CURENCY SPECULATIONS

Evening Star, Issue 19802, 28 February 1928, Page 6

CURENCY SPECULATIONS

BRITISH CIVIL SERVICE SENSATION FINDING OF BOARD OF INQUIRY OFFICIALS DEALT WITH. (British Official News.) Press Association—By Wireless—Copyright. RUGBY, February 27. (.Received .February 28, at noon.) The report of the Board of Inquiry appointed to investigate certain statements affecting Civil servants made in the recent law case of ironmonger v. Dyne was laid in the House of Commons to-night. Accompanying it was a minute stating that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, having carefully considered the report, “ are glad to observe that, serious as were the alienees in certain cases, Irom the service point of view no question of corruption or ol use ol otlicial in)urination occurred in any one of them. As a consequence ol the findings the Secretary of State’ has directed that H. D. Gregor yhe dismissed Irom the service, that Mr O’Malley he permitted to resign-, and that Lieutenant-commander

Ma.xso be severely reprimanded and forfeit three years’ seniority.” Tho report ol the inquiry, in a lengthy document compiled alter much evidence had been taken, is divided into three parts. The first deals with the cases ol the three Foreign Office officials mentioned in connection with tlio speculations in foreign currency. The board came to the conclusion that while Gregory, O’Malley, and Alaxso neither used nor endeavored to use any official information for tho purpose of their transactions, such transactions ought, never to have been undertaken by Civil servants, least of all by those to whom from the nature ol their work the sensitiveness and suspicions of foreign countries' with regard to such dealings in their currencies cannot have been unfamiliar. The action of these three officials, m the view of the board, was inconsistent with their ob ligations as Civil servants. Regarding Gregory the board states “ Wc cannot doubt that he was con scious of the impropriety of what he was doing, and we do not regard it as sufficient excuse that ho did not at any lime make use ol official inlormation for private ends.” The case of O'Malley, who initiated the business, the board regards as distinguishable from Gregory’s only by the smallest volume and the shorter duration of transactions, ft thinks that extenuating circumstances are admissible in Maxse’s case.

The second part ol the report deals with the question whether other Civil servants have been engaged in similar transactions. In two speeilie cases, in which officials had volunteered statements to the board regarding past investments, the view is expressed on the impropriety of their actions, which, however, bore no resemblance, except in form, to the systematic operations of the other three officials mentioned, and the board is satisfied that no question had arisen of inside inlormation having been used. The third section ol the report deals with the allegation that to servo his own financial ends Gregory had manipulated publication of the Zipoviefl letter and the Note to the Soviet Charge d’Affaires regarding it. After a careful analysis of all the circumstances and events regarding that episode the conclusion reached is that not the slightest foundation exists for attaching suspicions to Gregory—in fact, tho report shows that Gregory, in too departmental minutes, advised against the publication of the documents. Moreover, the fact that they were published had no cifeet upon the eonrvo of foreign exchanges. Dealing with the position of Civil servants generally, the report concludes: ‘‘The public expects Irom them a standard of integrity and conduct not only inflexible, but fastidious, and has not been disappointed in the past. We are expressing the view of the service when wc says that the public has a right to expect that standard, and that it is the duty of the service to see that tho expectation is fulfilled.”

[A jury in the King’s Bench Division gave a verdict in favor of the .Ironmonger Company of Bankers in London in its claim for £38,398 against Mrs Amonta Bradley Dyne, in respect to foreign currency transactions. The defendant pleaded the Gaming Act, contending that the transactions were merely gambles in differences. It was stated in evidence that in one period in three months the defendant gained £24,000 in deals. The defendant during the war was secretary to Mr W.^ D. Gregory (Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office), whose name has been frequently mentioned in the case, including allegations that he lost £9OOO in transactions with the ironmongery company. The Foreign Office appointed a special board of inquiry owing to the statements made dnringthe hearing of the case concerning Civil servants.]