TREACHERY INFRANCE

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 78, 28 September 1918, Page 12

TREACHERY INFRANCE

TRIAL OF M. MALVY

SENSATIONAL DISCLOSURES,

LONDON, 22nd July.

After many weeks of waiting , the High Court of the French Senate is investigating the accusations of treason against M. Malvy. This person hold for three years the high office of Minister of the interior under five successive Governments. The, Eoyalist leaders, headed by M. Leon Daudet. accuse him of treason. Being a senator, his case does not come before a Criminal Oaurt, as with 8010 and the "Bonnet K«iuge" gang, but he stands his trial before his peers, the High Court of the Senate. 8010 was supposed to have been a friend of Malvy. Almeyreda, 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 Germay's chief spy agents in Switzerland was supplying money to the "Bonnet Rouge" and "defeatist" groups in Paris. When these circumstances became known M. Malvy and some of the chief men in his department, fell under deep suspicion. Notwithstanding his eminence as a Minister of State, several leading people, including M. Clemenceau, 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 readera are ignorant. 'I refer to troubles which coincided with a check the French array. That movement, according to General Petain, 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 was Minister of the Inteiior, he favoured 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 Caillaux that the police were watching him.

Another charge against M. Malvy is that in what is known as £he Lipscher case he acted disloyally. Lipscher was a German agent, who endeavoured to bring about peace proposals through M. Caillaux. The police reported Lipscher's doings to M. Malvy, who declined to take any interest 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 the ex-Minister Caillaux. He also stopped police action against Almeyreda, Faure, and Trotsky. The public prosecutor described M. Malvy 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, Bibot 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. In the matter of the trouble of April, 1917, he represents that he acted most loyally with the military anthoiities, and that the real cause of trouble with the soldiers aTose out of the failure of the April offensive, thß 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, Eoyalist 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 Augean 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; expresses the opipion that Almeyreda did not commit suicide in prison, but that he was _ strangled —put out of tho way in: the interest of Malvy, the Home Secretary, Some of Daudot's evidence, given 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 1917. He also explained his resfeons for dismissing Generals Nivelle and Mangin, after the Champagne disaster in that spring. One result of the prosecution of ■ M.- Malvy has been the institution 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. Jtalvy in respect of two of the gravest charges made against him, lias failed, viz., participation in treacherous communications with the enemy, by enabling them to receive plans ol Chemin' dcs Dames, tind taking a "personal" part in promoting trouble in the army. It was upon these t\*o 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 bo shallow that it was hardly gone into. As above described, the trial became. centred 1 round the question of M. Malvy'6 policy of " conciliation," and laxity oi administration. The issue before the Court was whether such laxity amounted to criminal culpability. You will know the result by -cable. M. Viviani, M. Briand, and M. Ribot, ex-Prime Ministers, attended: the Court to bear testimony to M. Malvy having always acted in good faith. M. Viviani declared that he "rigorously",carried out the denaturalisation law. M. Ribot gave the accused a splendid testimonial. It was explained that the subventions to the "Bonnet Rouge" were dropped when the paper became disloyal. There was an amusing feature when it yas explained that Mdlle. Mistinguett, of rovue fame, and M. Poe, a -well-known theatre manager, were, employed by the military police on "secret service." ■ .

[M. Malvy was. acquitted of treason, but found guilty of dereliction of duty in having failed to take steps against treasonable enterprises, and , was sentenced to banishment for a period of 10 years.'] . „ . -