ZINOVIEFF LETTER

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 83, 20 March 1928, Page 5

ZINOVIEFF LETTER

ALLEGED CONSPIRACY

MACDONALD MOVES FOR INQUIRY. PREMIER GIVES REASONS FOR REFUSAL. [By Cable — Press Assn. — Copyright.) (Received 20, 11.15 a.m.) London, March 19. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in the House of Commons, moved that •the francs inquiry board's revelations concerning th e Zinovieff Letter demanded the setting up of a board of inquiry empowered to take evidence on oath. There were two aspects of the Letter, he said. The first a foreign office document, and, secondly, what was now admitted to be a political fraud, which, in cool calculation and preparation, was unmatched in British history. Mr. MacDonald said that his decision for general publication was made to protect the Foreign Office from a political attack which it was known the “Daily Mail” was making the next morning. Though, he said, Sir Austen Chamberlain had subsequently admitted that he himself could not have handled the matter differently or more expeditiously than he (Mr. MacDonald) did, it w:rs suggested that the Foreign Office “sat upon” the letter for two or three weeks, and it was to this suggestion that the Conservatives largely owed their electoral success.

Mr. MacDonald said that no living soul had seen, or claimed to had to have seen, the original Zinovieff Letter. Apparently more than one alleged copy was about. Everyone was guilty of sometimes overstepping the mark in the rough and tumble of elections, hut this was totally different ; it was a case of a few people, including some foreigners and some controllers of newspapers, successfully conspiring, possibly by forgery and certainly by fraud, to influence the elections. Mr. Marlow (the editor's) letter proved there was a systematic leakage of State documents which meant to Labour, in power, that someone inside the departments could carry information to their opponents for political purposes.

PREMIER’S REPLY

The Rt. Hon Stanley Baldwin said he refused the inquiry on the ground that it would serve no national end and was foredoomed to futility. Mr. Baldwin revealed that the copy of the Zinovieff letter was communicated to the “Daily Mail’ 1 by Conrad Donald im Thurn. a business man in the citv not connected with a Government department orf politics. Ho (Mr. Baldwin) contended that the etents which really stirred the country and shattered the electors’ faith in Labour, were failure to prosecute the Communist Donald Campbell, and then the Russian treaty under which the British taxpayer would become responsible for interest and sinking fund on loans to be raised by the Soviet. As a result of these events the Labourites had lost the election even before the publication of the Zinovieff Letter. The latter contained nothing new. The Zinovieff Letter. h« said, was an incitement to procure disloyalty among the troops, which Soviet propagandists had made in every country in Europe. If Mr. MacDonald had continued to show the backbone he revealed by the protest he sent the Soviet, he might have saved many seats. Mr Marlowe’s letter did not reveal any leakage from departments The Labourites talked as” though the .letter was a British State document. It was a letter from Moscow to English Communists whose executive bad discussed it prior to the Foreign Office receiving it. Any Communist might have given it to the cress. Ho said ■

History showed that men who were traitors to thoir own country would be traitors to one another.

Mr Williams interjected suggesting that Mr Baldwin was lying and be was ordered to leave the House. Mr. Baldwin declared that no soou purpose could bo served bv calling Mr. Marlowe. If the latter refused to betray his informant in obedience to the principles of journalism they would be helpless. If they committed him to the Clock Tower or even to prison, they would only make themselves a laughing stock. In this case no British secret had been revealed and no disservice had been done to the nation. Mr. im Thurn. who first trave the information, had said that Mr. Marlowe authorised him to read the letter, stating that in view of Labour attacks on Government danartments and also to his own release from a pledge of secrec.,:, he wished to inform th fi House of Commons. He had learned from a business acquaint ante two days before it reached the Foreign Office that Moscow had sent the extraordinary letter to British Communists. In view of alleged incitements to sedition he asked a friend to get n copy, which he did so the following day. Mr Baldwin said that he had never heard nor seen the man until to-day -(A. and N.Z.) REVEALERS’ PATRIOTIC MOTIVE. (Received 20, 12.30 p.m.) London, March 19. Mr Baldwin, continuing, said Mr im Thurn’s letter added:— “I was indignant at Moscow, which was about In borrow here, trying to foment edition, and decided to inform the Government and send the letter to the nress. As soon as mv informant—who said his life was in danger—had reached safety. I handed over a copy to a friend in close touch with the ‘Daily Mail.’ I received no payment or other reward for it I was solely responsible for obtaining the text and arranging for publication. The ‘Dailv Mail’ received no assistance from nnvone in any Government office. I was actuated solely by patriotic motives.” THE CHALLENGE: YES OR NO? The Hon. Sir Douglas Hosur At-tornev-General. challunped Mr MaeDonald to answer “Yes’’ or “No,’’ whether lie would have had tho letter published before (he election, apart from the “Daily Mail’s” action. (Continued at foot nest column )

Mr MacDonald replied that he had intended to follow the usual Foreign Office practice of publishing correspondence with a foreign Power when the proper end was reached.—(A. nnd N.Z.) Mr C D. im Thurn is a nephew of Sir Everard ini Thurn. the wellknown explorer nnd anthropologist.

The publication of the Zinovieff latter came as a bombshell and rendered futile the Labour Government’s campaign on behalf of a treaty with Russia. Moreover, nt the general election Labour was heavily defeated. On October 25, 1924, five days before the general election in England, there appeared in the Press a communication which had been sent by the Foreign Office the previous evening to Rakowsky, then Russian Charge d’Affaires in London, on the subject of a letter alleged to have been sent on September 15 by Zinovieff as head cf the Third (Communist) International at Moscow, to the Communist party in Britain, and which had come into the possession of tho Foreign Office. The Foreign Office letter subjoined a copy of the Zinovieff letter, which it, characterised as “containing instructions to British subjects to work for the violent overthrow of existing institutions in Britain, and for tho subversion of His Majesty’s forces as a means to that end.” Rakowsky was informed that the Government (Mr. MacDonald's) could not allow such propaganda and must regard it as a direct interference from outside in British domestic affairs, contrary to the solemn pledge given by the Soviet Government in the agreement of June 4, 1923. The Foreign Office Note was signed by Mr. J. I). Gregory, the official who was recently dismissed. It was asserted at th.- time Hint MacDonald was fully acquainted with its contents and had authorised its dispatch.