Scripto | Transcribe Page

Log in to Scripto | Recent changes | View item | View file

Letter December 30, 1919 from David Eichel to Parents


« previous page | next page » |

Current Page Transcription [edit] [history]

Letter [#34] from David Eichel, U.S.D.B., Fort Douglas, Utah

[December 30, 1919]

Dear folks:

The one event that is disturbing the general serenity here, is the trial of Julius Greenberg. The court convened yesterday, and is being continued today, with strong possibilities of it being carried over for tomorrow. Quite a few of us, I among others, expect to be called upon to testify to the good character of Greenberg. Thus far, from the few scattered reports we get, it would seem that the trial is progressing favorably for the defense. This is by no means an indication of what the ultimate verdict may be. I'll not even give you any details until it is all over.

There is absolutely nothing new here. If it were'nt for the trial and the recent suicide Julius wrote about, this would be a perfectly uneventful period. We read the newspapers and occasionally it offers us something of interest. We are all vitally interested in the signing of peace. If we thought that the Senate was in earnest and not indulging in a game of petty politics for personal aggrandizement; if we thought that they were against the treaty in principle, we would be pleased at its defeat. But we know better. We have read the hypercritical and contradictory statements and speeches of the "anti-League of Nations" group, and we have found it so much twaddle. Furthermore we have a suspicion, a very strong one, that they'll endorse it eventualy [sic]. So why not now? With peace the general chaos might be cleared up. As it is, on the hypercritical pretense that a state of war exists (altho the newspapers are already quoting the great figures involved in exports and imports to Germany) the forces of gov't have been able to foist the most despotic measures on the people. If peace were declared a reaction might set in in favor of liberalism and radicalism.

Current Page Discussion [edit] [history]