1 Richard W. Hale
Frank W Grinnell
Roger D.Swaim John M. Maguire
Harvey H. Bundy Hale & Grinnell,
Attorneys and Counsellors at Law,
16 Central Street, Boston, Mass Long Distance Telephone
Fort Hill 510 Cable Address Hafis, Boston August 18, 1916 H/jl John Quinn, Esq
31 Nassau St.
New York City My dear Quinn, I have your letter of August 17th. My object in
writing about your Casement article was double. First, and
principally, to praise it. Second, to comment on it in the
direction of saying that I thought you had understood the
case against Casement looked at from the point of view of
deterrent punishment. From your letter, I feel still more
strongly that you do not see that case with an impartial eye.
The story about the diary suggests nothing but sympathy for
Casement. But how could Casement have the knowledge or the
authority to deny either of the two following statements? That the average Irish soldier prisoner would
expect a selfish profit from doing what Casement urged
him to do. That the German Government would look less kindly
on those who refused the appeal than on those who accepted
it. -1- 2 J. Quinn Esq. #2 H/j l c 8-18-16 In other words, I think you see the punitive
and not the deterrent side of the British case against
Casement and that if you could grasp and take a really
tolerant point of view of the deterrent value of such
punishment, you cold make as strong a case. I suppose your answer is that such a punishment
induces more crime than it deters. That may be true in
Ireland, let us say in the south of Ireland. But I feel
pretty sure that if the English had inflicted drastic and
deterrent punishment in Ulster, it would have deterred
both Ulster and Dublin Yours cordially
Richard W Hale -2-