THE CASE OF SIR E. SPEYER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18493, 2 March 1922, Page 8

THE CASE OF SIR E. SPEYER

A SCATHING REPORT. MACHINATIONS TO AVOID THE CENSOR. “ DISLOYAL BY.ACT AND SPEECH.” (From . Ovn Own Cobp.espondent.) LONDON, January 10 Dealings with the enemy, the use of code letters in order to evade the British censor, and association with pro-Germans in America are some of the allegations included in the report made to the Home Secretary by the Certificates of Naturalisation (Revocation) 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 von Speyer, were Partners in nil three Speyer housesi — <azard Speyer-Ellissen, Frankfort; Speyer and Co., New York; and Speyer Bros., London. Mr Beit von Speyer was 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 Texeira de Mattes Bros., of Amsterdam, and with the Deutsche Bank. Sir Edgar immediately retired from, the German firm, and Mr Beit von 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. It was as a result of this report, preWnted to the Horae Secretary by the committee under the chairmanship of Mr Justice A. O. Salter, that the naturalisation of Sir Edgar Speyer as a British subject was cancelled. The committee jsayAfter long and careful inquiry and full consideration, we have no doubt whatever as to the conclusions at which we must arrive.” The committee declare that Sir Edgar: Has ■ shown by act and speech to be disaffected and disloyal to the King;. Unlawfully communicated during the war with subjects of an enemy. State in breach of 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 enemy; Was party to repeated and systematic attempts to evade the British censorship; and

Repeatedly, tried to seiduce his English partners to join in these attempts. In trading with Germans, declare the committee, he “ seems to have preferred Jiis private financial interests to the prompt discharge of his duty to the State.” The findings do not- involve any reflection upon Sir B. Speyer’s London partners, who protested in strong terms against his codes to trick the censor.

The English partners -were Mr H. Opperiheimer, {a naturalised British subject)-, Mr H. W. .Brown, and Captain Gordon Leith, Englishmen. Sir Edgar Speyer left England orj 'May 26, 1915. From June, 1915, when he 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 communica tibn with persons in enemy countries. This correspondence, states the * committee, “was in breach of Sir Edgar Speyer's oath as a Privy Councillor and in flagrant and habitual violation of his personal undertaking.” Two days after Sir Edgar had left England, Captain Leith, who was with his regimeint in Northumberland, was summoned to London. On June 1 he closed down the transactions with Texeira. . “HARRY BROWN. -

On June 12, 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-Speyeb Brothers,_ was 1 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 paymentto “Guinness”; arid instead of being sent by Speyer and Co. it purported to be sent by “Hoberd.” The Manilla Railway Company objected to being used in this way. Speyer and Co. apologised to the Manilla Railwa# Company. “It is clear that Sir Edgar Speyer knew all the circumstances of this cable and regretted the annoyance caused to the railway company, but there is no word of regret for the fourfold attempt to evade the censorship.” On June 22 Sir Edgar wrote from the New York office ,to Speyer Brothers asking that telegrams to him should bo addressed to I'iicnols,” “Bronxville,” and signed “Harry Brown” or “Wilkinson Greene.” He suggested “Hobart” .for - a , Christian name to “Nichols.” . ■

,‘T think,” he'added, “by these means I may be able to get your babies. I have arranged with Mr Nichols to transfer them to me immediately.” . Three days later a letter from Sir Edgar about, telegrams had this passage:—“l suggest to you (and I do,not'mind if the <»nsor should open this letter, if ho reads it, as we cable nothing that he need' not see) that you telegragh to ‘Gordon - Abbot, care Colony, Boston,’ where I expect we shall be'when this reaches you, and I shall arrange that any 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 o£ letters to Mr Brown at his father’s house, the report says: “This was obviously to evade the censor.” On July 15, Captain Leith wrote asking him to communicate “either in the most absolutely open fashion or nob at all,” adding, regarding the suggestion to sign cables in other names: “This, I regret, we are none of us nere willing to do,” referring to Mr JJrown, Mr 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 be allowed to pass by the censor, so wte 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 evade the British censorship. He him-’ self 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 hie , English partners and through fear of further injury , to his business interesta It does not appear to have occurred to his mind that the- duty of ft loyal subject in a time of great national danger and anxiety is not to impede and defeat, the efforts of the Government, but to co-operate 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, “aj man of strong pro-German ' and antiBritish sympathies,” end the committee remark: “We think that this frequent and friendly intercourse with an avowed'enemy of his .country would have been repugnant to any loyal subject.” Sir 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, whoso articles were pro-German and bitterly hostile to Great Britain. EXULTANT FRAU. * The report relates how in 1916 Frau Beit von Speyer (wife of the head of the German house) 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 von Speyer himself show that he understood from Sir Edgar’s 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 von Swinner (husband of a cousin of SirEdgar s) discouraged, this idea, saying he would have to live in Berlin as, a private person. Sir Edgar, confronted with these documents, said von Speyer had misunderstood , him, adding that he had professed no German sympathies, and had merely expressed an intention to leave business and lead a hfe 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 von 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 von 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 his country, and that he desired (at least in the event of ft German ,victory) to substitute for-his British citizenship a German allegiance and association.” ■'Finally, the committee point out that where the law Las been enforced against many naturalised British subjects in bumble positions., it'would lie highly injurious -to the public interest if a different 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. Lcthbury, on the findings of the committee, say: , “We have been partners of Sir Edgar’s since January, 1912, and have been, over 20 years with his firm and we say,, without : qualification of any sort, that, ■in our opinion, he is incapable of any , act' of treachery ogainst 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 firm is defined as ‘trading with the enemy.’ It now appears to ■ have been practically impossible, as anyone acquainted with this very technical branch of banking will admit, entirely to prevent the possibility of indirect, contact with the; enemy. The Treasury recognised this over, a year alterihe outbreak of the 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 & vie\j to curtailing this danger. ... We maintain that in this connection Sir'Edgar has nothing 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 [(transaction* ■ would ‘involve benefit’ to individual Q*W mans and assist the" enemy in, the war i. in our opinion, a grave injustice to him. , 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 ha went to America in June, 1915, he continued to-,cor ref pond with Germany, making pitiful efforts to circumvent the, censorship, rather, priding himself in it, and boldly 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 attached to Sir Edgar’s denial that he had expressed German • sympathies. Letters intercepted by the British Government made that quite plain. He even went further, and (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 carry on business there if Herr von Gwinner, an influential relative and a director of the Deutsche Bank, thought he ; would be well received. To the credit or von Gwinner, that important relative does not appear to have been agreeably impressed by the desire of Sir Edgar Spever, to take up business in Berlin, and ns-, promptly discouraged the idea. In business, just as in war, some sort of fidelity ‘ is essential to honourable relations, and th* man who breaks his oath to his adopted / country in its hour of need is not likely to; bo trusted in any other professed, alle-. giance.”