From the desk of Steve Willis, Central Library Services Program Manager of the Washington State Library:

I stumbled across a legal case in Washington State history that deserves to be revisited. The following news nugget was found at random in the Morning Olympian for May 5, 1916:

  DEFAMER OF GEORGE WASHINGTON GUILTY

 JURY RETURNS WITH VERDICT AFTER 90 MINUTES

 “TACOMA, May 4.–Paul R. Haffer was found guilty of libel and defamation of character when he said that George Washington drank more liquor than was good for him and used occasional profanity. A jury in the superior court so decided last night after deliberating an hour and 30 minutes.”

“Col. A.E. Joab brought the charge against Haffer after the latter had written a letter to a newspaper on Washington’s birthday, setting forth the alleged delinquencies of the father of his country. In his own defense, Haffer said that he had read much of Washington’s life, and wrote the charges because he was opposed to hero worship, and he thought the people were making too much of Washington’s memory. He is a socialist and employed as a car repairer. The maximum penalty for the offense is a year in jail and $1,000 fine. An appeal will be taken.”

“Col. Joab thanked each juror as they filed from the box for being ‘a real American.'”

OK, probably not a good idea to be an iconoclast in a state named after George at a time when America was nervous about socialists and the possibility of entering the Great War, which was already underway in Europe. Also, Prohibition was  the law of the land in Washington State by 1916, and comments about drunkenness were not taken lightly. But the Haffer case was not one of the most shining moments in the legal history of The Evergreen State.

Haffer was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan ca. 1895. His family moved to the Tacoma area when he was about 9. He was apparently a strong socialist throughout his entire life.

The exact content of his letter to the editor of the Tacoma Tribune for the issue in question remains murky. It was published on Feb. 18, 1916, but that issue is mysteriously missing from our microfilm reel for that time slot, even though every issue around that date is intact. If anyone out there has the full contents of Mr. Haffer’s letter, I’d appreciate seeing it.

However, other newspapers quoted parts of it. The Tacoma Times: Haffer said Washington was a “slaveholder, a profane and blasphemous man and an inveterate drinker.” The first accusation was certainly true, but the next three are very open to debate and definition.

Haffer’s reply to the press was that he wrote the letter “to check the unthinking idolatry of heroes held up by demigods before the public.”

The day following publication of his letter to the editor, he was charged with criminal libel by Col. Albert E. Joab (1857-1930), a self-appointed guardian of “patriotic values” and considered as something of a “picturesque” character by the local press. It is interesting Col. Joab went after the writer rather than the newspaper that published the piece.

The Tacoma Tribune had no comment on the case, but the rival Tacoma Times exalted in it. They quoted Col. Joab as calling Haffer a “Damnable blackguard, infamous anarchist, Red socialist!” Also these choice quotes: “I’ve been raised all my life to respect men such as Washington and I don’t propose to stand for a red anarchist to desecrate his memory. Thank God I’ve got some red blood in my system to stick up for Washington, if nobody else will. I don’t know who the man is who wrote the article, but he undoubtedly is a socialist. You can tell a rabbit by his track. He is a —- blackguard. Let this man prove in open court what he says of Washington, if he can. I can produce articles by Thomas Jefferson, whom we all learned to love through Woodrow Wilson, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and others, showing Washington was an upright man, noted for his sobriety. Why, he was even a communicant of the Episcopal church and a Master Mason. Look in any standard dictionary and you will see Washington’s picture in his Masonic apron.”

Haffer was convicted in Pierce County Superior Court and the decision was upheld, incredibly, after an appeal to the Washington State Supreme Court. Haffer was fined and sentenced to several months imprisonment, but after a month of serving his time he was pardoned by Gov. Lister.

But Haffer and the legal system still had another issue to sort out. Like many other socialists, Paul was opposed to the U.S. entry into the Great War in 1917, and according to Albert F. Gunns in Civil Liberties in Crisis : the Pacific Northwest 1917-1940 Haffer was forced into the Army after serving 10 months in jail for refusing to register for the draft. He served his time in uniform at Camp Lewis and was honorably discharged in 1919 having never been overseas.

In spite of all the contemporary publicity over his radical views, Haffer might be better remembered today as the one-time husband of the innovative and acclaimed photographer Virna Haffer (1899-1974). Paul and Virna had a son, Jean Paul, in 1924 before they divorced a few years later.

In the 1930s and 1940s Haffer remarried, started a second family, had another son and obtained work as a shipfitter. He ran for State Representative in 1934 as a member of the Socialist Party and placed 6 out of 6 in the primary with 0.99% of the vote. None of the slings and arrows hurled at him in earlier years had distracted him from his original vision.

When Haffer died on June 15, 1949 at age 54, his obituary mentioned he “gained brief notoriety when he was convicted in a Tacoma court of libeling George Washington on charges brought by the late Col. Albert Joab.”

Random News from the Newspapers on Microfilm Collection: The General Dullness Was Relieved– Two-Fisted Politics in Walla Walla

From the desk of Steve Willis, Central Library Services Program Manager of the Washington State Library:

This January 27, 1872 article from the Walla Walla Union demonstrates Washington Territory was indeed part of the rough and ready Old West when it came to journalism and politics. The writer for the Republican paper is obviously enjoying the beating his rival, the editor of the Democratic Walla Walla Statesman received at the hands of an insulted legislator. The fact two Democrats were fighting each other seems to make the scene even more delicious to the writer. There are several inside jokes here that probably require long hours of research to decipher:

Another “Head” on K.B.

DEMOCRACY CRAWFISHING–TAILS ON TOP

ANOTHER STREET FIGHT. RICH SCENE IN COURT.

 “The general dullness was relieved on Wednesday last, and all Walla Walla had a good laugh. The Editor of the Statesman, who considers himself the head of the Democratic party, has been throwing dirt at a member of the late legislature, whom he has dubbed the ‘tail end of the Walla Walla delegation,’ and ‘the tail end of the party,’ ‘evil genius,’ etc. Well, on the day mentioned, to borrow the Statesman’s idea, the head and tail met in front of the Court House. In the brief ‘toss-up’ that ensued, ‘heads’ came down with ‘tails’ on top. Heads lost– tails won.”

“In other words, the Legislator struck the journalist and either knocked him down, or he fell down in attempting to make one of his usual retreats. The Legislator then assumed a graceful position by taking a seat on the journalist’s abdomen, which was large enough to have seated a whole legislative assembly, saying that he would show him who was the ‘tail end.’ He then proceeded to bump the editorial head against the frozen ground in order to beat a little sense into it. The under man adopted the ‘passive policy’ and offered no resistance; the upper man observing this did not try to do his pupil much damage, but only tried to show him who the ‘tail end’ was. At this point the two ‘ends’ were separated, and thus ended the first lesson.”

“On the same afternoon the case of the Territory plaintiff, vs. J.H. Lasater, defendant, came on for hearing. The complaint charged that the aforesaid Lasater had, on the same day, committed an assault and battery upon one W.H. Newell. Considering the avoirdupois of the parties, and the weightiness of the charge, Chief Justice Horton called associate Justice Frush to assist him in sitting on the case. The people were represented by N.T. Caton, Prosecuting Attorney, and the defendant represented himself.”

“The complaint was read and defendant plead guilty to the soft impeachment, but just how guilty became the important question before the Court. Newell, the batteree, was called and sworn. When asked the question, ‘do you know the defendant?’ he evidently thought he was about to be sold if he answered yes, so he said, ‘I know the scrub.’ Here the defendant claimed the protection of the Court, and said that the witness should not call him pet names and that if he did so again he would protect himself. Witness subsided and was more respectful. He then went on and told his side of the story, which did not differ materially from our version above, except that he denied the running part of the fight. He got stubborn once or twice and refused to answer the defendant’s questions, but was admonished by the Court and persuaded by the defendant to answer. He insisted on making a speech instead of answering questions, but was, by the Court on the one side, and the defendant on the other, compelled to set down and let the defendant bore for truth.”

“The second witness called only saw half of the fight, and the third one did not see any. With this the prosecution rested; so did the defense. Prosecuting Attorney submitted the case without making any speech, but the defendant wanted his say. He told his side of the fight, and as he was on top, and in the best position to see what was going on, we are inclined to believe his version. He also told the reason why he put a head on the Editor, and said it was because he had tried to blackmail him, as he had almost every other citizen of the county. He said that if the Editor of the Statesman wanted peace he could have it by giving him a wide berth and letting him alone in the future, but that if the paper attacked him again, he will go for the editor again, and upon this proposition he rested his case.”

“The Prosecution replied and the Editor wanted to close, but was informed by the Court that he could make any remarks he chose after sentence was passed. The Court then assessed a fine of $20 against the defendant and adjourned. The defendant smiled, the audience laughed, and only one man frowned; that man was mad because the fine was not raised to $250, and because he had not been allowed to make a speech, and thus ended the second lesson.”

“The matter has caused no little comment, and so far as we can learn, all hands, except the man with the ‘head on,’ are satisfied. If there is no more vilification of the top man in the fight, then the matter is probably at an end, but if the Statesman persists in applying the appellation of ‘tail end’ to the winner of the late fight, then will come the third lesson, which will in all probability end the chapter.”

William H. Newell was about 50 at the time this article was originally published, and already a living legend in Pacific Northwest journalism. Here’s a description of him from Lyman’s History of Old Walla Walla County (available both in hardcopy and in digital form from WSL):

“Mr. Newell was a character, bold, energetic, caustic, and as a writer, incisive and forceful. It is related that once having a joint debate with Judge Caton, he began by saying: ‘Fellow citizens, it is a disagreeable task to skin a skunk, but sometimes it has to be done. I am going to skin N.J. Caton.’ Judge Caton reached for his hip-pocket and the meeting broke up in a general row, though it does not appear that any one was seriously hurt. The Statesman under Mr. Newell was democratic in politics and during the embroglio between President Johnson and Congress it was an active supporter of the former. It is said by some that its attainment of the place of United States official paper in the territory was due to that support. In 1878, the Statesman became a daily, the first in the Inland Empire. But on November 13th, the active, scheming mind of the editor was stilled by death.”

The Walla Walla Union ran from 1869 to 1891, when it merged with the Journal and Watchman to form The Weekly Union-Journal. The title ceased about 1904.

The rival Walla Walla Statesman is available on microfilm at WSL, and the years 1864-1869 have been digitized by our Digital and Historical Collections unit and can be viewed online.