L. A. Stebbins, of Chicago, Illinois, ex-attorney for the Red Cross, in July, 1916, in a written report to the Library Committee of the House, and to which report he makes affidavit, refers to the charges of 1903 and 1904 in words such as follow: “The _only witness_ ever produced to give testimony;—testimony was wholly unworthy of credit—false and untrue;—for blackmailing purposes;—clearly indicating blackmail.”
On February 20, 1903, as elsewhere stated, the “remonstrants” certified in writing (certification of record) as to the “integrity, good name and fame of Clara Barton.” At the investigation held in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Room on April 12, 1904, _in re_ the terrifying twenty-four page “remonstrance” before the Proctor Red Cross Committee, General John M. Wilson, himself a “remonstrant” and representing the “remonstrants” on that occasion, among other things said “We do not charge that anybody has been guilty of malfeasance,” in Red Cross affairs.
Referring to this very occasion, Major-General W. R. Shafter, Commander of the American Army in the Spanish-American War, in 1904 while the case was pending, said: “If the charges made against Clara Barton were true, no gentleman could afford to be mixed up in the affair, but not one word uttered against her _is_ true.” Clara Barton, in 1911, referring to that now historic event, said: “The harvest is not what the reapers expected, and I suspect if it were all to be done over again in the light of their newly-gained experience, it would not be done.”
To the credit of man’s respect for historic truth in official decisions, and his innate American chivalry, since the exoneration in 1904 there is not, at least of record, by any man an adverse criticism of the Red Cross Founder. _The perversion of the truth of history, however, by woman is as injurious to the public weal as such perversion by man, and through no ingenuous excuse of chivalry for a live woman, and against a dead woman, should untruth have countenance._ The investigation, for want of evidence, was _summarily dismissed_, on motion of the Committee itself. It thus became a mere farcical episode in American history.
The written certification of the Founder’s “integrity,” by the “remonstrants” in 1903; the oral disclaimer by the “remonstrants” of _any_ Red Cross malfeasance in office officially proclaimed at the investigation in 1904, followed by a unanimous decision adverse to the “remonstrants,” the incident then should have been closed. The “accusation,” however, of even worse import than that originally in the _indictment_, by the “remonstrants” of 1903 and of 1904, again comes to the attention of the public in a semi-official way, from the same “lone woman accuser,” and is still a living factor in Red Cross policy,—still coming—still going—never ending—