Also, inexcusable ignorance was shown on the part of the accuser of Clara Barton as to her methods in Red Cross affairs. It is certified to by the Red Cross (and of official record) that Clara Barton made her report at the close of every disaster, and in every instance the report was approved by the Red Cross, and was satisfactory to her government and the American people. Besides besmirching the history and good name of the Red Cross and her country, thus to impeach the integrity of the Founder of the Red Cross and for more than a score of years its President, is to impeach also her various boards of officers and her hundreds of other associates, including American Presidents,—all of whom uniformly approved her methods, her reports and the results achieved, while “she remained the President of this small American Red Cross and sometimes acted also as its Treasurer.” If what the “lone accuser” asserts be true, that “we (Red Cross) have letters that seem to show that she occasionally had some of the contributed funds invested in the West,” they are letters, among other Red Cross effects, that came officially into the possession of the Red Cross, in 1904, through the pleasure and free-will offering of the conscientious-and-honest-to-a-fault-concealing-nothing Clara Barton. And for which also she received a _clearance card_, a “receipt in full.” As an American citizen and a member of the Red Cross I protest the legal right, or the moral right, of the Red Cross “accuser” now to incriminate her whose lips are sealed, or longer to approve of record, _upon what seems to show_.... The facts _not only seem to show, but do show_, that if Clara Barton had not accepted as a present from the twin brothers, Edwin and Edward Baltzley of Glen Echo, Chautauqua, her Glen Echo real estate, and for a house thereon as a present, the wreckage lumber from the people of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, in 1889, there would have been no free-of-rent home for the Red Cross for the last fifteen years of her Red Cross administration and that of other philanthropies; that, while the accuser was living in a palace and “rolling in wealth,” the accused would have been homeless and penniless, living on charity.