ARMS FIRMS’ DEFENDER

Dunstan Times, 2 November 1936, Page 7

ARMS FIRMS’ DEFENDER

SIR M. HANKEY ON PREMIER'S DENIAL After he had made a vigorous defence of private armament manufacturers in a statement before the Arms Commission in London, Sir Maurice Hankey, Secretary of the Cabinet and Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence, had a verbal duel with Dame Rachel Crowdy, a member of the commission. Objecting to his statement that allthe evidence had been disproved in connection with allegations that had been made, Dame Rachel said: — “ 1 feel that perhaps one should say that Sir Maurice, despite his vast historical experience, does not seem to me to be in a position to make such a categorical statement as he has done.” She added that Sir Maurice had not seen all the evidence before the commission, and had himself confessed that he had not found it possible to study the American inquiry’s evidence. This evidence at the American inquiry and the documents which referred to British firms were of importance. Sir Maurice: Can 1 reply to that? His request being granted, he said: “ 1 have read every word of the evidence that has been published. I have really tried to master the evidence and survey it.” Dame Rachel: I quite believe that My point is that all the evidence has not been at your disposal. It seems rather a firm action on your part to say that everything had been disproved. Sir Maurice • Perhaps 1 should have said, the evidence at my disposal and the public’s. Dame Rachel questioned Sir Maurice about President Wilson’s plan for the prohibition of the private manufacture of arms. Sir Maurice said that it would have never got into the covenant if it had not been for President Wilson’s enthusiasm. Nobody else took really any interest in the subject at all. After quoting from a speech made by Mr Baldwin at Glasgow, Dame Rachel observed: “ Mr Baldwin apparently does, and did, believe that malpractices existed in the arms industry.” Sir Maurice: Mr Baldwin authorised me to deny that his statement in his speech should be interpreted that he had grave objections towards the private manufacture of arms.