Download the full version of the testbank or solution manual at

https://testbankdeal.com

Calculus for Business Economics Life Sciences

and Social Sciences 13th Edition Barnett
Solutions Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/calculus-for-
business-economics-life-sciences-and-social-
sciences-13th-edition-barnett-solutions-manual/

Explore and download more testbank or solution manual

at https://testbankdeal.com
 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Calculus for Business Economics Life Sciences and Social

Sciences 13th Edition Barnett Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/calculus-for-business-economics-life-
sciences-and-social-sciences-13th-edition-barnett-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com

College Mathematics for Business Economics Life Sciences

and Social Sciences 13th Edition Barnett Solutions Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/college-mathematics-for-business-
economics-life-sciences-and-social-sciences-13th-edition-barnett-
solutions-manual/
testbankdeal.com

Finite Mathematics for Business Economics Life Sciences

and Social Sciences 13th Edition Barnett Solutions Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/finite-mathematics-for-business-
economics-life-sciences-and-social-sciences-13th-edition-barnett-
solutions-manual/
testbankdeal.com

Web Development and Design Foundations with HTML5 6th

Edition Terry Felke-Morris Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/web-development-and-design-
foundations-with-html5-6th-edition-terry-felke-morris-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com
Biochemistry Concepts and Connections 1st Edition Appling
Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/biochemistry-concepts-and-
connections-1st-edition-appling-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com

Oceanography An Invitation to Marine Science 9th Edition

Garrison Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/oceanography-an-invitation-to-marine-
science-9th-edition-garrison-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com

Human Development A Life Span View 6th Edition Kail Test

Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/human-development-a-life-span-
view-6th-edition-kail-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com

Fraud Examination 4th Edition Albrecht Solutions Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/fraud-examination-4th-edition-
albrecht-solutions-manual/

testbankdeal.com

International Business The Challenges of Globalization 8th

Edition Wild Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/international-business-the-
challenges-of-globalization-8th-edition-wild-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com
Managerial Economics Foundations of Business Analysis and
Strategy 12th Edition Thomas Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/managerial-economics-foundations-of-
business-analysis-and-strategy-12th-edition-thomas-test-bank/

testbankdeal.com
Calculus Chapter 5

Name ________________________________ Date ______________ Class ____________

Section 5-1 Antiderivatives and Indefinite

Integrals
Goal: To find antiderivatives and indefinite integrals of functions using the formulas and
properties

Theorem 1 Antiderivatives

If the derivative’s of two functions are equal on an open interval (a, b), then the
functions differ by at most a constant. Symbolically, if F and G are differentiable functions
on the interval (a, b) and F '( x)  G '( x) for all x in (a, b), then F ( x)  G ( x)  k for some
constant k.

Formulas and Properties of Indefinite Integrals

For C and k both a constant

x n1
1.  x n dx   C, n  1
n 1
x x
2.  e dx  e  C
1
3.  dx  ln x  C , x0
x
4.  kf ( x) dx  k  f ( x) dx
5.  [ f ( x)  g ( x)]dx   f ( x)dx   g ( x)dx

In Problems 1–3, find each indefinite integral and check by differentiating.

1.  12x dx

y   12 x dx Check: y  6 x 2  C
12 x 2 dy
y C  12 x  0
2 dx
dy
y  6 x2  C  12 x
dx

5-1
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

1
2.  9x 2 dx

1 3
y   9x 2 dx Check: y  6 x 2 C
3 1
9x 2 dy 3 6 x 2
y C   0
3 dx 2 1
2
3 dy 1
2 9x 2  9x 2
y  C dx
3 1
3
y  6x 2 C

3.  2e x dx

y   2e x dx Check: y  2e x  C
y  2e x  C dy
 2e x  0
dx
dy
 2e x
dx

dy
4. Find all the antiderivatives for  3z 1  7.
dz

dy
 3 z 1  7
dz
dy  (3 z 1  7)dz
dy  ( 3z  7)dz
3
 dy   ( z  7) dz
y  3ln z  7 z  C

5-2
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

In Problems 5–8, find each indefinite integral.

5.  x3 ( x 2  2 x  8) dx

3 2 5 4 3
 x ( x  2 x  8) dx   ( x  2 x  8 x ) dx
x 6 2 x5 8 x 4
   C
6 5 4
x 6 2 x5
   2 x4  C
6 5

 3 
6.   2  x5  dx
x 

 3 5 2
5
  2  x  dx   3 x  x 2 dx
x  
7
3 x 1 x 2
  7 C
1 2

3 2 x7
  C
x 7

 5x  3 
7.   3  dx
 x 

 5x  3   5 3
  3  dx    2  3  dx
 x  x x 

  5 x 2  3x 3 dx 
5 x 1 3 x 2
  C
1 2
5 3
   2 C
x 2x

5-3
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

 5 x5  3 x 6 e x 
8.    dx
 x6 

 5 x5  3 x 6 e x  5 x
 6  dx    x  3e  dx
 x 
 5ln x  3e x  C

In Problems 9–12, find the particular antiderivative of each derivative that satisfies
the given conditions.

9. R '( x)  8 x3  9 x 2  2; R (1)  16

First find the indefinite integral of the function.

R ( x)   (8 x3  9 x 2  2) dx
8 x 4 9 x3 2 x1
R ( x)    C
4 3 1
R ( x )  2 x 4  3 x3  2 x  C

Using the condition given, find the specific value of C.

R ( x )  2 x 4  3 x3  2 x  C
16  2(1) 4  3(1)3  2(1)  C
16  2  3  2  C
16  7  C
9C

Substituting the specific value of C yields the particular equation

R ( x)  2 x 4  3 x3  2 x  9.

5-4
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

dy
10.  5et  4t  8; y (0)  8
dt

First find the indefinite integral of the function.

dy  (5et  4t  8)dt
t
 dy   (5e  4t  8) dt
4t 2 8t1
y  5et   C
2 1
y  5et  2t 2  8t  C

Using the condition given, find the specific value of C.

y  5et  2t 2  8t  C
8  5e0  2(0) 2  8(0)  C
8  500C
8  5C
3C

Substituting the specific value of C yields the particular equation

y  5et  2t 2  8t  3.

5-5
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

dD 5 x 2  9
11.  ; D(9)  50
dx x2

First find the indefinite integral of the function.

 5x2  9 
dD    dx
 x2 
dD  (5  9 x 2 )dx
2
 dD   (5  9 x ) dx
5 x1 9 x 1
D ( x)   C
1 1
9
D ( x)  5 x   C
x

Using the condition given, find the specific value of C.

9
D ( x)  5 x  C
x
9
50  5(9)   C
9
50  45  1  C
50  46  C
4C

9
Substituting the specific value of C yields the particular equation D( x)  5 x   4.
x

5-6
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

12. h '( x)  6 x 1  7 x 2 ; h(1)  3

First find the indefinite integral of the function.

h '( x)  6 x 1  7 x 2
h( x)   ( 6x  7 x 2 ) dx

7 x 1
h( x)  6 ln x  C
1
7
h( x)  6 ln x   C
x

Using the condition given, find the specific value of C.

7
h( x)  6 ln x  C
x
7
3  6 ln 1   C
1
3  6(0)  7  C
3 7C
4  C

Substituting the specific value of C yields the particular equation

7
h( x)  6 ln x   4.
x

5-7
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

5-8
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

Name ________________________________ Date ______________ Class ____________

Section 5-2 Integration by Substitution

Goal: To find the indefinite integrals using general indefinite integral formulas

Formulas: General Indefinite Integral Formulas

n [ f ( x)]n1
1.  [ f ( x)] f '( x)dx   C, n  1
n 1
2.  e f ( x ) f '( x)dx  e f ( x )  C
1
3.  f '( x)dx  ln f ( x)  C
f ( x)
n u n1
4.  u du   C, n  1
n 1
5.  eu du  eu  C
1
6.  du  ln u  C
u

Definition: Differentials

If y  f ( x) defines a differentiable function, then

1. The differential dx of the independent variable x is an arbitrary real number.
2. The differential dy of the dependent variable y is defined as the product of
f '( x) and dx: dy  f '( x)dx

Procedure: Integration by Substitution

1. Select a substitution that appears to simplify the integrand. In particular, try to

select u so the du is a factor in the integrand.
2. Express the integrand entirely in terms of u and du, completely eliminating the
original variable and its differential.
3. Evaluate the new integral if possible.
4. Express the antiderivative found in step 3 in terms of the original variable.

5-9
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

In Problems 1–8, find each indefinite integral and check the result by differentiating.

1.  (3 x 2  7 x  2)3 (6 x  7) dx

Let u  3 x 2  7 x  2, therefore du  (6 x  7)dx. Rewrite the original integral in terms

of the variable u and solve.

y   (3 x 2  7 x  2)3 (6 x  7) dx
y   u 3du
u4
y C
4
1
y  (3 x 2  7 x  2) 4  C
4

Check:

1
y (3 x 2  7 x  2) 4  C
4
dy 1 d
 (4)(3 x 2  7 x  2)3 (3 x 2  7 x  2)
dx 4 dx
dy
 (3 x 2  7 x  2)3 (6 x  7)
dx

2.  5 (3x 4  8 x  2)(12 x3  8) dx

Let u  3 x 4  8 x  2, therefore du  (12 x3  8)dx. Rewrite the original integral in terms

of the variable u and solve.

y   5 (3x 4  8 x  2)(12 x3  8) dx
1
y   (3 x 4  8 x  2) 5 (12 x3  8) dx
1
y   u 5 du
6
u 5
y 6
C
5
5 6
y (3 x 4  8 x  2) 5  C
6
5
y  5 (3 x 4  8 x  2)6  C
6
5-10
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Visit https://testbankdead.com
now to explore a rich
collection of testbank,
solution manual and enjoy
exciting offers!
Calculus Chapter 5

Check:
5
y  5 (3x 4  8 x  2)6  C
6
5 6
y  (3x 4  8 x  2) 5  C
6
dy 5  6  4 1 d
   (3x  8 x  2) 5 (3 x 4  8 x  2)
dx 6  5  dx
dy 1
 (3x 4  8 x  2) 3 (12 x3  8)
dx
dy 5
 (3 x 4  8 x  2)(12 x3  8)
dx

t3  2
3.  dt
2t 4  16t  1

Let u  2t 4  16t  1, therefore du  (8t 3  16)dt  du  8(t 3  2)dt. Rewrite the

original integral in terms of the variable u and solve.

1 8(t 3  2)
y  4 dt
8 2t  16t  1
1 1
y   du
8 u
1
y  ln u  C
8
ln 2t 4  16t  1
y C
8

Check:
ln 2t 4  16t  1
y C
8
dy 1 d
 (2t 4  16t  1)
dt 8(2t 4  16t  1) dx
dy 1
 4
(8t 3  16)
dt 8(2t  16t  1)
dy t3  2
 4
dt 2t  16t  1
5-11
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

4.  e 0.9 x dx

Let u  0.9 x, therefore du  0.9dx. Rewrite the original integral in terms of the
variable u and solve.

y   e0.9 x dx
1 0.9 x
y e (0.9dx)
0.9
1 u
y  e du
0.1
1 u
y e C
0.9
10
y   e 0.9 x  C
9

Check:

y   10
9
e 0.9 x  C
dy 10 d
  e 0.9 x (0.9 x)
dx 9 dx
dy
  109
e 0.9 x (0.9)
dx
dy
 e 0.9 x
dx

5.  x( x  7)7 dx

Let u  x  7, therefore du  dx. If we rewrite the original integral in terms of the

variable u, the substitution would not be complete. We also need u  7  x. Now rewrite the
original integral in terms of u and solve.

y   x( x  7)7 dx
y   (u  7)u 7 du
y   (u8  7u 7 ) du
u 9 7u8
y  C
9 8
( x  7)9 7( x  7)8
y  C
9 8
5-12
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

Check:
( x  7)9 7( x  7)8
y  C
9 8
dy 1 d 7 d
 (9)( x  7)8 ( x  7)  (8)( x  7)7 ( x  7)
dt 9 dx 8 dx
dy
 ( x  7)8  7( x  7)7
dt
dy
 ( x  7)7 ( x  7  7)
dt
dy
 x( x  7)7
dt

2(ln(3x 2 )) 4
6.  dx
x

6x 2
Let u  ln(3x 2 ), therefore du  dx  du  dx. Rewrite the original integral in
3x 2 x
terms of the variable u and solve.

2(ln(3 x 2 )) 4
y dx
x
y   u 4 du
u5
y C
5

 ln 3x 
5
2
y C
5

Check:

 
5
ln 3 x 2
y C
5
dy 1 d
 (5)(ln 3x 2 )4 (ln 3x 2 )
dt 5 dx
dy 6x
 (ln 3x 2 ) 4 2
dt 3x
2 4
dy 2(ln 3 x )

dt x
5-13
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

1  1
7.  e x5 dx
6
x

Let u   x 5 , therefore du  5 x 6 dx  du  5 dx. Rewrite the original integral in

x6
terms of the variable u and solve.

1  1
y e x5 dx
6
x
1  1 x5 5
y e  6 dx
5 x
1
y   eu du
5
1 u
y  e C
5
1 15
y  e x C
5

Check:

1  1
x5
y e C
5
dy 1  1
d
 e x5 ( x 5 )
dt 5 dx
dy 1  1
x5 (5 x 6 )
 e
dt 5
 1
5
dy e x

dt x6

5-14
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Calculus Chapter 5

dy
8.  12 x 2 (2 x3  7)5  dy  12 x 2 (2 x3  7)5 dx
dx

Let u  2 x3  7, therefore du  6 x 2 dx. Rewrite the original integral in terms of the

variable u and solve.

y   12 x 2 (2 x3  7)5 dx
y   2(2 x3  7)5 6 x 2 dx
y  2 u 5 du
2u 6
y C
6
1
y  (2 x3  7)6  C
3

Check:

1
y  (2 x3  7)6  C
3
dy 1 d
 (6)(2 x3  7)5 (2 x3  7)
dt 3 dx
dy
 2(2 x3  7)5 (6 x 2 )
dt
dy
 12 x 2 (2 x3  7)5
dt

9. The indefinite integral can be found in more than one way. Given the integral,
2 2
 2 x( x  3) dx, first use the substitution method to find the indefinite integral and
then find it without using substitution.

Using substitution, let u  x 2  3, therefore du  2 x dx. Rewrite the original integral in

terms of the variable u and solve.

y   2 x( x 2  3) 2 dx
y   u 2 du
u3
y C
3
1
y  ( x 2  3)3  C
3
5-15
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
carrying supplies to British vessels outside New York harbor in
violation of the laws of neutrality. In this frame-up the Burns agency
was caught red-handed, but was given immunity from prosecution
because its clients could better be caught by holding this club over
Burns’ head. Recently, when the Workers’ Party called a mass
meeting in our national capital, at which Robert Minor was
announced to tell this story, the use of the hall was mysteriously
withdrawn, and Mr. William J. Burns, in his capacity as chief of the
United States Secret Service, raided the offices of the sponsors of
the meeting and arrested a dozen men.
 CHAPTER III
IN WHICH I GET ARRESTED

The purpose of the previous chapter was to explain to you the

series of events whereby it came about that Upton Sinclair,
muckraker and enemy of society, was in the office of the president
of the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Association of Los Angeles, at
ten o’clock on the morning of Monday, May 7th, 1923.
My brother-in-law, Hunter Kimbrough, and myself had come
without appointment; at the same time two gentlemen came in who
had an appointment—so a polite clerk explained. I had not
presented my card, and no one there knew either Kimbrough or
myself; we were invited to sit down, and did so, while the other
gentlemen were escorted into the inner office. We made no effort to
listen to what went on, but we had to hear it, because the door of
the inner office was left ajar, and the talk was carried on in tones
which caused the clerks in the outer office to drop their work and
look at one another and grin.
“Who is that?” asked the young lady stenographer.
“That’s Mr. Hammond,” was the answer of the chief clerk. “He
owns a couple of hundred thousand acres of timber land, and he’s
got about twenty ships tied up at the harbor.”
“Oh,” said the young lady stenographer, “then he’s got a right to
pound on the table.”
He exercised his right, and pounded, and cursed so freely that the
young lady was moved to get up and close the office door; but still
we heard the uproar. The substance of it was that the San Pedro
strike, which had been on for about two weeks, must be smashed
without another day’s delay. Mr. Rice argued and expostulated; they
were doing their best. Finally he promised there would be “a
meeting” that afternoon, and arrangements would be made. That
you may understand clearly, I explain that Mr. Andrew B. Hammond,
president of the Hammond Lumber Company, is one of the big “open
shop” despots of San Francisco, a bigger man even than Mr. Rice;
and he had come down on the night train to lay down the law to the
timid crowd at Los Angeles and insist that his ships be moved.
Wishing to make sure there was no mistake in identity, I engaged
the head clerk in conversation, asking him how long he thought
“those irate ship-owners” would stay in there. He rose to the bait
and discussed the “irate ship-owners,” assuring me that they would
not need to stay much longer; the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’
Association was not going to have any trouble in opening up the
harbor. Subsequently, as part of the preparing of this manuscript, I
wrote to Mr. Hammond, asking if he cared to deny that he was in Mr.
Rice’s office at the hour specified. He did not reply.
Come now to San Pedro, where three thousand men are fighting
to get their babies a chance to grow up into full-sized human beings.
They have won their strike, they have won it strictly under the law;
they have kept order rigidly—having even smashed the boot-leggers,
to the great dismay of the police! Here again I do not have to ask
you to take my word for it: Police Captain Plummer, in command at
the harbor, stated to my brother-in-law, Hunter Kimbrough, in the
presence of several witnesses, that he had no fault to find with the
I. W. W., they were fine fellows, and had kept order through the
strike. Also he stated in the presence of witnesses: “I smashed that
strike.” Before an investigating committee of the clergymen of Los
Angeles he stated: “Yes, I said that, and I’ll say it again.” Officer
Wyckoff—who arrested us—stated to Hunter Kimbrough, in the
presence of two ladies, whose signed statements I have, that “Black
Jack” Jerome, the strike-breaker, had brought in hundreds of
gunmen, heavily armed; Captain Plummer had disarmed them, but
someone saw to it that they received another supply of arms.
Mr. Hammond and his Shipyard Owners’ Association and his horde
of gunmen having failed to provoke violence, or to move the ships,
Mr. Rice must act; and how is he to act? For ten or twenty years he
and his Black Hand have been preparing for precisely such an
emergency; they have been buying both political machines, and
controlling the nominations of all candidates, so that now they have
their own governor, their own legislators, their own mayor, their own
city council, their own chief of police, and their own judges. They
control the governmental machine from top to bottom; and they give
the orders, let this strike be smashed.
The man who put through the job is Asa Keyes, then deputy
district attorney, since promoted to be district attorney as reward for
his efficiency. “The mayor is not handling this situation,” said Chief of
Police Oaks to me. “The man we’re getting our orders from is Asa
Keyes, and if you want to speak at the harbor, see him.” Keyes is the
man who has been enforcing the “suspicion of criminal syndicalism”
law; he pays an army of secret agents and provocateurs, and a year
or two ago he stated to two different informants of mine: “I have
spent between four and five thousand dollars, trying to ‘get’ Kate
Crane Gartz and Upton Sinclair. If ever I become chief, I will spend
ten times that amount to ‘get’ them.”
Mr. Rice, Mr. Keyes, Chief Oaks, and Captain Plummer attended
the “meeting” which Mr. Rice promised to Mr. Hammond. “I have
attended several conferences of the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’
Association,” said the naive Captain Plummer to Hunter Kimbrough,
in the presence of witnesses. “Mr. Rice was present and Mr. Marco
Hellman, and others.” Marco Hellman, the biggest banker of Los
Angeles, we shall hear of again before long.
In the early days of the strike a Presbyterian clergyman and
Harvard graduate was arrested while addressing the strikers, the
charge being “blocking traffic.” Police Magistrate Sheldon, in
sentencing him to jail, said: “Why don’t you hire a hall, or speak
upon private property? Then you will not be molested.” The strikers
thought this was good advice; they found a piece of vacant land,
whose lessor was willing for it to be used for mass meetings, and on
this land, known as “Liberty Hill,” the strikers held numerous
meetings. At one of these meetings a group of them raised the flags
of fifteen nations, with the American flag at the top, and the flag of
Russia included. There were Russians among the strikers, and
presumably they thought their country had a right to be
represented.
This incident took place five days after the meeting between
Messrs. Rice and Hammond, and it afforded the pretext for which
the police were waiting. “You’ve lost your constitutional rights now!”
shouted Captain Plummer, and he arrested twenty-eight men for the
crime of raising the red flag. Again and again, in negotiations with
the police officials, and with Mayor George E. Cryer, we were told
that this act of raising the red flag afforded complete justification for
the abrogation of all civil liberties at the harbor. It seems therefore
worth noting what happened some three weeks later, when these
men were arraigned in court upon the charge. Police Magistrate
Crawford declared that in his opinion everyone who displayed a red
flag should be sent to prison, but unfortunately the Supreme Court
of California had declared the red flag ordinance of the city of Los
Angeles unconstitutional!
In the three days that followed, the police arrested a total of six
hundred men; they arrested hundreds for attempting to speak on
Liberty Hill; they arrested hundreds for singing and cheering on the
street. Any slightest sign of sympathy with the strike or with other
arrested men was enough to cause a man to be tapped on the
shoulder by the police and told to report at the police station.
Crowds of men were surrounded on the street, loaded into trucks,
carted off to the police station, and packed away in cells. George
Chalmers Richmond, Episcopal clergyman from Philadelphia, was
arrested when walking along the street, having in mind the criminal
intention of addressing the strikers when he reached the place of
meeting. A restaurant proprietor was dragged out from behind his
counter and thrown into jail, upon the charge of helping to prolong
the strike—that is, he had fed the strikers and their children. In
describing these incidents, the Los Angeles “Times” stated that the
police announced their intention “to arrest all idle men at the
harbor.”
The city of Los Angeles boasts of being the fastest growing city in
the world, but its jails have not grown at all in the last thirty years.
To describe them as death-traps would not be using reckless
language, but merely quoting from reports of one public body after
another which has investigated and denounced them. The jails were
already crowded; and here were six hundred more men suddenly
thrust into them! Some of the “tanks,” built to hold twenty or thirty
men, were required to hold a hundred, and it was literally impossible
for all the men to sit down at once. All the jails were swarming with
vermin, there was no bedding obtainable, and the food was
atrocious. These things not being enough, wanton cruelty and
torture was added. In one of the “tanks,” because the men persisted
in singing, the jailers sealed up all the ventilation and turned on the
steam heat for two hours. Ninety-five men were in this hole, and
many of them swooned. Other men were chained up by the thighs,
so that they could not quite sit down. We have the affidavits of
several men to the fact that Chief of Police Oaks personally reviled
the prisoners, calling them liars and degenerates; and when one of
the men spoke up and said this was not true, Oaks called him out
from the “tank,” and in the presence of many witnesses struck him in
the face and knocked him down again and again, pounding him until
the chief was exhausted.
Such was the situation on May 15th. The “Times” for that morning
announced that the city council had appropriated money to build a
stockade, in which to hold the strike prisoners, and all the remaining
strikers at the harbor were to be thrown into this pen. I was about
to begin the writing of this book, but I found it impossible to keep
my peace of mind in a “bull-pen” civilization, and decided to do what
I could to remind the authorities of Southern California that there is
still supposed to be a Constitution in this country.
With seven friends I went to interview the mayor that afternoon.
The interview lasted an hour, and developed curious notions upon
the part of the chief executive of a large city concerning the
meaning of civil rights. According to Mayor Cryer, all the arrests
which had been made night after night on Liberty Hill, and the
complete abrogation of the rights of freedom of speech and of
assemblage, were justified by the fact that somebody unknown had
violated the unconstitutional ordinance of the city of Los Angeles
against the displaying of a red flag. The wholesale arrests of
hundreds of men upon the street day after day were justified by the
fact that on one occasion some rowdy unknown had shouted: “Here
comes Captain Plummer, that fat prostitute.” I said: “Mr. Mayor,
according to your way of reasoning, if some one were to upset a
peanut stand on Broadway and steal the peanuts, you would feel
justified in arresting everybody in sight and closing the thoroughfare
to traffic for a month.”
Our mayor is a politician, and cautious. He would not say that it
was the duty of the police to smash the harbor strike, neither would
he say that a group of American citizens had the right to proceed to
Liberty Hill and there read the Constitution of their country and
explain to all who might care to hear them the meaning of the Bill of
Rights. His proposition was that we should go to the harbor and ask
permission of Captain Plummer, and if Plummer refused, the mayor
would “review” his decision. To this we answered that the essence of
the situation was time; the strikers were being robbed of their rights
every hour, and civil liberties were not subject to review by either a
police captain or a mayor. The upshot of the hour’s argument was
that Mayor Cryer made the specific promise that he would telephone
to Captain Plummer and instruct him that we were to be “protected
in our constitutional rights, and not molested so long as we did not
incite to violence.” Let it be added that at his next interview the
mayor denied that he had made this promise.
Now, I shall not take up space in detailing what happened to our
little group. Suffice it to say, we repaired to the harbor, a dozen
ladies and gentlemen, with two lawyers; and in an interview with
Chief of Police Oaks we were informed that if we attempted to read
the Constitution of the United States on Liberty Hill we would be
arrested and jailed without bail. Four of us, Prince Hopkins, Hugh
Hardyman, Hunter Kimbrough, and the writer, did attempt to read
the Constitution. I personally read Article One of the first
amendment, and was then placed under arrest. Kimbrough started
to read the Declaration of Independence. Hopkins remarked, “We
have not come here to incite to violence.” Hardyman remarked, “This
is a most delightful climate.” For these words they were arrested—all
four of us for “suspicion of criminal syndicalism.”[A] We were held
“incommunicado” for eighteen hours, and an effort was then made
to rush us into court a few minutes before closing time, and have us
committed and spirited away again, so that we could be given the
“third degree”; but this plot was balked, owing to the fact that a
confidant of Chief Oaks betrayed it to my wife, and our lawyers got
to the court and demanded and obtained bail. A week later we went
again to the harbor and held our mass meeting, and said to ten or
fifteen thousand people everything that we had to say. Next day the
police turned loose all but twenty-eight of the six hundred men they
had arrested; and some three weeks later a police judge threw out
the case against us four. So ended our little adventure in “criminal
syndicalism.”

A. Extract from a letter written by a student of Washington

University, St. Louis, now visiting in Santa Monica, California: “The
St. Louis papers had only short accounts, which said that Upton
Sinclair and several other I. W. W. had been arrested on a charge of
Syndicalism. And my friends out here tell me that a raid was made
when Upton Sinclair, after having submitted a most innocuous
abstract of his speech to the authorities, exhorted a strikers’ meeting
to break loose, smash all windows in sight, and dump the street-cars
off the tracks. He also attacked the integrity and honor of the chief
of police.”
 CHAPTER IV
THE EMPIRE OF THE BLACK HAND

Let us now survey the situation in Southern California as I settle

down to the writing of this book. The storm has blown over for the
moment. Twenty-eight of the strikers—the best of their leaders—
have been shipped off to the jute mill for from two to twenty-eight
years. The others are back in the slave-market, bidding against one
another for the lives of themselves and their families. Those who
were active in the strike are black-listed; even though they own
homes at the harbor, they cannot find employment, but must sell out
and move on. And meantime, the men who robbed them are
enjoying the “swag.” Mr. Andrew B. Hammond has gone back to San
Francisco, to the comforts of the Bohemian Club, and the Pacific
Union Club, and the Commercial Club, and the San Francisco Golf
Club; while Mr. I. H. Rice continues to run the political and business
affairs of Los Angeles.
Some lovers of fair play have organized a branch of the American
Civil Liberties Union, to teach the people of this community the
elementary idea that the Constitution applies to the poor as well as
to the rich. True to our program of the open forum, we call upon Mr.
Rice and courteously invite him to set forth his ideas of constitutional
rights to one of our audiences. Mr. Rice declines the invitation, and
so does Mr. Harry Haldeman, president of the Better America
Federation, and so does Mr. Marco Hellman, the banker, and So does
Captain John D. Fredericks, congressman-elect of the Merchants’
and Manufacturers’ Association and the Chamber of Commerce—it is
reported that they put up twelve thousand dollars additional salary
for him, because so important a man could not afford to go to
Congress otherwise!
Among the “tips” which came to me in the course of the struggle
was one to the effect that Captain Plummer and Chief Oaks were
each presented with a gold watch as a tribute of gratitude from the
Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Association. At a hearing before the
Ministerial Union I had opportunity to ask Captain Plummer about
this matter; he admitted with evident embarrassment that he had
got a gold watch. I asked him if it was engraved in acknowledgment
of his services to the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Association; his
answer was that it was engraved “From the Merchants’ and
Manufacturers’ Association for services to the community.” He added,
somewhat naively, that he could not imagine how I had got that
information. “No one but Mr. Rice and the jeweler were supposed to
know about that watch!”
With six hundred men packed into the filthy jails of Los Angeles,
some of them with faces bloody from the fists of Chief Oaks, the
chief himself went off to the convention of chiefs of police at Buffalo.
He went in glory, taking the policemen’s and firemen’s band of sixty
pieces; the expenses of this tour being in part paid by the protected
under-world, and in part loaned by Marco Hellman, banker and chief
of the Black Hand. Mr. Hellman went to the station to see the party
off, and on their return he went again to welcome them. Day by day
we followed in our newspapers the progress of this tour; they had
royal receptions in our biggest cities—and also in Lebanon, Missouri,
the village which contributed our great chief of police to the world.
The local newspaper mentioned that Mount Vernon was the
birthplace of George Washington, and Springfield, Illinois, was the
birthplace of Abraham Lincoln!
In the meantime, our Civil Liberties Union was collecting affidavits
of men who had been beaten and starved and tortured in jail. We
presented these affidavits to the mayor, and the mayor referred us
to the city council; we presented them to the city council, and the
city council referred us to the police commission; we presented them
to the police commission, and the police commission referred them
to the committee of the whole. As I said at one of our mass
meetings: “It is called the committee of the hole because it hides
and nobody can find it.” We were told that the charges would be
considered when Chief Oaks came back; the chief came back, and
went before the City Club, and in a burst of glory stated that if
anyone had charges against any police official he would personally
take them before the grand jury. Whereupon we made application to
him to present to the grand jury the charge that Chief Oaks had
beaten prisoners in jail—and he did not keep his promise. We had
brought the charges before the Ministerial Union of the city, and the
ministers appointed a committee to investigate; this committee met,
and heard many witnesses, but took no action, and has never met
again.[B]

B. While the rest of this book is being written, Chief Oaks becomes
involved in a factional dispute in the Police Department, and his
enemies publish affidavits by the police officials of a neighboring
town, to the effect that Oaks was arrested a few days ago, while
parked in a lonely road with a young woman and a half-gallon jug of
whiskey. So Oaks is no longer chief, but plain lieutenant of police,
and is telling his friends that he intends to have the inscription cut
from his gold watch and to sell it.

The ministers were prejudiced against us, because of something

they had read in the “Times”; a statement that the United States
Department of Justice had investigated the American Civil Liberties
Union and ascertained it to be “the defense branch of the I. W. W.”:
this on the authority of “Agent Townsend of the Department of
Justice.” We went to call on the head of the Department of Justice in
Los Angeles, and learned that there was no “Agent Townsend,” nor
had the Department obtained any such information concerning the
American Civil Liberties Union. We then called upon the managing
editor of the “Times” and presented this information. He promised to
look further into the matter; and next morning he published another
statement, reiterating the charge, this time giving a formal signed
statement by “Agent Townsend of the Department of Justice.” The
matter was put before the Department of Justice at Washington,
which replied in writing that there was no such person as “Agent
Townsend of the Department of Justice.” A copy of this was mailed
to the “Times,” with an offer to submit the original. But the “Times”
made no reply, and published no retraction. I go into these minute
details, because later on I shall assert that the “Times” deliberately
lied about the school teachers of Los Angeles; and I wish you to
understand that I mean exactly what I say.
The theme of this book is the schools—public schools and private
schools, primary and grammar and high schools; and now I have to
carry out my promise, to show you that this same Black Hand of
Southern California controls our board of education, putting its own
representatives thereon; that it controls our school funds, wasting
them in graft; that it controls our teachers, browbeating them and
underpaying them and denying them their rights as citizens; that it
controls our children, drilling them, suppressing them, putting poison
thoughts into their minds—so that they shall come out perfect little
bigots, prepared to hate and if necessary to tar and feather and
lynch those people who try to apply real Americanism to America,
and to protect the rights of the poor as well as of the rich. In other
words, what the Black Hand wants, and what it has made for itself,
is schools which will turn out a generation of children who will stand
for all the infamies I have just narrated, and will regard them as
right and necessary and patriotic actions, and the men who
perpetrate them as courageous public officials and high-minded
patriots.
 CHAPTER V
THE SCHOOLS OF THE “TIMES”

Naturally, we have to begin with the “Times”; and at the very

outset, to show you what the “Times” wants from our schools, I
narrate the experience of Mr. M. C. Bettinger, until recently a
member of the board of education, and for thirty-eight years
connected with the educational system of Los Angeles. In the year
1906 Mr. Bettinger happened to be in the office of Superintendent
Foshay, when that gentleman was packing up his belongings and
preparing to retire from his job. He took out of his desk a bale of
papers two inches thick, fastened with a rubber-band. “Thank God,”
he said, “at least I don’t have to pay any more tribute to the ‘Times.’
These are receipts for money which I’ve had to pay to that paper
upon one pretext or another for the past eleven years!”
Or consider the experience of Dr. E. C. Moore, who succeeded Mr.
Foshay as superintendent. In the year 1907 the National Education
Association held its convention in Los Angeles, and in the guide-book
prepared for it was an article by General Otis, publisher of the
“Times,” denouncing union labor. Dr. Moore had the courage to cut
out these passages, and for this General Otis set out to “get” him,
and in due course did so.
Dr. Moore’s blunder was that at Christmas time he sent out an
order to the principals of schools to be guarded in their proceedings
so as not to give offense to any class of people. This was a routine
notice, its significance being that Jewish children should not be
compelled to take part in religious ceremonials obnoxious to their
faith. But Otis saw in it his opportunity; Superintendent Moore was
attacking the Christian religion and undermining the basis of all
morality! Should such a man remain superintendent of the
educational system of a Christian community? The “Times” printed
literally pages of attacks upon this basis, interviews with clergymen
and parents, and reports of sermons denouncing Dr. Moore, who
was thus forced to move on to Yale University.
Next came John H. Francis, and he had a wonderful idea. He was
going to have junior high schools all over the city, and the
youngsters were to have stenography and typewriting and
bookkeeping and manual training—perfect little clerks and shop
foremen turned out in two or three years! Francis was a man with a
passion for education, a wonderful platform orator; he got his junior
high schools, and the fame of them spread all over the United
States. But they cost a pile of money, and they didn’t perform the
wonders which the business men had hoped for; instead, they got
the youngsters interested in music and art and dramatics and
debating—and got them organized, so that you couldn’t take these
things away from them without a riot! So the Black Hand lost all
their enthusiasm for Superintendent Francis, and they tried on him
their favorite device of the detective agency and the woman scandal.
Recall my statement that the big private detective agencies form an
important part of the educational system of the United States!
The president of the board, who was elected to oust
Superintendent Francis, was Judge Walter Bordwell, before whom
Clarence Darrow was tried. Bordwell was a flabby and repulsive
looking man, with the manners of an Irish section-boss; he was a
relative of Chandler, and a pet of the “Times.” In 1918, shortly after
ousting Francis, Bordwell became the “Times’” candidate for
governor; and, as part of his campaign, an assistant superintendent
of schools sent a letter to teachers asking them to vote for the
Judge. The name of this assistant is Mrs. Susan Dorsey, and I ask
you to remember her, because a little later we shall find her
rewarded for her fidelity by being made superintendent of schools;
we shall find the teachers of Los Angeles presuming to go into
politics in the interest of the schools—and Mrs. Dorsey insisting that
politics must be rigidly excluded from the system!
 Along with Judge Bordwell was elected Mr. Washburn, ex-banker,
whose one idea of school administration was to keep down the
taxes; Mrs. Waters, the widow of a bank president; and Colonel
Andrew Copp, an officer in the state militia. Mr. Bettinger, at that
time assistant superintendent, tells me anecdotes which show the
attitude of these people toward education. “We don’t want you to
come here with opinions,” said Mrs. Waters; “we want you to obey
orders.” And in almost the same words Colonel Copp addressed a
delegation of teachers who came to him to complain of inability to
get supplies. “Don’t come here with your views of things,” stormed
the Colonel; “what we want you to do is to do what you’re told.”
In the course of discussion before a board Committee, Mr.
Bettinger made so bold as to give his definition of education: “to aid
in the unfoldment of a human mind.” Colonel Copp was so furious
that he was hardly able to keep still until Mr. Bettinger finished.
“Education?” he cried. “I’ll tell you what education is! Education is
getting a lot of young people into a room, teaching them a lesson
out of a book, hearing them recite it, putting down a mark in figures,
and at the end of the year that’s their record. That’s what education
is, and we are going to have that and nothing else in Los Angeles.”
Judge Bordwell had gone to New York to put the problem of the
Los Angeles schools before the great mogul of plutocratic education,
President Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia. He came back with
Albert Shiels, a product of Butler’s educational enameling machine,
who was to make a survey. Shiels was an accountant, not an
educator; also, under the charter of the city, he was ineligible for
superintendent, not having lived a year in the state. But a little thing
like a charter provision would not be allowed to block the will of
Judge Bordwell. Dr. Shiels was made superintendent and started
publishing anti-Bolshevik propaganda in the teachers’ paper, and
circularizing the teachers with such literature. He published in
President Butler’s “Educational Review” an article assailing the Soviet
government, which article contained no less than one hundred and
twenty-four misstatements of fact. Challenged to debate this issue,
Dr. Shiels wrote to me: “I believe it is contrary to good public policy
to place Bolshevism and its practices on a par with debatable
questions.”
But Dr. Shiels soon became disgusted with the crudity of his
political masters, and went back to New York to take up a pleasanter
job for Nicholas Miraculous. The new president of the school board,
a banker and perfect plutocrat by the name of Lynn Helm, selected
an assistant superintendent, formerly a teacher of Latin and Greek,
as the new boss of the schools. He stated as his reason that he
knew she was “safe”; and time has proven that he was a good judge
of employes. Mrs. Susan M. Dorsey rules the system as I write, and
you will have a chance to watch her in action. For the moment it
may suffice to record that for thirty years she has been a member of
the Baptist Temple, Reverend J. Whitcomb Brougher, pastor. When
“Billy” Sunday came to Los Angeles, some people found fault with
him, and Rev. Brougher rushed to his defense, describing Sunday’s
critics in the following highly educational language:
The dirty, low-down, contemptible, weazen-brained, impure-hearted, shrivelled-
souled, gossiping devils do not deserve to be noticed.... Scandal-mongers, gossip-
lovers, reputation-destroyers, hypocritical, black-hearted, green-eyed slanderers....
Corrupt, devil-possessed, vile debauchés.... Immoral, sin-loving, vice-practicing,
underhanded sneaks.... Carrion-loving buzzards and foul-smelling skunks.
If anyone wishes to take charge of one hundred and seventy-six
thousand school children under the Black Hand, he may learn from
this how to train himself; for better remembering, I have put the
directions into a poem:

Five days in the week

Teach Latin and Greek;
On Sundays, an hour,
Go listen to Brougher;
And seven days weekly
Obey Mammon meekly.
 CHAPTER VI
THE TEACHERS’ SOVIETS

It is the thesis of the business men who run our educational

system that the schools are factories, and the children raw material,
to be turned out thoroughly standardized, of the same size and
shape, like biscuits or sausages. To these business men the teachers
are servants, or “hands,” whose duty is the same as in any other
factory—to obey orders, and mind their own business, and be
respectful to their superiors. Whenever by any chance teachers dare
to have ideas of their own, or especially to ask for higher wages,
these teachers are treated precisely as we have seen labor unions
treated by the Black Hand of Southern California.
In 1916 and 1917, something happened which shook the teachers
of Los Angeles into action; their wages were suddenly cut to about
forty per cent of what they had been before. Or, to put it in the more
common formula, the cost of everything the teachers had to buy
with their money increased a hundred and thirty per cent; and
meantime their wages remained as in 1914. They were unable to
live, and fifty-six per cent of them were forced to do additional
outside work. So the teachers’ associations began a salary
campaign, which for the first time brought them out of the
classrooms and into contact with the real life of Los Angeles. The
campaign lasted intermittently for four or five years, and the
outcome of it was tragedy for the teachers and comedy for the
reader.
One of the purposes for which Mrs. Dorsey had been made
superintendent was to hold the salaries down; and in her effort to
break the resistance of the teachers, she served notice upon them
that they must sign their contracts for the next year before the end
of the old term—and this although legally they had until twenty days
after the end of the term. She would be very sorry not to see their
faces next year, she told them, and smiled amiably. When some said
that they did not want to return, her smile was still amiable. “You’ll
be back,” she said. “Teachers have gone out before this and tried to
do something else.”
The president of the City Teachers’ Club made herself obnoxious
by calling a meeting of the teachers for four o’clock one afternoon—
that is to say, after the closing hour of the schools. Mrs. Dorsey,
desiring to forestall her, closed the schools at half past one that
afternoon. Hitherto Mrs. Dorsey had maintained that the schools
must never be closed for special occasions; but now she closed
them, and called the teachers together at half past one to listen to
an address of her own. Some teachers thought it was her idea that
they should be tired out and go home before their own meeting at
four o’clock!
But the dissatisfaction of the teachers did not abate. A hundred of
the best had left, and three hundred more were refusing to renew
their contracts for the coming year; so the business men realized
that some concession had to be made. Manifestly, it would not do to
let it come as a result of teacher agitation; it must be due to the
loving concern of business men. Mr. Sylvester Weaver, head of the
“education committee” of the Chamber of Commerce, was called in,
and he organized a committee of leading citizens, including Harry
Haldeman, president of the Better America Federation. Somebody
had “put over” on the teachers a publicity agent, a gentleman with a
big cigar in his mouth and a gold watch-chain across his waistcoat.
He now advised the teachers to drop their agitation and allow the
business men to handle it; let the grand committee retire and do
some grand thinking. So for five weeks the teachers preserved an
awed silence.
They wanted a flat raise of a thousand dollars a year, and they
proved that this amount was not enough to raise the lowest salary to
ante-war standards. The committee, when it finally emerged from its
thinking-bee, endorsed this demand; but at once the business men
set up a howl—and so Mr. Weaver wrote to the board of education
that he regarded the thousand dollars increase for teachers as a
great and noble ideal to be worked for—in the course of time! The
committee went before the board of supervisors, which said that it
would be impossible for the teachers to have that much money; the
committee went before the board of education, which said there was
no use asking what the supervisors refused. The discontent of the
teachers burst into flame again; the committee retired and did more
thinking; and finally it was announced that the taxpayers of Los
Angeles intended to perform an act of unprecedented generosity
toward the teachers—every single one was to have a raise of three
hundred dollars a year!
This amount made the average salary just one-half what it was
before the war; and in a month or two rents went up and absorbed
most of this. One landlord said to a teacher friend of mine: “You’ve
just got a raise, and I’m going to have my share!” Recently the
Chamber of Commerce of Hollywood invited the hungry teachers to
a banquet, and informed them that for the other three hundred and
sixty-four days of the year they should learn to live on respect. On
the place-cards of the hungry teachers they printed “A Tribute”:
To the Teachers of Tomorrow’s Manhood and Womanhood:
To you, who bless mankind by the devotion of your lives to a noble vocation, we
declare our gratitude! In your charge we have placed the responsibility of
tomorrow, and your performance of that sacred duty makes us all your debtors.
Your calling is the highest in the social order; your reward is the most valued of
possessions—respect.
The advantage of this salary campaign to the teachers was not the
money, but the education they got. For the first time a few of them
began to think about their board of education, and who was on it,
and why. Some even took up the suggestion that the teachers’
organizations should affiliate with the American Federation of Labor.
What indignation this excited in our “open-shop” city should hardly
need telling; the Better America Federation set forth its ideas in a
two-column advertisement in the newspapers of San José:
 Teachers must keep aloof alike from politics and industrial discussions. Teachers
are beginning to be regarded as wards of the State. Teachers, like soldiers, owe
their first and only allegiance to the State.
The faculty at Jefferson High School decided that they would like
to hear both sides on this problem of affiliation with labor, so they
made up a questionnaire, and sent it, first, to fifty teachers’
organizations which were affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor; second, to fifty which were not affiliated; and third, to all
those which had been affiliated and had withdrawn. This would
seem calculated to bring out all sides in the discussion; but the
board of education issued a peremptory order that the procedure
should cease. I have a written report of this incident from the
teacher who interviewed Mr. Helm, the banker president of the
board. Here is one paragraph:
Mr. Helm spoke very decidedly against the committee’s right to continue its
investigation, stating that its plans were “propaganda of the worst sort.” He said
the board had told the teachers what they (the teachers) were to do, and that was
the end of it. He declared there was but one side of the question of injecting
anything to do with “labor” into any teachers’ organization. He said it was
impertinence to ask the board what it thought about such a matter, because it had
put itself on record in no uncertain terms. He said the board reflected the “will of
the people” in this regard. When questioned as to who “the people” are, he
replied, such concerns as the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Association and the
Chamber of Commerce, “which are responsible for the upbuilding of the city.” He
said when it was suggested to have “that man Stillman” (president of the
American Federation of Teachers) to speak before the teachers at institute, these
representative business men of Los Angeles asked, “You’re not going to permit
that, are you?” And he told them, “No, indeed!” He remarked that the board
expects the teachers to see to it that “labor” does not get any recognition in the
teaching profession.
Some of the teachers now decided there ought to be a different
sort of people on the school board, and they called in a group of
liberal citizens to their help. A committee met, and a representative
ticket was nominated, and a house-to-house campaign was carried
on. The Black Hand opposed it, but not very ardently—a
circumstance which would have awakened the suspicion of the
teachers, if they had not been so new to public life. The entire
“teachers’ ticket,” as it was called, was elected in the spring of 1921;
and to the consternation of the poor teachers, two of the members
resigned, and three others went over to the Black Hand, and so the
board was deadlocked three to three, and nothing could be done.
The board spent the rest of its term arguing over the choosing of a
seventh member. The three liberal members had one candidate, Dr.
Oxnam, a public-minded clergyman; while the three Black Hand
members brought in a new candidate every week, until they had
suggested most of the Tories in Southern California. Their favorite
candidate was a brother-in-law of Harry Chandler of the “Times”;
and after him they had three ex-presidents of the Chamber of
Commerce!
One of the guiding thoughts of the liberal campaign had been that
teachers know something about teaching. They now prepared a
timid proposal for a “Teachers’ Advisory Council,” to consult with the
superintendent and the assistants as to the welfare of the children
and the schools. Such councils exist in many cities in America, and
the teachers of Los Angeles thought their plan would be welcomed
by their new “liberal” board of education. So little did they
understand the methods of the Black Hand! One morning the
“Times” came out with a frightful story, all the way across several
columns; there was an underground conspiracy among the teachers
of Los Angeles to establish a “teachers’ soviet”! A group of blood-
thirsty “Reds” were scheming to take control of the schools from the
duly elected board of education, and have the taxpayers’ money
spent and administered by labor unions!
One of the teachers who was active in this movement, and who in
a long editorial was branded as a dangerous “radical,” was Miss
Wilhelmina Van de Goorberg. This, as you will note, is a terrifying
foreign-sounding name; but it wasn’t foreign enough for the “Times,”
which made it Von instead of Van. This lady’s parents came from
Holland when she was a child, and the “Times” staff know her very
well; but they changed her from innocent Dutch into devilish
Prussian!
The Black Hand was sending Colonel Andrew Copp, whose ideas
on education we have learned, to denounce the “teachers’ soviets”
before the City Club and the Woman’s City Club. The Chamber of
Commerce resolved to make an “impartial investigation” of the
question, and appointed a committee, and a teacher was invited to
appear before it to defend the new idea. Two teachers went, and
found Colonel Copp on hand. The teachers were permitted to speak
briefly, and then they were questioned, in tones that might have
been used to naughty pupils. “Suppose the board of education
refuses to carry out the orders of your teachers’ councils, what are
you going to do then?”—and so on. Colonel Copp spoke at length,
making a series of false statements; after which he packed up his
papers and marched out, refusing to answer a single question. The
chairman declared the meeting adjourned, without permitting the
teachers even to deny the falsehoods!
This was a regular habit of Colonel Copp, it appears; a group of
high school teachers interviewed him after one of his addresses, and
pointed out to him a number of flat misstatements he had made. He
said he would “investigate”; but a day or two later he repeated the
misstatements, and refused to correct them. When a teacher asked
him how he could do such a thing, he turned his back upon her.
For months the “Times” continued its denunciations of the
“teachers’ soviets”; and, of course, they succeeded in crushing the
hydra-headed monster. There come a hundred thousand new people
into this community every year, and these people know nothing
about local matters except what they read in the “Times.” When the
“Times” tells them day after day that there is a band of secret
conspirators, in sympathy with Moscow, trying to undermine the
school system and destroy the morals of the children, they really
believe it, and go to the polls and make their little “x” marks on the
ballot, according to the pattern set before them in the “Times”! And
so it is that four thousand highly trained experts are denied all
opportunity to have effective say concerning the education of the
children.
 CHAPTER VII
A PRAYER FOR FREEDOM

There is an election of the school board in Los Angeles every two

years. The Black Hand laid their plans to elect a complete board in
the spring of 1923; they went at the job in grim earnest, sparing
neither trouble nor expense, and the story of what they did reads
like a chapter from a muckraking novel.
The ruling group held a series of meetings: Harry Chandler of the
“Times”; “Eddie” Dickson of the “Express,” evening newspaper of the
Black Hand; Captain Fredericks, congressman-elect of the Black
Hand; Harry Haldeman, president of the Better America Federation;
E. P. Clark, proprietor of one of our biggest hotels, and principal
financial backer of the Better America Federation—these and half a
dozen others constituted themselves “the Committee of One
Thousand” for the purpose of electing a “citizens’ ticket” of seven
members for the school board. A little later they decided to expand
into “the Committee of Ten Thousand”—this in spite of the fact that
at no one of their meetings were they able to collect more than
thirty-seven people!
Their ticket comprised an assortment of hard-boiled reactionaries.
At the top of the list stood Jerry Muma, their most active
representative on the previous board. Mr. Muma runs a big insurance
business; and just as the campaign was getting under way there was
made public the affidavit of a prominent architect in the city, to the
effect that Mr. F. O. Bristol, agent for Muma and likewise a candidate
for the school board, had come to the architect soliciting insurance,
and pointing out that Jerry Muma, as head of the building committee
of the school board, controlled much valuable business of an
architectural nature. “Mr. Muma believes in reciprocity,” said Mr.
Bristol, significantly. This affidavit caused the Black Hand to take
Jerry Muma from the head of its ticket; but they left Mr. Bristol!
Also they left on their ticket Mr. Frederick Feitshans, president of
the Los Angeles Desk Company, in spite of the fact that this
gentleman admitted to a committee of the teachers that he was at
present selling many thousands of dollars’ worth of furniture to the
schools of Los Angeles, and that while under the law he could not
sell it to the schools after he became a member of the board, there
was nothing to prevent his selling it to an agent, and this agent
selling it to the schools. As reward for Mr. Feitshans’ refinement of
sensibility, the gang members of the old board did their best to jam
through a contract with the Los Angeles Desk Company for
seventeen thousand dollars’ worth of furniture before the new board
came in!
Also, there was Mrs. Lucia Macbeth, wife of the vice-president and
general manager of our biggest cement company—and this with
fourteen million dollars’ worth of new buildings to be handled by the
new board! A terrible discovery concerning Mrs. Macbeth came out
during the campaign: she smoked cigarettes! She admitted this to a
committee of clergymen who visited her, but promised that if she
were elected to the board she would give up smoking; and naturally
the church people of Los Angeles could not lose such an opportunity
to bring a lost sheep into the fold.
Also, there was Mr. Odell, a lawyer, one of the members of the old
board, who had voted “right,” and who, as a Mason, brought many
votes; a retired hay and grain merchant, who stated naively to the
committee of teachers that he was tired of playing golf and wanted
something to do; the wife of a real estate and insurance man; and
another lawyer, who represented the bond house of Mr. Babcock, the
gentleman who was selected by Captain Fredericks as campaign
manager to put this reactionary school ticket into office. Mr.
Babcock’s firm got the handling of several millions of the school
bonds; and this firm sends out literature, signed by Mr. Babcock,
attacking government ownership, and advising the public to put its
money into private enterprises. So you see how Big Business and the
schools tie up! On this board almost every kind of interest which
preys on the school system was boldly represented; and to elect it
every power the Black Hand could wield, both inside and outside the
system, was wielded, and every slander that could be whispered
concerning the opposition was spread upon the front page of the
“Times.”
“No politics in the schools!” runs the formula; which means, quite
simply, that no one must oppose the Black Hand. The rumor was
spread that the “teachers’ board” was pledged to oust Mrs. Dorsey;
and so for every teacher the issue was one of “loyalty to the chief.”
Many were intimidated—I know one teacher who was told by her
principal that if she gave out literature for the “teachers’ ticket” she
would be summoned before the grand jury! Others were bought with
promises of promotion—the system is honeycombed with intrigue of
that sort. The principals’ clubs went boldly into politics, cheered on
by the “Times” and the “Express.” One school director, a pet of Mrs.
Dorsey, used the school time and the school’s long distance
telephone for a whole day calling the Masons in the school system to
a meeting at which they were told how to vote.
I have before me a letter from a school principal telling me how a
certain political woman came to him, offering him, in exchange for
his support in the gang, a written promise of a high school
principalship. This offer was turned down and the principal wrote his
wife, who owns a dairy: “Keep the cows. We may need them.”
In apologizing for telling so much about the harbor strike, I
promised to prove that the same men who smashed this strike were
running the school system of Los Angeles, and smashing the
teachers. Now comes the proof. As it happened, the campaign for
the election of the school board was going on all through the harbor
strike and the formation of our Civil Liberties Union; and among the
few who came forward to stand for this union was the Reverend G.
Bromley Oxnam, pastor of the Church of All Nations, and candidate
for the school board on the “teachers’ ticket.” At our first mass
meeting of protest, held in Los Angeles three days after the release
of Hopkins, Hardyman, Kimbrough and myself, Mr. Oxnam was asked
to lead the singing of “America” and to open the proceedings with a
prayer. This he did; and so all the fury of the enemy was turned
upon him. The kept preachers of the Black Hand denounced him
from their pulpits, and also before the Ministerial Union, and before
the City Club. Nothing more was needed to defeat a candidate for
the school board than to associate him with Upton Sinclair, notorious
Socialist and muckraker. Day after day the “Times” pounded upon
this theme, both in editorials and in news. The Better America
Federation circulated alleged stenographic transcripts of speeches by
Mr. Oxnam, which “transcripts” were made up in their own offices,
and were the opposite of Mr. Oxnam’s beliefs.
Understand, Mr. Oxnam was not the head of this ticket; he was
only one of seven. But from the day he stood upon the Civil Liberties
platform, the ticket became the “Oxnam ticket,” and his candidacy
was an effort of Upton Sinclair and the “soviets” to take possession
of the schools. All the minor organizations of the Black Hand, the
business clubs, the women’s organizations, the little educational
bosses—all these adopted resolutions denouncing the conspiracy to
turn the schools of the city over to the “Reds.” There is very good
reason to believe that the praying of a prayer for the Constitution of
the United States not merely cost Mr. Oxnam his election to the
school board, but cost his associates their election as well. So, at the
risk of making my story too long, I print the prayer that Mr. Oxnam
prayed, and that a stenographer took down for his protection:
Our Father, we lift our voices to Thee in Thanksgiving. We are thankful that
Thou hast created us thinking beings. We are thankful that we are not mere
automatons, but that Thou hast given to us freedom of choice, and that in large
measure our own destiny and that of our brothers lies in our own hands. We pray
Thee, that just as Thou hast granted to us the right to think and to speak, so too
we may grant to our citizens the right to think and to speak, to the end that that
glorious day may come at last when all men share the abundant life Jesus of
Nazareth died to bring to men.
Give to us, we pray, the spirit of tolerance. May we be willing to listen to our
brother with whom we disagree. But O God, as we pray for tolerance, we pray too
that we may be men of conviction. Give to us an open mind, but give us also the
strength to stand for our convictions even if it take a Calvary Cross to win them.
May we never bow the knee before insolent might. Help us to be tender and just,
loving and righteous, never turning aside from the needy. Give to us that virtue
that was Christ’s—forgiveness. May we even love those who despitefully use us.
Keep before us ever the example of the One who was despised and rejected of
men, yet who could pray forgiveness for those who crucified him.
We thank Thee for America, her traditions, her history, her place in the world.
We thank Thee for our forefathers who won for us the liberties we so easily
inherit. Give to us their spirit. Fire us with the desire to bring to men the ideals for
which they died. Give us Life, give us Liberty, give us Happiness. Give us the
strength to stand for Life, and Liberty, and Happiness. We thank Thee for the
Constitution of our Republic. We thank Thee that the people united to establish
justice, to insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare. May we
stand worthy of them today. Give to us the courage today to stand as Americans
insisting upon the maintenance of those principles upon which our Republic was
founded.
In Christ’s name we ask it. Amen.
 CHAPTER VIII
THE PRICE OF INDEPENDENCE

There has existed for the past twenty years inside the school
system a secret oath-bound society of the school men known as the
“Owls,” whose members pledged themselves to consider first the
interests of this group. They served the Southern Pacific Railroad in
the old days when this machine ran the state; they now serve the
Santa Fé Railroad and the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Association
and the Chamber of Commerce and the Better America Federation,
and the other organizations of the Black Hand. For twenty years the
system had one man, an assistant superintendent named Lickley,
who declined to join this society. He had also refused to make the
various anti-social pledges which the Better America Federation has
required of every candidate for the school board and of every school
official. In the 1921 election Mrs. Dorsey pleaded with Dr. Lickley,
advising him “as a mother” not to support the “teachers’ ticket.” He
supported it; and so in the interests of “harmony” it was necessary
that he be driven out of the system. The intrigue against him came
to a head during the election campaign, and became an issue in this
campaign.
In telling the story, I have to devote two paragraphs to some Los
Angeles school principals. I apologize for taking up your time with
people you never heard of before, and will never want to hear of
again. But you will find, as we go on, that the school system of
America is one system; when you read about school principals in Los
Angeles, you will be learning about school principals in every other
big American city. Also, I would suggest that if men are important
enough to be put in charge of your children, they ought to be
important enough for you to know about.
In the course of Dr. Lickley’s duties it became necessary for him to
consider charges against a principal by the name of Doyle. Seven
witnesses made affidavit that this principal had kept liquor in the
school building, contrary to law; that he had offered them this liquor,
and that his habits were generally known to the students, and were
a cause of demoralization in the school. It was testified that this
liquor had been brought to Doyle by Italian boys, whose parents
were making it, and that these boys had thus obtained immunity
from school duties and from punishment. It was also testified that
he had knocked down David Rutberg, a fourteen-year-old Jewish
boy, by striking him in the eye. It was further charged that Doyle,
while principal of an evening school, took other teachers away from
their classes and spent the time with them gambling in the
basement. For this and other reasons Dr. Lickley recommended
Doyle for dismissal. We may complete this part of the story by
stating that Mrs. Dorsey and her school board have blocked every
effort for a hearing of these charges. Doyle is still in the system, and
the board has jumped him over two entire divisions, and elected him
principal of one of the biggest schools in the city. When this caused
a scandal, the men who had made the charges against Doyle were
summoned to the superintendent’s office, and efforts were made to
browbeat them into withdrawing their sworn statements.
Immediately after Dr. Lickley’s action in the Doyle case, charges of
insubordination and disloyalty to the system were preferred against
Dr. Lickley by Doyle and others. I will list these others: first, a man
named Lacy, whom Dr. Lickley had dropped from the principalship of
a school upon the charge that he had come to school in a state of
intoxication, that he was unable to perform his duties, and that he
had misappropriated the funds of the Schoolmasters’ Club. Next, one
Cronkite, who, according to Dr. Lickley, was demoted from the
position of supervisor, because of “incompetence, laziness and
objectionable conduct to other members of the department.” Next, a
principal named McKnight, who, according to Dr. Lickley, left the
principalship of one school because of “serious and reprehensible
misconduct.” Next, one Dunlap, who was charged by Dr. Lickley with
having stolen public property; also with having carried on a private
business as insurance agent in school and in the board of education
offices, urging the employes under his supervision “to buy insurance,
oil stocks, automobiles, real estate, etc.” Another man, I am told,
had been disciplined by his Masonic brothers for taking a woman
upstate with him. Another was turned out of a night school because
the young women teachers would not stand his conduct toward
them; he was put in charge of the jail night school—it being
apparently assumed that such pupils would not be troubled by his
morals. During the campaign the men under charges were in
conference with Mrs. Dorsey, enjoying her confidence and carrying
out her plans. I want to make clear my own position as regards the
matter: I do not say that these charges are true; I say that they
have been published by responsible persons, and that neither Mrs.
Dorsey nor her school board have cared enough about the good
name of the schools to answer the charges or bring the men to trial.
Mr. Herbert Clark, recently promoted by Mrs. Dorsey, came to Mr.
Bettinger with a proposition: they had “got the goods” on Lickley;
they wanted to take him out and put in one of their own gang; they
would let him stay as an assistant, but with minor duties; and if Mr.
Bettinger would consent to this program, they would make him the
next superintendent of schools in Los Angeles. Mr. Bettinger refused,
and then the gang took the charges before the Municipal League,
which asked to have them in writing, and to have them sworn to;
but instead of doing this, the gang induced a poor old lady to bring
the charges before the county board of education, asking that Dr.
Lickley’s license as a teacher be revoked. The old lady had
understood that the charges would be secret—but whiff! they were
spread out in the “Times”!
This county board was a gang affair—two of them members of the
“Owls,” one of them the brother of an old Southern Pacific Railroad
henchman, who ran the recent Water Power campaign for the Black
Hand. A third member was the father of Lacy, one of Dr. Lickley’s
accusers! In the course of the election campaign, this accuser went
to a meeting of the Los Angeles City Teachers’ Club, and started to