TREACHERY IN FRANCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 24 October 1918, Page 3

TREACHERY IN FRANCE.

TRIALS OF M. MALVY. SENSATIONAL DISCLOSURES. '! London, July 22. After many weeta of waiting the High Court of French Senate is investigating the accusation of treason against M. Malvy This person held for three years the high office of Minister of the Interior under five successive Governments. The Royalist leaders,headed bv M. LeonDaudet accused him of treason. Being a senator, his case does not come before a Criminal Court, as with 8010 and the ' Bonnet flonge" gang, but he stands his trial before Ms peers, the High Court of tiie Senate. 8010 was supposed to have been a friend of Malvy Almeyreck, of the 'Bonnet Rouge," who died in prison (suspected suicide), haunted Malvy's office; Malvy's department granted the Bonnet Rouge" a monthly subsidy; Malvy's chef-de-Cabinet arranged the restitution of the famous Duval cheque thereby compelling the police to give up a definite instrument of evidence that one of Germany's chief spy agents in .Switzerland was supplying money to the 'Bonnet Rouge" and "defeatest" groups in Paris, When these circumstances became known M. Malvy and some of the chief men in his department fell under deep suspicion. Notwithstanding bis eminence as a Minister of State, several leading people, including M. Clemancoau, accused M. Malvy of having made the Ministry of the Interior a rendezvous of some of the most suspected individuals in the lower world of politics. The report of the Senate Committee, on which the prosecution is based, threw light upon a subject of which many English readers are ignorant. I refer to troubles which coincided with a check to the French army. That movement, according to General Retain, was directed not so much against the army leaders, as against the Government of the day (the Painleve Government). It is also'made known that there, was a conflict between the military and the civilian police, which led to the escape of deeply compromised persons, and it is alleged against M. Malvy that, though he \yas Minister of the Interior, he favored persons who ought to have been more than -suspected. For instance, he told his friend M. Caillaux that 8010. was going to be prosecuted. Further, that in cases arising out of espionage, wherein Caillaux was involved, no action was taken, excepting to warn CaHlaux that the police were watching him. Another charge against M. Malvy is that in what is known as the Lips'cher case, he acted disloyally. Lipsclier was a German agent, who" endeavored to bring about peace proposals through,M. Caillaux. The police reported Lipscher's doings to M. Malvy, who declined to take any interests in them. In other cases, when his attention was directed by police agents to "dangerous facts." such as anarchist meetings and secret printing works, M. Malvy gave instructions that no further enquiries were to be made. This especially applied to every matter affecting tlie ex-Minister Caillaux. He also stopped police action against Almeyreda, Paure, and Trotsky. The public prosecutor described M. JUalvy as an "accomplice" in treason. It is likewise alleged that M. Malvy allowed or gave passports to Germans and persons whose treachery was suspected by the police. The accused traverses the charges'made against him. He states that every Prime Minister under whom he served (Viviani, Briand, Ribot Painleve) wished to follow a, policy of moderation and consideration with all elements in the country. It was for that reason he gave financial sops to the Bonnet Rouge and to an organ of an extreme Socialist group. Li the matter of the trouble of April, 1917, he represents that he acted most layally with the military.! authorities, and that the real cause of trouble with the soldiers arose out of the failure of the April offensive, the deficiency of food, and the defection of Russia in consequence of the revolution. One of the most important witnesses in this case was M. Daudet, Royalist journalist, and son of the celebrated novelist. He has made it his business for several years to discover all that he could respecting German propaganda and espionage. M. Maurice Barres has helped him to clean out the Auacan stable It was mainly through these two men that prosecutions were commenced against 8010 and the Bonnet Rouge people, behind every traitor discovered by M. Daudet unfailing evidence, he said, led up to Malvy, the "protector," Caillaux, the "master," and Almeyreda the man who did the dirty work. Daudet cypresses the opinion that Almeyreda did not commit suicide in prison, but that he was strangled—put out of the way in Hie interest "of Malvy, the Home Secretary. Some of Daudet's evidence, aiven in camera, revealed the sources of his information. M. Painleve gave evidence on M. Malvy's behalf. He sought to show that M. Malvy had no responsibility for the troubles In the army in 1017 He also explained his reason for dismissing Generals Nivelle, and Mangin, after the Champaigne disaster in that spring; One result of the prosecution of M. Malvy has been the institutions of proceedings against a man of high position, M. Maunoury, former chief of the department of the prefect of police, for complicity in trading with the enemy. Later.—The prosecution of M. Malvy in respect of two of the gravest charge's made against him. has failed, viz., participation in treacherous communications with the enemy, by enabling them to receive plans of Chemin -les Dames, and taking a "personal" part in promoting trouble in the army. It was upon these two accusations that M. Malvy appealed to his peers to be allowed to* stand his trial. The charge of personal treason (communicating with the enemy) was so shallow that it was hardly gone into. As above described, the trial became centred around the question of M. Malvy's policy of "conciliation," and laxity of administration. The issue before the Court was whether such laxity amounted to criminal culpability. You will know the result by cable. M. ViViain. M. Briand, and M. Ribot, ex'-Prime Minietwy, attended the Court to bear testimony to M. Malvy having declared that he 'Vigorously" carried out the denaturalkbtion law. M. Ribot gave the accusefi ,; splendid testimonial. It was explaineti that the subventions to the "Bonnet were dropped w-lien th/i paper hesttmo disloyal. There was ?"j