THE MARCONI DEAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 13, 16 June 1913, Page 5

THE MARCONI DEAL.

MINISTERS EXONERATED. ■unfounded "CHARGES.

By Cable—Press Association—Copyright.

London, June 13.

The Marconi Committee's report exonerates Ministers from anything conflicting with their public duty, and con* demns (the unfounded newspaper charges. It declares that none of the purchases of Sir Rufus Isaacs or Lord Murray of Elibank were corrupt. Lord Robert Cecil's minority report finds, that Sir Rufus Isaacs acted with graye impropriety in purchasing shares with. inside knowledge, and that Mr. Lloyd George and Lord Murray of Elibank. were open to similar censure.

. . TEN PER CENT. DIVIDEND.

London, June 13.

The Marconi Company shows a profit of £244,000, and has declared a dividend of 10 per cent., carrying £3IOO forward. Exclusive of warshipsj 1700 vessels are fitted with the Marconi apparatus.

THE VOICE OP THE PRESS.

GENERALLY EXONERATES THE GOVERNMENT.

DETAILS,OP THE REPORTS.

The press comments follow party lines. EacVaccuses, the other/ of, creating an atmosphere of poisonous 'partisanship. All welcome ;the exoneration of the Ministers of the Crown from corruption. ;

The Chronicle says that the opening for misconstruction should have been avoided. It refers to the extraordinary lack of knowledge exhibited by Mr. Lloyd George and Lord Murray of Elibank regarding Stock Exchange affairs. The Times says that the whole thing is a mistake. The indiscretions could have been avoided if Ministers had not been thinking more of money-making than the responsibility and dignity of, office.

The Daily Mail says that a tribunal of political factions is no proper court to deal with the honor of public,men. The committee's verdict is not impartial.! It proceeded on deeply biassed lines. The report finds that Ministers acted in the sincere belief that nothing-in i their action conflicted with their duty to the Crown. There was no foundation, to the charges which appear to have originated on the Stock Exchange.. There was no evidence to support the allegation that any Minister exercised'influence on behalf of Marconi securing the contract, or that any Minister ad-, vantaged himself by,knowledge acquired • officially. The report condemns the pub-' lication of unfounded charges- against Mr. Lloyd George, Sir- Rufus Isaacs and Sir Stuart Samuel. None of Sir Rufus Isaacs's or Lotd Murray of 'Elibank's; purchases were in..any way corfypt, '%, ' Lqrd "Cecil's' report; declare .'that Minister 1 ? were not' influenced in the j3is-! charge of their duties, nor did theyutiiise official 'knowledge for investment -or speculation, but Sir Rufus acted with graee impropriety in making advantage- 1 ous purchases upon advice unavailable to the public, and had placed' himself unwittingly in a position where his private interest might conflict with his public duty. Mr. Lloyd George and Lord Murray of Elibank were open to. similar censure. The wireless agreement was an essential factor of the whole structure pf Marconi's finance. American shares were at Godfrey Isaacs's disposal as agent for an English company. His offer to Sir Rufus might be due to fraternal affection, but in view of rumors of a Parliamentary attack on' the contract the impression was created that it was partly due to less creditable motives. There was clearly a speculative element to Ministers' transactions. Tile Ministers' reticence in the face of persistent press rumors was deplorable. Sir A. Sp'icer's- original repoTt considered that it would have been if Sir Rufus Isaacs had not acquired American shares, because the relationship of the English and American companies was calculated to'create miscon--ception. It added that if the Ministers had' furnished it-he facts subsequently, and disclosed Martin's action, much misunderstanding would have been averted.