THE BIG RAID

Hokitika Guardian, 19 May 1927, Page 2

THE BIG RAID

RUSSIA'S PROTEST

nstralian Press Association A Sun.l

MOSCOW, May 17. The Soviet has despatched a Note to London on the matter of the raid in Lotion on the Arc-os Company and Trade Delegation n * ote endorses the protest made bv Al. Bosengolz (Soviet Charge -PAffaires in London), ns cabled on May 13th. The Note recalls that during the negotiations for a resumption of AngloSoviet economic conditions, the Soviet especially stressed the demand foi the immunity of its trade agencies abroad, and this principle was embodied in the fifch article of the Trade Agreement, which article the British have now rio-

ted in the grossest and most nsult

£ manner. The Xote expresses the opinion that le raid on the Arens Company, which a British trading company of high

muling and which lias accurately fulled its obligations, is unprecedented

It says this raid could only he actuated bv the motive of causing detriment to the Soviet interests connected with the Aicos Company, by compromising the latter, and by creating an atmosphere of hostility and want of confidence in it. while at the same time interrupting the business of the Soviet Trade Delegation by occupying their premises. The acts committed thclc, it adds, flagrantly violate the Agreement of 1921.

The. Note argues that M. Kinehuk’ cypher correspondence was entitled to immunity. The Note goes on to complain that the officials of the Soviet Trade Delegation’s Cypher Department were subjected to violence, and "ere even beaten when fulfilling their duty, while M. Kitiehuk’s wife, who has a diplomatic passport, was detained with violence and searched. As against the oft-repeated accusations against the Soviet of violating of the rules of international relations, the Soviet Government has unquestionable proof of the British Government’s violation of the Soviet—British agreement or 1921, and of the most offensive handling of persons enjoying diplomatic immunity; while the requirements of international law were totally ignored ; the British Government evidentlv striving to bring the AngloSoviet tension to a. culminating point ] )V ;l u unprecedented and unrestrained campaign of bate, which has culinii nated in this raid. It compels the Soviet, earnestly and frankly to ask the British Government whether it desires the preservation and the development of Anglo-Soviet trade relations. or whether it intends in future

to hamper them. The Soviet Government categoricallv declares that the conduct of trade relations is only possible on the sti irt observance by the British Government of the Trade Agreement, and on the guaranteeing to the economic organs of the Soviet the possibility of quiet, normal work. The Soviet feels it is right to demand a clear and an unequivocal reply, from which it may draw due conclusions. It reserves the right to demand from the British Government satisfaction for the violations of treaty obligations, for the insults suffered, and for the material losses caused by the action of the police. The Soviet Xote to Britain in protest against the raid on the Arcus Coy. building says that the raid has been a most serious hostile act, jeopardising the further preservation of the relations between the interested states. The Xote states it can be proved that the Soviet Trade Relegation s activities gave no justification lor the raid, from the fact that no complaint has been received front the British Government regarding this activity. The search, it says, was roldied of any formal significance, owing to the refusal of the police to permit the Trade Delegation's representatives to be in attendance. It continues: “The British Government is aware of the Soviet Goveinment’s note referring to the police raid that was carried out under analagcns circumstances in China. To provide the search with even elementary guarantees was more necessary, in view of the ominious role once played in the Sovite-British relations by a forged document. LONDON, May 17. Behind Labour members’ abandonment of any theatrical attitude on the Trade Union Bill, there lies the rank and file’s resentment of the Executive’s impulsiveness. Tims says the “Evening News.” It says the Party s recent tlei ision to walk out of the House was given effect to before the rank and file were aware- tuat it had been arrived at. To-day (says tlie? paper) the Trades l nioii Congress gave a- cold touch to the Executive when it, discussed whether the boycott should continue, it was pointed out that the- absence of the Labour members from the Chamber would enable the Liberal and Conservative industrialist members to propose amendments which the Government was prepared to accept, afterwards enabling the movers to claim credit for making the bill acceptable. It was argued that Labour could not afford to allow opponents to adopt the role of champions of the workers. LONDON, May 17.

In the House of Commons, Sir D. Hogg (Attorney-General) spoke in revly to the debate on the Trade Union Bill. lie said that the measure did not make a sympathetic strike illegal. When the time for the use of the “guillotine” arrived, there were Governient amendments put from the chair. These were carried by 297 to 156, amid Labour cries of “Gag!” and loud whistling, and also some singing of songs.

A Government amendment declaring a “lockout” illegal in terms similar to that dealing with strikes was carried by 306 to 135.

The “guillotine” then wiped out eleven, pages of amendments.