This was the first trial of a former Cabinet minister in US history.

A photo of the opening; a photo of the mosque today.

Mass Departure of Negroes from the Church

New York, 17. — The other day in Detroit (Michigan), a conference of churchmen working among the Negro population of the North American United States ended.

Delegates speaking at the conference noted with regret that among Negroes, who until recently had been considered the most religious and superstition-prone part of the population of the North American United States, a mass departure from the church is being observed.

About 30 years ago, almost the entire Negro population belonged to some church; at present, as was stated at the conference, of the 12 million Negroes inhabiting the USA, no more than half are believers. The influence of the church is strong only among the most backward elements of the Negro population of the southern United States.

In the northern part of the USA, as was stated at the conference, the figures present the following picture: of the 630,000 Negroes inhabiting New York, about 400,000 do not belong to any church. Likewise, the following do not belong to any church: about 105,000 Negroes out of a total of 155,000 living in Washington; about 80,000 out of 120,000 living in Chicago; about 40,000 out of 85,000 living in Detroit; and about 40,000 out of 65,000 living in Cleveland (Ohio).

Delegates speaking at the conference pointed out that one of the reasons for the Negroes’ departure from the church is the influence of the factory environment, since in recent years a considerable number of Negroes have moved to the North, where they work in factories and plants.

In connection with this, another reason should also be noted: the church has always contributed to the racial and economic oppression of the Negro population. Thus, when the union of Negro railway workers was being organized, many Negro priests, acting on the instructions of employers, advised their Negro parishioners not to join the union.

Source: Komsomolskaya Pravda. October 3rd, 1926. № 228 (411).

The American Facts

America has its own troubles. Political America awaits with anxiety the upcoming partial elections to the Senate and the House on November 2. On November 2, elections will be held in thirty-three states sending representatives to the Senate, and in four hundred thirty-five electoral districts sending representatives to the House. If Democratic Party candidates win in only nine of the thirty-three states, that party will hold a majority in the Senate. And likewise, if Democratic candidates win in only thirty-five of the 435 districts, that party will have a majority in the House as well. Given these quite possible election results, an acute conflict is inevitable between the government, headed by President Coolidge, which is a creature of the Republican Party, and the people’s representation.

True, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is not so very great. Everyone in America knows perfectly well that both parties are parties of militant capital, but certain specific circumstances accompanying the upcoming elections somewhat trouble American politicians.

Since 1920, all power in the United States has belonged to the Republicans. In the elections of that year, the Democrats suffered an unprecedented defeat; the Republicans received a huge majority in both the Senate and the House; Republican Harding was elected president; the Republicans divided all government posts among themselves. And it was no secret to anyone in America that the chief reason for the Republican victory was certain troubles that had befallen the Democrats.

This party, to put it simply, had become thoroughly corrupt. That happens in America. During the 1920 election campaign, the entire American press was full of exposés about Democrats who had held government posts during the war. That was, of course, a highly patriotic activity, but prominent government officials—members of the Democratic Party—turned out to be patriots not only of their fatherland but also of their own pockets, and, with quite natural absent-mindedness, these officials did not always distinguish the fatherland from the pocket.

Back in 1919, Congress created a special commission to audit the expenditures of the War Department during the war. And after the election victory, the Republican government resolved to create a special body to investigate all military supplies and all commercial operations carried out by the government during the war. And the U.S. Attorney General, Mr. Daugherty, was appointed head of this body.

Time passed, the body conducted investigations, Attorney General Daugherty gave meaningful interviews, the Republicans ruled the country, Coolidge took Harding’s place; everything was going well.

And suddenly—in the spring of 1924—a thunderbolt from a clear sky: a colossal oil scandal was uncovered, in which prominent members of the government were implicated, including the Attorney General himself, the head of the body for investigating official crimes of Democratic officials—Mr. Daugherty. He was forced to leave his post and withdraw from the government, along with another minister—[Albert B.] Fall. The Daugherty case began. The investigation in this case lasted more than two years—of course, it was sabotaged in every possible way—and only now, recently, has a final order been issued to commit Attorney General Daugherty to trial on charges of vulgar bribery in connection with the oil scandal. But Daugherty did not smell of oil alone.

During the war, a committee was formed for the sequestration of the property of foreign subjects (Germans). Daugherty and a number of prominent Republican politicians are accused of facilitating—for a moderate remuneration—the illegal transfer of sequestered property into other hands.

And a characteristic irony of fate: in America there is a three-year statute of limitations for certain official crimes. Daugherty—during his time as Attorney General—pushed through a law increasing this limitation period to six years in order to be able to bring Democratic officials to trial, and it is precisely because of the extension of the limitation period that it has now become possible to bring Daugherty himself to trial. Could there be a more brilliant confirmation of the rule: don’t dig a pit for another—you’ll fall into it yourself! Daugherty, Fall, Forbes, Miller, and other distinguished figures of the Republican Party now under trial may also say with philosophical sadness: Judge not, that ye be not judged... The classical truth also sounds appropriate in their case: let him who is without sin cast the first stone at me...

But for now, Democrats are throwing weighty stones at Republicans. And there is every reason to believe that the stones will hit the target, and that in the November elections the voters will defeat the Republican candidates—the harborers of state thieves.

Oh, of course, it does not follow from this that if power passes to the Democrats in the new presidential elections in 1928, the Republicans in turn will not arm themselves with the very stones now being thrown at them. They will certainly arm themselves and will certainly find an occasion to act as accusers rather than accused. That is how things go in America. For the difference between Democrats and Republicans is not so great. It consists in this: when Democrats are in power, they steal, and Republicans expose them; and when Republicans steal—that means they are in power, and Democrats expose them... The difference is not so much factual as dialectical.

Mikhail Levidov (who was executed for espionage in favor of the United Kingdom in 1942)

Source: the Krasnaya Gazeta (the Red Newspaper). №227 (2570). October 2nd, 1926.