RUSSIAN LETTER

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18216, 29 October 1924, Page 9

RUSSIAN LETTER

DIVIDED OPINION. AUTHENTICITY IN DISPUTE. SPEECHES OF POLITICAL LEADERS. iBY CABLE FHK SS ASSOCIATION- —COPYRIOtI T ! akd s.z. cable association.) (Received October 23th. 7.30 p.m.) LONDON, October 28. The Foreign Office repeats its conviction that the Ziuoviell" letter is not a forgery. The Parliamentary correspondent of ih" '-I),il'y Telegraph" s-ayM "Political .-•i- -<!e - 1 e at ie»n;'t :•> ! •'■■■ 1 the letter a forgery is merely bluff Meaii'.. I" 1 La : '--Oi-Mlistt. r-eri-oi;-1 v dii-turled. fearing the i fleets of exposure nni>n the polls. ' >! r MiicDonalil's MH-eiii at. Cardiff supplied texts lor speeches by all the pnrtv leaders "ti Monday night. Mr -I. K. dynes, in Manchester. ciauue-I iliat latest revelations show the Zii?o\ ielf aifair be a. iespel'ute and disgraeeful plot again>t the Labour Gcvcrnmenr. "Tho-e who talk of the tainted hand-- oi Russian represent ative-.." lie .-aid. "are the I!riii>h tm l ■!i<• that. Hu.v-ian handa may be cleaner 111:>:i theirs. It is a dangerous tiling for u:ir enemies to stoop to methods which niuy embroil us wi ih other nations."

Mr Au.su u I ha tuber lain, at Birmingham. said: "Before the Prime Minister authoriM'd tlie despatch of the Note to tlso >ti\ ii-t lie have satisfied himself that the Zinovieff letter was not a forgery. Vet apparently every other member of the Cabinet it wholly in the dark. Why was the information withheld? The Prime Minister is not an autocrat. The gravest feature of the present politicaF situation is that behind the responsible Ministers there is a Junta of back-bench extremists who call Ministers to account and upset their policy.''

Mr Asquith, at Paisley, said: "If Mr Mac Donald believed the Zinovieff letter genuine, he has had in his pocket during most of the election period most convincing proof that the Soviet Government intended to break the most solemn provision of the Treaty. It is incredible that such a menacing document was not circulated among Cabinet members before it was given to the world."

Mr Mac Donald, in a later speech in his own constituency, said: "I knocked the draft reply to M. Rakovsky into smithereens and wrote something with my own hand, which I wanted to see again. Therefore I did not initial it, instead sending my fair copy for signature. The Foreign Office officials issued it themselves."

CANNOT ACCEPT DENIAL, MR LLOYD GEORGE DOUBTS MOSCOW. (router's telegrams.) LONDON, October 27. Mr Lloyd George, in bis speech at Camberwell in support of Mr J. T. MacNamara, said that the Moscow mystery cast a sinister light on the Government's refusal to allow an enquiry into the Campboll case.

The Foreign Office, of which Mr MacDonald was the bead, said the Zinovieff document was genuine, but all Mr MacDonald's Ministers said it was a forgery. He did not know why they said that before they had made enquiries. It looked to him as though the document had been withhold from members of the Cabinet.

Mr Lloyd George said be would have accepted the Soviet denial but for the fact that when he was Prime Ministor the Soviet denied a similar transaction, when he had positive proof. This was when M. Kemeneff denied that he was propagating revolution in England, at the moment when he, Mr Lloyd George, had his telegram to Moscow, stating that he bad disposed of the Russian jewels and was giving the "Daily Horald" £75,000. Therefore he could not accept Moscow's denial as he would have accepted a denial by any other countryAN EARLIER FORGERY. LORD CURZON DECEIVED IN 1921. (»Y CABLE—PBKSB ASSOCIATION—COPTBIOHT) LONDON, October 27. With reference to the statements that the Zinovieff letter was known to Mr Mac Donald and Mr Henderson (Secretary of State for Home Affairs) nearly three weeks prior to publication, Mr Henderson to-day declared that no such document had been received by the Home Office or Scotland Yard or by him personally from any quarter. His first information of the existence of the document was through the columns of the newspapers on October 25th. The "Daily Herald" insists that the Zinovieff letter is an obvious forgery. The journal's Parliamentary correspondent points out that Foreign Office experts were similarly deceived in 1921, resulting in Lord Curzon 'a famous Note to Russia, dated August 7th, which was afterwards discovered to be founded on forged documents supplied by German private detectives. The correspondent suggests that the Zinovieff letter is probably the work of Russian counterrevolutionaries, obtained in Russia by the British Secret Service.

Reports from many areas throughout the country suggest that Labourites who abhor revolution and have supported the Government's attitude towards Russia on economic grounds are profoundly distressed over the Zinovieff revelations.

AN EXPLANATION. PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH. HISTORY OF THE AFFAIR. •P.SL'TEF.'S TELEjRAMS • (Received October J?th, S.-> p.m.) LONDON". October '2S. Mr Mar-Donald, speaking at Cardiff, said: 'The election started with a mare's nefct, the 'Workers Weokh case, and is likely to finish with a mares' nest, the great Russian Red Plot assertion. "That when the Government refused an enquiry into the -Workers Weekly" case it had information of the ramifications of Communist, actr-itv m Britain, far more serious than the Commons and country were allowed to know, is a malicious untruth. Th c !.:cts are that tin- i Government was defeated on October «th. This Red Plot letter did not find its way into the Foreign Office until October 10th. It was mu put into the Department till Oct . .. r 14th, and was scut io me at |\|ai;< !;,-t<.-r <m October l"tb. I received it on October Kith. I made a minute that the greatest care must be i a ken in di-cuvering whether it was authentic, if it u-.um bo published immediately.

'ln the meantime, while other iinvestigation* were proceeding to df-cosei its authenticity, a draft letter to M. l?ak-ovsky was prepared so that when, and if, authenticity were established, no time should be lost in protecting to (he Soviet 'Government. My minute was received bv the Department on October 17th. The trial draft was sent to mo on October 21st at Aberavon for ntv observations. I was absent in my constituency and did not receive it unlil October 2Hrd. I altered the draft on October i?4th. and sent it back in altered form, exnecting it to lie returned to ine with the proof of authenticity. but it was published that (Cries of: Shame!)

•'T make no complaints about the Foreign Office, and overv one of mv colleagues knows tlint I will not tolerate this propaganda."

"On account of my known determination to stand as firmly by the Agreement. anil the Treaty :is if they were Holy Writ, when my signature was attached, they sissumcd they were carrying out my wishes in taking, steps immediately to publish the whole affair. They honestly believed the document to be authentic, and acted in that belief. If they acted precipitately, what is the accusation against us.' Whydo not the newspapers say we were in too great haste? If the Foreign Office had been in the hands of either the Tories or the Liberals that letter would have taken weeks to get through the various sievos. The rapidity of action, and the businesslike way of handling the Government's determination to stand no nonsense is a conspicuous example of the new way of conducting foreign affaire. "If the Zinovieff letter be a forgery, it shows the amount of scoundrelism that surrounds us. My experience made it impossible for ine not to be suspicious. If it be genuine, depend upon it, so long as there is a Labour Government and I am responsible for it, I will handle with firmness and determination every attempt by an outside Power to interfere in our internal affairs." The Prime Minister described as lies the "wonderful stories" published in the newspapers with, regard to the progress of the document through the l'osfc Office to the Foreign Office. Ho said it was an eleventh hour attempt to entangle the Government and get the election fight over with a, cloud ot suspicion hanging over the country.

Mr Mac Donald said in conclusion: I am the most innocent man of the lot of you. I was out of London. I had to get the information, which is still coming in, because I am going to pJobo this thing to the roots. It will be my first job when I return to London to discover how this thing originated, and who is behind it; and you will get the whole etory." He wanted to know ho\f a, certain London newspaper, which was priding itself on having forced the Government's hand, came to have a copy of the letter, and how Conservative headquarters, for days has been talking of springing a mine under the Government's feot," became possessed ot the letter.

"I know the letter may have originated anywhere," saidt he Prime Minister. "How can I, a simple, honest-minded person, avoid the suspicion that the whole thing is another Gunpowder Plot? The matter is in no wise finished. Until it is finished, the best thing is to leave it with the Government." A CONSERVATIVE REPLY. (reuter's te&egbams.) (Received October 28th, 8.30 p.m.) LONDON. October 28. With referenoe to Mr MacDonaid s speech at Cardiff, Conservative Headquarters promptly issued a statement that it only learned of tho existence of the Zinovieff letter when the Foreign Office published it. IN FRANCE AND ITALY. (KEUTTit's TELEGRAMS.) PARIS, October 27. In view of the expected Freneh recognition of the Soviet, the Press is devoting great space to the Zinovieff incident, suggesting that it should give M. Herriot occasion to pause. (AT7STRALLAH axd k.z. cable absociattox.) ROME, October The publication of M. Zinovieff's letter has caused a sensation in Italy. Officials regard the Communist agitation in Great Britain, coinciding with increased activity in Italy and elsewhere in Europe, as symptoms of Moscow's organised renewed attack on civilisation. Italian Bolsheviks recently received large funds, enabling a renewal of propaganda, which dropped after Signor Mussolini attained power,

ZINOVIEFF'S DENIAL

MR MACDOXALD BELIEVES IN" LETTER. ■r.EVTER's TKLeGEAMS. LONDON". October '_T. M. Zinovieff has sent r, message to the Trades I'uion Congress, dechirirs; that the letter. alleged to be Mcnrd ''y him. is a gro*-s lulsim-ation. There was and could not be such a letter. He denounces it as clearly an election manoeuvre and invites the Trades Uiror, Congress to appoint a commission t<> visit 11 ix ss i a to investigate its authenticity. Notwithstanding Communist denials, the I'oreign Office is entirely satisfie-i with the genuineness of the Zinovieff letter. M. Rakovskv (Russian 1). s s;uit a letter to the Foreign Office, protesting tlrt his I'mbassy was not notified prior to the publication of the. documents anil declaring that the letter is obviously a. forgery, which should have clear to the Foreign Office officials.

Mr Mac Donald. in Ivs speech at Cardiff. said he believed the letter was authentic.

Conservative headquarters tr-cktv stnte.s it. is convinced the «)nv=pondence will rally many ivaverers to the Conservative side.

Liberal Headquarters is of opinion that tliere is a grave peril of reaction idter such an exposure, and only Liberalism can save th© nation.

MINISTERS IN IGNORANCE.

CONFLICTING REPORTS. (AUSTRALIAN AND N.2 CABLE ABSOCIATIOH.) LONDON, October 27. Thirteen Ministers at present express ignorance of the Zinovieff letter. The "Daily News" points out that the Labour Party's manifesto suggests that the Foreign Office and not Mr Mac Donald was responsible for the decision as to the authenticity and for the publication of Zinovieff's letter. Many of Mr Mac Donald's friends, rightly or wrongly, assert, that Mr MaeDonald is not yet convinced of the authenticity of the letter. It is significant that Mr J. 11. Thomas, after a telephone discussion with Mr Mac Donald, publicly expressed doubts. Elsewhere it is hinted that Mr MacDonald drafted the reply instructing its despatch when authenticity of the letter had been proved. The Foreign Office, becoming convinced, sent the Note. Comrade McManus, to whom the letter was addressed, speaking at Manchester, said he was in Russia when the Note was written. "Why should M. Zinovieff write to mo in London when I was living next door in Moscow! I personally met M. Zinovieff before and after September 15th."

"IMPUDENT FORGERY," A SOVIET NOTE. (KZirnca'S T*I.XGaAKS,) MOSCOW, October 27. The (Soviet's reply to the Jjritisjb Note characterises the alleged Zinovieff, letter as an impudent forgery, aiming the destruction of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty and the ruin of friendly AngloSoviet relations, which were happily beginning to improve. In view of the use of forgery in an official document. the Soviet Government insists on. an adequate apology and punishment of both private and official persons concorned. Fully appreciating the serious consequences the forgery might have on both countries, the Soviet urgently and decidedly offers to recognise any impartial Arbitration Court set up to establish the fact that the letter is a forgery. The Noto opens by 'adhering to the repeated declarations regarding nonresponsibility of the Soviet Government for acts of the Communist International, and at present abstains from touching upon the form and tone of the British .Foreign Office Note.

PROPAGANDA IN GERMANY. (kecteb's teleoeahs.) LONDON, October 27. A Iliiga message says that in connexion with the celebration of the anniversary of the Communist outbreak in Hamburg last year, M. Zinovieff declared that a proletarian revolution was approaching in Germany despite all the Daweses, Eberts, and No&ke6. The Hamburg rising was a Communist dress rehearsal. Berlin's Communist organ publishes a manifesto by the Executive of the Moscow International, signed by Zinovieff, in commemoration of the anniversary, calling on the German workers to enter into close relation with the Communist troops for the organisation of a revolution. Tho manifesto concludes by calling for cheers for tho German Communists as the advsjioe guard of the German proletariat and world revolution.