The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1917-11-02
EVIDENCE OF
PROPAGANDA
SEEN BY FOOD
CANvASSERS
False Stories Circulated BY
German Sympathiz ers
Keep Women From Sign
ing Pledges to Save.
SOME ARE SLACKERs

That German propaganda to defeat
the food conservation movement is
flourishing in Richmond has been re-
vealed by reports submitted by food
conservation solicitors who have been
making house-to-house canvasses to
have householders sign food conserya-
ton pledges.
Judging from these reports the prop
aganda now in progress is much more
effective than the propaganda which
was inaugurated in the late summer
to discourage home canning and dry
ing of fruits and vegetables.
.aThere are quite a number OF people
in Richmond who have refused to sign
pledges to conserve their food sup
plies said a Richmond woman who
has been assigned important duties III
the food conservation movement.
Propaganda To Blame
81 have personally investigated
number of these cases and | am salts
fled that the majority of those VINO
have refused to sign pledges have been
Influenced in taking this action be
cause they have been fed upon mls-ln-
formation regarding the purposes OF
the conservation movement | nave
heard enough to justify my opinion
that carefully planned German propa'
ganda is responsible for the dtssemm'
alton Of this mis-information.
II am also satisfied, as result OF
nv investigation, that quite Few peo-
nile have refused to aid the government
by conserving their food supplies De
cause they are pro-German and Gov
ertly disloyal"
A few refusals to assist in the saV'
ing of food supplies are based on re
sentiment over tactless methods en-
ployed by a few solicitors. It is stat
cd. however, that fully fifty percent OF
the people who refused to aid the con
servation movement did so because
OF deliberate dissemination OF mls-ln
formation by German propagandlsts
Others who declined to aid the govern.
rnent in conserving the country's 1000
sunnlieg are regarded as ''slackers."
100 Refuse One Place.
In a certain residential district OF
Richmond about one hundred people
refused to sign pledge cards. An In
yestigatfon was Immediately MADE
end. as a result, it was ascertalnee
that most of the refusals were basec
on misinformation.
There were quite few people, 1t Il
stated, who refused to sign pledges
because they understood that py sc
doing they would be obligated TO con
tribute a certain sum Of money TO The
government each week.
Other people declined to pledge
themselves to food conservation be
cause they were firmly convinced tha
If thew did so federal food inspector:
would regularly inspect their food sup
plies and restrict the amount the fam
lilies could use.
There were some people who frank
" refused to sign cards because. a
they stated, they we're not interested
in the conservation movement anC
had no intention of denying them
selves. These people, even when the!
we're shown that food conservation dlt
not mean curtailment OF nourishment
persisted in their refusals to pledgs
themselves.
Later Signed Up.
However, in the district referred to
most of the people who had at frs
refused to sign pledge cards did 81
when it was explained to them wha
the purposes Of the conservation move
ment really were.
Two women who had enthusiastic
ally pledged their families later re
uuested the withdrawal Of thei
pledges. When asked for explanation
OF their actions one woman stated tha
her husband was a railroad employ
and that she had been told that if sh
pledged herself to fight for Uncle San
in her kitchen her husband would los
his Job with the railroad. The othe
woman told similar story. only il
this case she was afraid that her son
Icontinued On Page Twelve.1