"DAILY HERALD" AND ITS SUBSIDY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 42, 13 November 1920, Page 9

"DAILY HERALD" AND ITS SUBSIDY

DIRECTORS' KNOWLEDGE OF

NEGOTIATIONS

INTERESTING LETTERS

| Further light on the transactions be-tween-tlife "Dally Herald" and the Bolsheviks by correspondence between llr. Bevin, one of the directors of the poper, and Mr, Lloyd Georgo. Mr. Kevin took exception to Mr. Lloyd George's assumption, in the statement ffom Downing Street, that the directors of the "Herald wero. equally with Mr. Lnnsbury. parties to ttie concealment from the public of the Bolshevist offer until they knew that further revelations wore about to b& made which would throw discredit on tho nownotorious. "Not a Bond, not a Franc, not n Rouble" article. Mr. Bevin wrote: "Dear Prime Minister,—ln the statement ipsued by the Government re the 'Daily Herald' I noto tho following' The Government permits itself to doubt whether the "Daily Herald" would have taken the public into its confident with respect to the Russian money but for the fact that it had been apprised Mat tho secret could no lon&er bo kept.' X tnko it that 'Daily Herald' means the directors, and you are, of course, aware tint four of fir. '''rectors are responsible trade union official who at any rate enioy the confidenc" "f a combined merab;rship running uiilli n us. Am I to understand, therefore, that the four trade union officials, i'oectli'.-r with Mr. Lans* b'irv are charged, bv the Government that' tl'lev would have taken this money and withheld the knowledge of such travsactioa from the public and the trade unions if they could have done it without fear of being found out? An i explicit aid definite reply immediately will be welcomed." Mr. Llovd George replied as follow?:— "Dear Mr. Bevin,-I have read your letter with considerable surprise. It I scorns to mo to display fi luck of upprc* ciation of th? full purport of tbD very significant facts '.of which the publio have recently been informed. Let mo I remind you of a few which have a. Denring on the subject-matter of your letter.

"(1) It has been known for some time that the 'Daily Herald' was in pecuniary <lifficuitifs ami on tho point of exhausting its resources. Responsible leaders m the trade "union movement have urgefrmembers of the different unions and the readers of the paper to rcscne the paper from this position. According to Al. Tehitcherin the losses on the paper ill February of this year nmountedto .CIOWJ a week. This condition of affairs must, I imagine, have been the subject of anxious and repeated discussion amongst the directors, who would natyrally explore tho different avenues of relief and rem"(2) Tho wireless messages which were. published oil August 19 contain irrcfutablo evidence that Mr. George Lansburv, the editor, was urgently soliciting assistance for the paper abroad, as well os at home. In the wireless messages recently published M. Tehitcherin repeatedly refern to this. On February 11. 1920., lie writes: 'Lansburv is particularly anxious (m- help in obtaining paper.' On Febru. arv 23 ho speaks of 'the credit we are opening for him (Mr. Lansburv) for purchasing paper in Sweden or Finland. Un February 29 he asks: 'How much money must we send Strom to pay for. LMSj ury's orders? We now pay two thousand Swedish crowns for paper. Strom will , gradually repay this sum. We, n other hand, will continue to pay for' the paper until the whole of the five hundred tons has been paid for. Ho will pay n email sum as commission. . . . un the same date: 'Please reply as soon as possible low much you consider we ought to givevto the Herald. On July -0 1)0 speaks of a subsidy foi'the ' of control.' All tho director?, if they faithfully discharged their trust toi their shareholders, must have been aware of tlvr«e financial transactions. , m . "(3) You will remember ttftt on ■ "0 the 'Dailv HeTald declared that it had received 'not a bond, not a, franc, not a 1 °"(4) e it is now known that one of your fellow directors had for some considerable time been in direct negotiation with representatives of the Soviet Government for a. grant of money to ]>e devoted to the assistance of the 'Daily Hoi aid. "(5) It .is also known that a sum of •£75,000 was paid to this director as •result of those negotiations. . "rttt Three days before tho publication of tho statement I have referred to some iewels received from Bolshevist ! had been sold in London and paid for days later the police .tracked some of tho notes which had been used to pay for these jewels in to the possession of Mr. Meynell. Is it singular that neither his 6on nor his co-director -should 'hove this transaction—so intimately affecting ' the position of the naper-to the editor, who would presumably have rmmcdmtelv nut the matter before the hoard. ' "(8) Mr. Lnnsbury, jun., knew that ; the police were in possession of this < information about the notes, and it is significant that it was subsequent to . the tracing of these notes and their historv, and after the expiration of three i wicks' from the date of the denial that the paper had received any assistance* that the 'Daily Herald' for the first . time announced tho existence of tho .£75.000 and invited the opinion of its readers as to whether they should accept this sum and thus 'complete a notable, episode in International Socialism. Such' are tho .facts. Further comment would be superfluous. .1 won d merely odd that whilst I am not suili* cicntly acquainted with the details ot tho management of the 'Daily Herald to , be in a position to attribute to particular individual*, knowledge of and participation in the administration of its affairs, it appears to me to be inconceivable thai directors who nre really exercising business control over tho concern of which they are trustees for tho trade unions should'not have been acquainted with what was going on. If tli'oy were ignorant, such ignorance of matters -of vital moment, is a ; sinister conimcnt on tho amount of control exercised by the Trade Union representatives on this organ." Mr. Bevin sent this rejoinder to the , Primo Minister: "I am in receipt of yours of September 17, and I- note that the letter does h ' not deal with the point raised in Kline/ of Soptember IG, in which I asked you to givo mo your chargos definite and explicit, but with your usual ability to side-track the issue you have merely rehashed the wholo story, which has been tho subject of controversy in' tho Prosa for days. The directors of the paper as soon as it came to their knowledgo and at their first meeting declined to accept the offer, and would liavo declined to " have accepted 6uch offer had it been known to them before. You again comment* upon M. Tcliitcherin's telegram, and tho reference to tho loss of one thou- ; sand per woek. Surely, this is childish when, as a matter of fact, I made an appeal on behalf of the 'Herald' .to ( the h'ado unions at tho special session of tho Trade Union Congress in January. I announced to tho world publicly that the 'Herald' was losing one thousand pounds per week, and such a los 6 on a newspaper is not limited to the 'Bera.d under presont conditions. ("The real point at issue is the aspersions upon tlioso of us trtio nre responsible as directors of the 'Daily Herald. In tho last paragraph of your letter you sav that if tho directors are really cxer- ~ cising business control over tho concern they should have been acquainted with what is going on, but if tho matter was j liot known to 'us, and no money waa ; received—not n- rouble to our know»cps© —and when it became known they declined to accept, 6urely thoy wore exorcising control. "Further, would yon say that your predecossor, the Right Hon. H. H. Asquith, failed to exorcise control becaueo no was . not made awaro of the Marconi- busi- ; iicss, and whon lie was made awave, instead of taking tho resignation of thoso concerned, as was done in the case of Mr. lleyiielli he appointed a committee to inquire, and would he be content to accopl a statement from at least 6©nie of his colleagues that it was an unfortunate error of judgment? Would it liavo been right to have cast aspersions upon the remainder of the Cabinet because they wero aware of what was happening?, ifur- ; tlier comment ia superfluous.