A SCATHING REPORT

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 55, 7 March 1922, Page 11

A SCATHING REPORT

THE CASE OF SIR E. SPEYER I .MACHINATIONS TO AVOID THE ! CENSOR "DISLOYAL BY ACT AND SPEECH."

(FROM OUR OWN COMIHSFONDINT.)

/LONDON, 10th January.

Dealings witJi thfl enemy, the use «f code letters in order to evade the British Censor, and association: with proGermans in America are some of the allegations included in the report made to the Home Secretary by the Certificates of Naturalisation (B,evocation) Committee in the case of Sir Edgar Speyer.

At the outbreak of-war, Sir E. Speyer, his brother, Mr. "James Speyer, and his brother-in-law, Mr. Beit yon Speyer, were partners in all three Speyer houses —Laziird Speyer-Ellissen, Frankfort; Speyer and Co., New York; and Speyer Bros., London. Mr. Beit yon &n_eyer wae head of the German house, Mr. J. Speyer of the American house, and Sir Edgar of the British house. The business connection between the three firms was very intimate, and they had, each and all of them, close relations with Teixeira de Mattas Brothers, of Amster: dam, and with the Deutsche Bank. Sir Edgar immediately retired from the Ger- ' man firm, and Mr. Beit yon Speyer from the British firm. Both, however, continued to be members of the neutral firm of Speyer and Co., New York, which was., doing neutral business with Germany. I

It was as a result of this report, presented to the Home Secretary by the committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice A. 0. .Salter, that the naturalisation of Sir Edgar Speyer as a British subject was cancelled. The committee say:—"After long and careful inquiry and full'consideration, we have do doubt whatever as to the conclusions at which we must arrive." The committee declare that Sir Edgar: ;

Has shown himself, by act and epeech, to be disaffected and disloyal to the King;

Unlawfully communicated during the war with subjects of an enemy State in breach_pf 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 carried on in such manner as to assist the onemy;

Was party to repeated and systematic attempts to evade the British, censorship; and

Repeatedly tried to seduce his English partners to join in these attempts. sin trading with Germans, declares the committee, he " seems to have preferred his private financial interests to the prompt discharge of his duty to the State." The findings do not involve any reflection upon Sir E. Speyer's London partners, who protested in strong terms against his codes to trick the cemor. The English partners- were Mr. H. Oppenheimer (a naturalised British subject), Mr. H. W. Brown and Captain Gordon Leith (Englishmen).

Sir Edgar Speyer left England on 26th May, 1915. From June, 1915, when h? landed in New York, up to the end of the war, he was in regular and constant correspondence, on business as well as personal matters, with his brother-in-law in Frankfort, despite an undertaking, given, by himself to the Home Office in April, 1915, that he would hold no indirect communication with persons in enemy countries. '

This correspondence,'states the committee, '' was in breach of Sir Edgar jSpeyer's, oath as^a Privy Councillor, and iri flagrant and habitual violation of his personal undertaking." Two days after Sir Edgar had left England, Captain Leith', who was with his regiment in Northumberland, was summoned to London. On Ist June he closed down the transaction with Texeira. " HARRY BROWN." On 12th June, 1915, a few days after Sir Edgar had reached New York, Speyer and Co. had occasion to cable to Speyer Brothers to pay money to the Swiss Bankverein. This cable, instead of being sent to the office of Speyer Brothers, was sent to the London office of the Manilla Railway Company; instead of being addressed -to Speyer Brothers it was addressed to "Harry Brown"; instead of directing payment to the. Swiss Bankverein, it directed payment to "Guinness "; and' instead of being sent by Speyer and Co., it purported to be sent by "Heberd." The Manilla, Railway Company-objected to being used in this way. Speyer and Co. apologised to the Manilla, Railway Company. "It is clear that Sir Edgar Speyer knew all the circumstances of this cable, and regretted the annoya-nce caused to the railway company, but there is no word of regret for the fourfold attempt to evade the censorship." On 22nd June, Sir Edgar wrote .from the New York office to Speyer Brothers asking that telegrams to him should be addressed to " Nicholls," ■" Bronxville," and signed ""Harry Brown" or "Wilkinson tlreene." Ho suggested " Hobart " for a . Christian name to "Nicholls."

' "I think," ha added, "by these means I may be able to get your cables. I have arranged with Mr. Nicholls to transfer them to me- immediately."

Three days later a letter from SirEdgar about telegrams had this passage: "I suggest to you (and I do not mind if the censor should open this letter, if he reads" it, as we cable nothing that he need riot see) that your telegraph to ' Gordon Abbot, care Colony, Boston," where I expect we shall be when this reaches you, and I shall arrange that n#y telegrams signed ' Harry Gordon ' shall be delivered or forwarded to me. These telegrams, I, take it, will be sent by Speyer Brothers. I shall also arrange that any telegrams signed ' J. Wilkinson ■' will be delivered to me in case Mr. Greene wants to telegraph to me." Sir Edgar Speyer, in evidence, admitted that he wrote these letters with a view to evade the British censorship. A REFUSAL. Commenting on the sending by Sir Edgar of letters to Mr. Brown at his father's house, the l'eport says: "This was obviously to evade the censor." On 15th July," Captain Leith wrote asking him to communicate to "either in the most absolute 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 Mr. Brown, Mr. H. Oppenheimer, 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 use of the word 'Speyer' is because you think cables signed 'Speyer' will not 1 be allowed to pass by the censor, so we try and get round the censor by signing our cables some other way; in other words, you suggest that we here should be parties to a scheme of avoiding the censor. This is obviously contrary to the wishes of the censor, and what.is contrary to his wishes, or indeed contrary to the wishes of any authority in England, to do must 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 ev»de the British censorship. He himself repeatedly attempted to do

so; he justified his conduct in~so doing; and he repeatedly attempted to seduce his English partners to do the same. •' He desisted from these attempts only because of the strong opposition of his English partners, and through fear of further injury to his business interests. It does not appear to have occurred to his mind that the duty of a loyal subject in a time of great national danger and anxiety is not to impede and defpat the efforts of the Government, but to cooperate with them even at some personal inconvenience. The course taken by Sir Edgar Speyer throughout this matter is, in our opinion, inconsistent with any feeling of loyalty to His Majesty or of affection for the British cause."

Evidence showed that while in America Sir Edgar was friendly with Dr. Carl Muck, "a man of strong pro-Gepian and anti-British sympathies," and' the committee remark: "We think that this frequent and friendly interconrse with an avowed enemy of his country would ha.ye been repugnant to any loyal subject." Siv Edgar Speyer, it appears, also lent 5000 dollars for the benefit of,the Boston Journal, now defunct. Its contributors included a writer posing as a military critic, whose articles were pro-German and bitterly hostile to Great Britain. EXULTANT FRAU. The report relates how in 1916 Frau Beit yon Speyer (wife of the head of the German houso) 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 have written to him in this strain if she had thought such a communication would be distasteful to him." Letters from Herr Beit yon Speyer himself show that he understood from Sir Edgarjs letters "that Sir Edgar's sympathies were with Germany, and that he desired at -the conclusion of the war' to settle in. Berlin /and carry on business there." Herr yon Gwinner (husband of a cousin of Sir Edgar's) discouraged this idea, saying- he would have to live in Berlin as a private person. Sir Edgar, confronted with these documents, said yon 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 "literary retirement" in Italy or the Tyrol. The committee mentions that these letters, '"strangely misunderstood," were not produced, nor were any from Sir Edgar to Beit yon Speyer, and the latter was not called to give evidence. "These facts and the terms of the intercepted letters, and his own demeanour as a witness, make it impossible for us to accept Sir Edgar Speyer's explanation," the committee adds. ' "IF GERMANY WON.' "We are entirely satisfied that early in 1916 he wrote to Beit yon Speyer professing German" sympathies. . . We are satisfied that Sir Edgar Speyer had ceased to entertain any feeling of loyalty to His Majesty or affection for this country, and that he desired (at least in the event of a German victory) to substitute for his British citizenship a German allegiance and association." Finally, the committee point out that where the law has been enforced against many naturalised' British subjects in humble positions, it would be highly* in-. jurious to the public interest if a differ- ' ent course were taken in the case of a. man in high position, who is not only a subject but a,, servant of His Majesty. LETTER FROM ENGLISH PARTNERS. Captain Gordon Leith and Mr. H. W, Brown, in the course of a letter to the press, dated from- 7, Lothbury, on the' findings of the committee, say: "We have been, partners of Sir Edgar's sines January, 1912, and have'been over twenty .years with his firm, and we say,'. .without qualification 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 escape condemnation if such business as that .conducted, by our fiTm is defined as 'trading with the enemy. 1 It now appears to have been 'practically; impossible, as anyone acquainted with,this very technical branch of banking wild admit, entirely to prevent the possibility of indirect contact with the enemy. The Treasury recognised this over a. year after the outbreak of war by issuing, circular letters to bankers, including ' ourselves, pointing out the difficulty of detecting such contact and enclosing a form of undertaking for signature by neutrals, with a view to curtailing this danger. . . . We maintain that in this connection Sir Edgar has nothing 1 to reproach himself with, since all the transactions of his firm were with neutral countries—namely, Holland and America—and, to suggest that he personally engaged in this particular class of business with the knowledge that these transactions would 'involve benefit 1 to individual Germans, and assist the enemy\,jn the war, is, in our opinion, a grave injustice to him. 1'

NO WONDER

Commenting on the report, the 'Evening Standard says it "discloses a shameful story of disloyalty," and indulges in some very plain speaking. "Sir Edgar Speyer seems to have remained an Englishman just so long as it suited his own purposes. The clearest proof is provided that when he went to America., in June, 1915, he continued to correspond with Germany, making pitiful efforts to circumvent the censorship, rather priding himself in it, and boMly declaring that he 'considered himself justified in trying to get messages through if he could.' Yet this man was a Privy Councillor, who 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 could be attach-' ed to Sir Edgar's denial that he had expressed German sympathies. Letter* intercepted by the British Government made that quite plain. He even went further, a>nd (with an eye to the main .chance) wrote to his brother-in-law in Frankfort expressing his desire to settle in Berlin after the war, and cavry. on business there if Herr yon Gwinner, an influential relative and a director of the Deutsche Bank, thought he would be; well received^ To the credit of Yon, Gwinner, that important relative does not appear to have been agreeably impressed by this desire of Sir Edgar Speyer 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 honourable relations, and. the "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."