CASE OF SIR E. SPEYER.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17395, 4 March 1922, Page 7

CASE OF SIR E. SPEYER.

A SCATHING REPORT.

"DISLOYAL BY ACT AND

SPEECH."

(FROV ors OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

LONDON", January 10. i f ®*Y m ° 5 the enemy, the us© ot codo letters in order to erade the cntish Censor, and association with pro-Germans in America are somo of _ allegations included in the report made to tho Home Secretary by the Certificates of Naturalisation (Revocation) Committee in tho case of Sir Edgar Speyer. > _ At the ontbieak of Avar Sir E. Speyer, i ~ ro ™ ler Mr James Speyer, and his brother-in-law Mt Beit von Speyer, were partners in all three Speyer fcouses—Lazard Speyer-Ellissen, Franks' S E?y er an d Co.. New York; and Speyer Brothers London. Mr Beit von Speyer was head of the Gernhm house, Mr J. Speyer of the American house, and Sir Edgar of the British house. The business connexion between the three firms was very intimate, and they had, each and all of thorn, close relations with Teixeira do Mattos Brothers, of Anpterdam, and with the Deutsche Bank. Sir ITdgar immediately retired from the German firm and Mr Beit von Speyer "from the British firm. Both, however, continued to be members of the neutral firm of Speyer and 'Co., New York, whioli was doing neutral business with Germany.

It was as a result of this report, presented to the Home Secretary by the Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Justice A. C- Salter that the naturalisation of Sir Edgar SpeyeT 03 a British subject wna cancelled. The Committee say: —"After lorig and careful inquiry and full consideration, we have no doubt whatever as to the conclusions at which we must arrive." The Committee declare that Sir Edgar: Has shown himself by a t ct and speech to be disaffected and disloyal to the King; Unlawfully communicated during tho war with subjects of an enemy State in breach of his oath as a Privy Councillor, and in flagrant and habitual violation of a personal undertaking to the Government; Associated with business which was to his knowledge Tarried on in such manner as to assist the enemy; Was party to repeated nnd systematic attempts to evade tho British, censorshin; and ' Repeatedly tried to seduce his English partners to join in these attempts. In trading with Germans, declare the Committee, "he seems to have pr&feired liia private financial interests to the prompt discharge of bis duty to tho State." The findings do not involve any reflection on Sir E, Speyer's London partners, who protested m strong

terms against his codes to trick the Censor. , r _ -a The English partners were Mr jo. Oppenhehner (a naturalised subject). Mr H. W. Brown, and Cap tain Gordon Leith, EnglishmenSir Edgar Sneycr left England on May 26t-b, 1915. From June, when he landed in New Ttork, P , the end of the war, he was » and constant correspondence, o , riess as well as personal matters, ■ his brother-in-law at Fi'ankfcrt, spite an-undertaking given ™ t to the Home Office- <n April, ' he would hold no indirect com® . cation with persons in enemy This correspondence, stats-the," mittec. "was in breach of Sir Edg Speyer's oath as a Privy Councillor an in flagrant and habitual violation o his personal undertaking. after Sir Edgar had leffctjn<iland, Captain Leith, who was with his regiment in Northumberland, was summoned to London. On Jnne Ist he closed down the transactions with Tesena.

! "Harry Brown." ! On June 12th. 1913, a .few days after Sir Edgar had reached >ew lorK, Speyer and Co. had occasion to catnO to Speyer Brothers to pay money to the Swiss Bankverein. .'Tljis cable, instead of being sent to the office o' Speyer Brothers, v/as sent to the i-on-- : don office of the Manilla Railway Com--pany; instead of being addressed to Speyer Brothers it was addressed to "Harry Brown"; instead of directinsj payment to the Swiss Bankverein, lis directed payment to "Guinness ; anu instead of being sent by Speyer _aud Co. it purported to be sent by "Hcrberd." The Manilla Ttaihvay Company objected to being used in this Speyer nnd Co- apologised to tho Manr ilia Railway Company. "It is cleair that Sir' Edgar Speyer knew all the circumstances of this cable and regrettod the annoyance ettused to the railway company, but there is no word or regret for the fourfold attempt to evade the censorship." On Juno 22nd Sir wrote from the New York office to Speyer Brothers asking that telegrams to him should be addressed to "Nichols," "Bronxville," and signed "Harrv Brown" or "Wilkinson Greeno." Ho suggested "Hobart" for a Christian name to "Nichols." * ; I think," he added, ''by these means 1 mav be able to get your cables. I have arranged with Mr Nichols to transfer them to mo immediately." Three days later, a letter from Kir Edgar about telegrams had this passage: "I suggest to you (and 1 I do pot mind if the Censor should open this letter, if he reads it. as we cable nothing that he need not see) that you telegraph to 'Gordon Abhet, care Colony, Boston,* where T expect w« shall be when this reaches you, and I shall arrange that any signed 'Harry Gordon' shall ho delivered or forwarded to me. These telegrams I take it will bo sent by Sppyer Brothers. I shall also arrange that any telegrams signed 'J. Wilkinson' will o» delivered to me in case Mr Greene wants 'to telegraph to mo." Sir Edgar Speyer in

evidenoe admitted that he wrote these letters with a view to evade the British censorship. A EefusaL Consenting on the sending by Sir Edgar of letters to Mr Brown at his father's house, th» report says: "This was obviously to evade the censor." On July 15th, Captain Leith wrote asking him to communicate ''either in the most absolutely open fashion or not at all," adding, regarding the suggestion to sign cables in other names, "This, I regret, we are none of us here willing to do," referring to MrBrown, Mr H. Opnenheimer, and himself.

"The object of such unusual signature," added Captain Leith, "is obviously to avoid putting the name of Speyer into a cable. The reason for avoiding the uss of the word 'Speyer' is because you think cables signed 'Speyer' will not bo allowed to pass the Censor, so we try and get round the Censor by signing our cables some ether way; in other words, you suggest that v.'<? here should be narties to a scheme of avoiding the Censor. This is obviously contrarv to the wishes of the Censor, and wiat is contrary to his wishes, or indeed contrary to the wises of any authority in England to do, injusi not. and as far as we are /concerned, will not, be done."

Severe Words. "Sir Edgar," says the Committee, "was party to repeated and systematic attempts to evrutci the British censorship. He himself repeatedly attempted to do ,so; he instilled his conduct in so doing; and' he repeatedly attempted to seduce his English partners to do the same. Ho desitted from those attempts only because of tho strong opposition of his English partners and through fear of further injuiy to his businesH interests. It docs not appear to have occurred to his mind that the duty of a loyal subject in a time ot great national danger and anxiety is not to impede aud defeat the efforts of tho Government, but to co-operat® with them even at some* personal inconvenience. 'fh.j course taken bv Sir Edgar Spej'ier throughout this matter is, in cur opinion, inconsistent with anv feeling of loyalty to his. Majesty or t,l: affection for the' British cause." , Evidence fhowed that while in America Sir Edgar was friendly with Dr- Carl Muck, "a man of strong P'o(ierivian ;«vj anti-British sympathies, and the Committer' remark: "We think that thljta frequent and friendly intercourse "with fi i avowed enemy of his country would have been repugnant to any loyal subject." Sir Edgar Speyer, it appears, also U>\\t COOO dollars for the benefit of the "lioston Journal,'' now defunct. Its contributors included a writer posing as u military critic, whoso articles wid pro-German and bitterly hostile to Great Britain.

Exultant Prau. " i The report relates how in .1916 Frail Beit von* (wil'o of the> head of the German house) wrote to Sir Edgar exulting at the excellence of the German war position and enclosing an enthusiastic account of a review of troops by the Kaiser. "It is improbable," say the Committee, "that she would hava written to him in this ! strain if pho had thought such » ccmI nWnication would be distasteful to | him." . f „ I,otters from Herr Beit von Speyer : himself show that, he l understood from Sir Edgar's letters "that Sir Edgar's sympathies were with Germany, and that ha desired at the conclusion of the war to settle in Berlin and carry on business there." Herr von Gwinner (husband of a cousin of Sir Edgar's) discouraged this idea, saying ho would have to live in Berlin aa a private person. Sir Edgar, confronted with these documents, said von Speyer had misunderstood him, adding that he had professed no German sympathies, and had merely expressed an intention to leave business and lead a. life of "litovary retirement" in Italy or tho Tyrol. Tha, Committee mentions thn, 4 . these letters, "strangely misunderstood,' were not produced, nor were any from Sir Edgar to Beit von Spejcr, «nd the latter was not called to give evidence. "Those facts and the ternis of tho intercepted letters, aud his own demeanour aa a \vitnoss. nittk© it; impossible for us tot accept Sir Edgar {spoyer 9 explanation," the Committee add?. "Wa are. entiroly satisfied that in 1916 bo wrote to Beit yon Speyer professing German sympathies. . . . We are satisfied that §»' fcdgar Speyer had ceased to entertain any fePling ot loyalty to his Majesty or affection for this country, and .'that ho desired w> least- in tlie event of o. Oorinan viotory) to substitute for his British citizenship a German allegiance nnd a^oci?tiopfinally, tho Committee point out that, where the low has hc«n ©nfowd against many naturalised Bvitsish subjects ia humble positions, it would lie highly injurious to the pubuo interest if adifferent course wero> takon in the case of a man in higlu position, who is not only A subject but a servant of his Majesty. ,

Latter Trom Bngligh Partners. Captain Gordon Wth nnd Mr W • • Brown, in the course of a lett&r to tho Press, dated from 7 Loth bury, ou tho -findings of the Committee, say; "Wa have been Edgar's siuco January, 19J2, and have been over 20 yearcj uith his firm, nud wo say, without qualiftcation of any sort, that, in our opinion, he is incapable of any act. of treachery against, the country of his adoption. . . As regards the exchange transactions, hardly a- bank or banking house in London can escapo condemnation it' si'eh business as, that by our firm is defined as ' trading with the enemy.' It now appears to have been practically impossible, « a anyone acquainted with this very/ technical branch of banking will admitj entirely to prevent the possibility of indirect contact with the enemy. The Treasury recognised this over a year after the outbreak of war ly issuing circular letters to bankers, including ourselves, pointing out the difficulty of detecting guoli contact and _ enclosing a form of Undertaking for signature by neutrals with a view to curtailing this danger. . . . We maintain that in th>s con* nesion Sir Edgar has nothing to J'e* proach himself with» since all the transactions of his firm were with neutral countries—-namely, Holland and America—and to suggest, that he pevaonallv engaged in this particular class of busir.oss with the knowledge that these transactions would 'involve benefit to individual Germans and assist the enemy in the war is, irt our opinion, a grave injustice to him."

Wo 'Wonder. Commencing on the report, "Evening (Standard" says it ''discloses a shamei'ul story of disloyalty" ana "indulges ia soma very plain speaking." "Sir Edgar Speyer seems to have remained an Englishman just so long it suited his own purposes. The clearest proof is provided that when ho went to America in June, 1915, he continued to correspond with Germany, making pitiful efforte to .circumvent the rather priding himself in it, and bpldly declaring that to 'considered hiftvself .justified, in trying to g,et messages through' if ho could. let thlsf man was a Brivy Councillor wi.o had taken his solemn oath of,allegiance to the Sovereign and the country which had befriended him and helped him to his great prosperity. No wonder the Committee declares that this correspondence with Germany was 'in flagrant and habitual violation alike of his oath and his personal undertaking,' "No possible credence eould be attached to Sir Edgar's denial that he had expressed Gorman gvinpatlws. Letters intercepted by the British Government made that quite plain. He even went farther, and (with en eye ta the main chanca) wrote to his brother-in-law in Frankfort expressing liis desire to settle in Berlin after the war and carrx on basmets there if

Herr von Gwinner, an. influential relative and a director of the Deutscho Bank, thought he would be well received. To the credit of rem Gwinner, that important relative does not appear to have been agreeably impressed by this desire of Sir Edgar Speyer's to take up business in Berlin, and he promptly discouraged the idea. ' In business, just as in war, some sort of fidelity is essential to houourn-M relation, and tho man who breaks his oath to his adopted country in its hour of need is not likely to be trusted in any other professed allegiance ''