NO DEFINITE CHARGE.

Grey River Argus, 1 March 1927, Page 5

NO DEFINITE CHARGE.

SOVIET’S ANSWER. To Bnihh Note. FORGED DOCUMENT THE ONLY EVIDENCE. MOSCOW, Feb. 27. The Soviet reply to the British Note refers to the unquestionable fact of the unsatisfactory character of the re •ations between the Soviet and Britain. It cites the agreement signed by the Soviet in 1923, whereby the Soviet undertook not to support Avith funds or any other Avay. persons, bodies or agencies, aahose aim is to spread discontent or foment rebellion in any part of the British Empire. The reply declares that during the three and a half years since signing the agreement, the British Government has repeatedly reproached the Soviet for alleged infringements of the agreement. Continuing, the Soviet says that Britain has violated the agreement signed by Lord Curzon in 1923, Avhereby the British undertook immediately tc inform the Soviet of the supposed infringement of obligations and not to i alloAv cases to accumulate Avithout making charges. Thus, the British Government has preferred to make general wholesale reproaches save in the instance of the so-called Zinovieff letter during the general election in Britain in 1924. The Zinovieff letter Avas sub-' sequently proved to be a forged document, thus the only definite charg-. i was based on a forged document, Avhilel none of those Avho misinformed* thei Brit ish G overnnient Avere punished, though the letter at one time strained s the Anglo-Russian relations ot the ut-. termost. A SUGGESTED TEST. The fact that Britain declined foi accept Russian proposals to submit toj arbitration on the question of respon-i sibility regarding international Coni- • munist organisations, could only betaken as a withdrawal of the accusations against the Soviet.

The reply points out that there have been no agreements limiting freedom of press and speech Avithin the borders of either country, and to bring published verbal utterances made within Soviet Russia into the scope of the

19. r ;3 agreement is- an arbitrary extension of the limits of the agreements. ’I he Note characterises as delusions the constant references by politicians and members of British Governments to alleged omnipresence and omnipotence of so-called Soviet agents. It deplores the unsatisfactory conditions of Anglo-Soviet relations, but expresses the belief that explanations cannot be made by means of mutual accusations in the press. The note cites the speeches of Lord Birkenhead, Mr Churchill and other British statesmen regarding Russia,

and refers to attacks on Soviet repre sentatives in London, saying that Brit ish representatives in Mt sCcAA' are nev-* subjected to insults on the part of th*

Soviet press. Arthur McManus, Avho is alleged to have been the signatory of the Zinovieff ■lSfter, is dead. ~

A Riga cable slates the Soviet is j holding meetings throughout Russia, Si- | beria, and Turkestan, especially of fac- ‘ tory workers, protesting against the; British Note, and endeavouring to sound a note of national indignation, passing resolutions insisting that a worthy re-1 ply be sent to Britain’s impudent and l u?i f o and cd de man d s. RUSSIAN ATTITUDE. BREACH NOT DESIRED. (Received February 28 at 5.5 p.m.) MOSCOW, February 27. Commenting on the Soviet’s reply to Britain, the paper “Izvestia” declares: “A breach of the relations between the two countries on the grounds that are outlined in the British note would , not be justifiable by anybody. We shall not be responsible, nor shall we provoke any broach, which we would consider to be very undesirable.” IGNORE SOVIET REPLY. THE WISDOM OF “THE TIMES.” (Received February 28 at 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, February 27. The Times in a leading article urges the "Government to ignore the Soviet’s reply, which, it asserts, contains merely a mixture of misstatements, false charges and vague professions of pacific intentions. The matter, it says, should momentarily be allowed to rest. Any protracted controversy would merely complicate the China situation, which although plainly connected with Soviet intrigue, should be handled separately. LONDON PRESS COMMENT. REPLY CALLED MENDACIOUS. < LONDON, February 28. Th orning Post, commenting on the Russian reply to the British Note, says: “Sir Austen Chamberlain’s protest is merely so many wasted words. M. Lithvinoff, Soviet Foreign Minister, in composing his rejoinder, had a sharp eye to compaigning interests among his friends, the British Labour Barty. The Note leaves the British Foreign Office •with the alternative of entering into an undignified altercation, or of Leaving M. Lithvinoff’s distortions on the main issue unanswered, so that the Labour Party can say they are unanswerable. ’ The Daily Mail characterises the Note s “insolent.. mendacious and diffuse. ’ ’ The Times suggests that the Russian trouble be allowed to rest for the moment, as a protracted controversy would merely complicate the Chinese situation which is bette'F handled by itself. GERMAN~SARCAPM. BERLIN, February 27. The Berlin newspapers give prominence to the Soviet’s reply, and comment on it in an aggressive and sarcas tie tone, under such headings as “ Moscow Mocks England.”