The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1913. THE OBLIGATIONS OF PUBLIC MEN.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1755, 21 May 1913, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1913. THE OBLIGATIONS OF PUBLIC MEN.

9 What is known as "The Marconi Inquiry" has been occupying public attention in England for some time past, and the latest London papers to hand would appear to indicate that despite the fact that the Parliamentary Committee which is conducting the investigations held over fifty sittings, interest in the matter is as keen as ever. Pages and pages of the evidence of witnesses at the Inquiry have appeared in the leading newspapers, The Times publishing a verbatim report of the greater part of the examination of all the important witnesses; and it is generally recognised that the issue is one which must have an important bearing on the future standard of public life in Great Britain. The Inquiry arose out of unpleasant rumours, which gave birth to questions in the House of Commons concerning tho dealings of Cabinet Ministers in Marconi shares. The suggestion appears to have ,been made by someone that certain members of tho Cabinet .had, by reason of their positions as Cabinet Ministers, been enabled to secure an advantage by which .they had obtained large profits from the buying and selling of Marconi shares. Ultimately the names of Sir Rufus Isaacs, Attorney-General, and Mr. Lloyd-Geqrge, Chancellor of the Exchequer, came to be associated 'with the rumours, and afforded the Ministers named thc_ opportunity of explanation and denial. The circumstances of the matter were such, however, that it was recognised that the only course which would afforcT a full and complete opportunity to all parties to make their positions absolutely clear was to hold some form of public at which anyone having any information bearing on the subject could attend and give evidence. A Parliamentary Committee was therefore appointed to conduct an investigation which it was felt the high standard of political integrity demanded of British statesmen in the past called for. The facts of the transactions which apparently gave rise to the disquieting rumours now appear"to bo fairly established by the numerous witnesses who have given evidence before the Committee. The interpretation to be placed on these facts by the Committee yet remains to bp_ disclosed. It seems that on March 7 tho British Postal Department accepted tho tender of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company to erect and i equip wireless stations _ at various points in Great Britain, but _ the acceptance was subject to the adjustment of certain details. These matters in dispute were under discussion for some months afterwards, and the contract was not actually signed until much later in the year. The manager of the Marconi Company was, Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, a brother of Sir Rufus Isaacs, AttorneyGeneral. Sir Rufus Isaacs some ten days after March 7, when the agreement between the postal authorities and the Marconi Company wasmiidc, bought some 10,000 shares in the American Marconi Company, in which company tho British Marconi Company held a controlling interest. Sir Rufus Isaacs bought these shares through his brother, Mr. Harry Isaacs—who had obtained them from Mr. Godfrey Isaacs—and persuaded Mr. Lloyd-George and the 'Master of Elibank also to purchase 1000 shares cach. , At this time it should be borne in mind the British Marconi Company and the Government were still in dispute on the details of the contract referred to. It should also be quite clcarly understood'that it was distinctly stated in evidence that the American Marconi Company was in no way interested in the British Company, and in consequence had no interest in or benefit from the contract with the British Government. The shares mentioned above were bought at £2 each, and two or three days after buying them Mr. Lloyd-Geoege sold 800 odd of his holding at an average of £3 Gs. Bd. per share, which brought him in a profit on the transaction of £743 cash with 140 odd shares still in hand. Mr. Lloyd-George refused to admit that this purchase was a gamble or speculation in shares, although he had only held them a few days before selling again. A few weeks later, when the shares had dropped in price, ho bought a larger parcel, which he still holds, and on which at the present market price he stands to make a slight loss. Sir Rufus Isaacs apparently could have sold at a substantial profit, but at the present price of the shares is, at the moment, a loser on the transaction.

In their evidence before the Committee of Inquiry, both tno Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attor-ney-General indignantly repudiated the idea that the British Marconi contract with the Government had anything to do with the American Marconi Company, or that they had been influenced in any way in the purchase of American Marconi shares by any special knowledge which they possessed as Cabinet Ministers. They also denied that they had received any advantage which the general investor did not possess in the purchase of the shares, either through the giood offices of Mil. Godfrey Isaac 3or anyone elsa. As a matter of fact the evidence adduccd before the Committee of Inquiry fails to disclose any proof of corrupt use of their official positions, with the object of personal profit, on the part of the Ministers in question. But while this may be said to their credit, the fact remains that they appear to have placed themselves in a most unfortunate position. To quote the Spectator (which had said practically the same thing of Sin Bufus Isaacs and was now referring to Mit Lloyd-Geohoe) :

Though hero again we must be careful to ray, and wo say it from no sense of caution but from belief, th at thero was no corruption in (ho sense of taking money in order to betray the public interest, but only on extreme and amazing want of delicacy and discretion, and a positively astonishing willingness 'to risk giving call.so for suspicion.

That is the point. .Should any Minister of the Crown indulge in business transactions of a nature calculated to raise, suspicion in the public mind, and by so doing undermine confidence in the integrity of officers of the Statein high places, and, moreover, possibly lay down a precedent, which if followed by others mighL lead to something infinitely worse. It happens that at least four members of the Asquitii Government have expressed themselves on this point in no uncertain

manner. One of the number is Me. Lloyd-George himself:

It was not merely enoush, in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman fMr. A. Chamberlain] that tin officer of the State <houid be incorruptible, but ho must nave 110 association with companies, either past or present association, which .would mako him open to suspicion. That is a rule which. I call tho rule of Caesars wife. That is what he lays down, and I accept it fully. That was Mil Lloyd-George's opinion of the obligations resting on officers of the State in 1900. Mil. Ealdane on the same occasion, when discussing the rules which should govern the conduct of public men, said:

I feel that these things produce a seliso of uneasiness and unrest in 'the pub he mind. Remember how tho man in. tile street looks upon the ' Government. Ho looks upon the Government as a national institution, of which ho is proud, and Ho looks upon it in the same light as ho looks upon tho Judges of the land. . . . What is tlici real interest of tlio public in the matter? It is that 'the Ministry should by their conduct be lreo from all misconception or suspicion in the public mind. Mr. M'Kenxa and Mn. Joip Burns, both colleagues tu-day of Sir Rufus Isaacs and Mr. Lloyd-George, spoke in a similar strain, Mr. Burns in the course of a forcible spcech declaring that he wanted the Empire "to go on cleanly and honourably, and it can oijlv go on these lines as long as you prevent Ministers from dabbling in companies.''' A Parliamentary Committee unfortunately is always liable where party interests are involved to be influenced in its judgment by party considerations. The report of the Marconi Committee, therefore, may not deal adequately with the very great and important principle—apart from any question of actual corruption—which is involved in the dealings of Ministers in American Marconi shares. That the matter will be very fully threshed out in the House of Commons, however, may be taken for granted, and it may prove extremely embarrassing for some members of the Government.