition Case. Not one of us
         
ever received a penny in  compensation for our mistreatment and expenses, much
         less
 any official  acknowledgment that our government made a serious mistake.
         Only 
 Congressional committees have made such admissions. Yes, I would like to
          see our 
Congress vindicate itself before history by at least partially  erasing
         what the Washington
 Post called "a black mark against 
         American justice" and the federal courts declared 
"a travesty upon 
         justice." I believe that God will one day bring this about.
 
 From The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985 (Vol.  6, No. 1), pages 23-40. 
This article is adapted from a paper presented  at the Sixth IHR Conference,
         Feb. 1985, in Anaheim, California.,
 
 
 About the Author
 
 
Born in 1908, David M. Baxter, died in February 1989 in Morrilton,
         Arkansas.
 
 
         For more about the wartime sedition trial, see A Trial on Trial: The Great Sedition Trial of 1944,
 a book by the most prominent defendant, Lawrence Dennis, and his lawyer, Maximilian St. George.