LIBEL CASE AN EDITOR SUMMONED

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 49, 27 February 1913, Page 7

LIBEL CASE AN EDITOR SUMMONED

CHARGE ARISING OUT OF MARCONI CONTRACT \ — — " MALEFACTORS. 'i By Telegraph.— Press Association.— Copyright. (Received February 27, 10 a.m.) LONDON, 26th February. Mr. Cecil Chesterton, editor of the New Witness, has been summoned at Bow-street Police Court for libelling Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, whom he accused of corruptly conspirihg in regard to the Marconi wireless contract with the At-torney-General (Sir Rufus Isaacs) and the Postmaster-General (Mr. Herbert). The three were described as malefactors. [Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, president of the Marconi Wireless Telegraphy Company, is a brother of Sir Rufus Isaacs. When the question of setting up the Select Committee was under discussion in the House of Commons, Mr. Lansbury drew from the Treasury Bench an indignant disclaimer of dishonourable conduct. It had, he said, been widely spread about that considerable sums of money had been made by the purchase and Bala of Marconi shares by persons who had information of tho Government's intentions before they were known to the public. In the city there had been grave rumours. When Mr. Lansbury sat down Sir Rufue Isaacs at once advanced to the table to vindicate his honour. After referring to the fact that hiß brother was the managing director of the Marconi Company, he stated emphatically that he had taken no part in the" negotiations relating to the agreement. In fact, he. did not know that such an agreement was contemplated until his brother told him at a private social function that he wa* negotiating with the Government, and hoped to get the contract. "I have never been consulted about this contract," added Sir Rufus, "and I have had no more to do with it than any member opposite or than the member for Bow and Bromley himself." Then, as to the charge that some members of the Government, knowing that these negotiations tters taking place und that the shares were likely to rise " in price, bought at the low figure at which they then stood, he had to say that ho had never had one single transaction in the shares of the company ; nor had the Postm&stet'Getteral or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was not a vestige of foundation for th© charges that ,had been made, The Postmaster-Ge'n-•eral, on behalf of every member of the Government, endorsed what the Attor-ney-General had said. It wa's a thing to fill one with shame to know that lying tongues could be found to spread about such utterly baseless slanders, and that there were willing ears to heed them.]