JEWS AND DIPLOMACY

Otago Witness, Issue 3619, 24 July 1923, Page 21

JEWS AND DIPLOMACY

LIBEL ACTION RESULTS. LORD ALFRED DOUGLAS AND MORNING POST. LONDON, July 18. Lord Alfred Douglas sued the Morning Post for alleged libel contained in a letter from the editor of the Jewish Guardian, which the Morning Post published. The offending paragraph stated : “It must no longer be a paying proposition to men like Mr Crosland and Lord Alfred Douglas to invent vile insults against the Jews.” Mr Comyns Carr, plaintiff's counsel, said that the Morning Pist had attacked a large section of the Jewish race, attributing to them many of the evils from which the country- was suffering. He added that the Morning Post had also attacked President Wilson, Mr Lloyd George, and others at the Versailles Conference, alleging that their actions were controlled by- Jews ; consequently- the only reason for the alleged fibcl seemed to be that the Morning Post was actuated by spite and malice against Lord Alfred Douglas. Quoting from the newspaper Plain English, which Lord Alfred Douglas edited, his accusation that a certain Cabinet Minister had drafted a false report of the Jutland battle, which had caused such a fall in stocks that a group of Jews had cleared £18,000,000 in profits on the subsequent rise, Mr Patrick Hastings, K.C., counsel for the Morning Post, intimated that it was his intention to call Mr Winston Churchill to say why Lord Alfred Douglas was not prosecuted"’ I hat the Jews planned Earl Kitchener’s death, that ex-Minister Sir Alfred Mond would destroy- the Christian race by- all the means in his power, that a powerful personage at the Admiralty- was in constant wireless communication with the Germans during the battle of Jutland, that an Admiralty traitor recalled the destroyers to Harwich in order to enable the German fleet to escape, and lastly that the British Government received payment on a sisty-fortv basis to let the German fleet escape were amon® Lord Alfred Douglas’s allegations in Hie libel suit. He admitted that the bulk of the allegations were based on second-hand information. Lord Douglas recalled how the Rothschild fortune was the result of early news of the Waterloo victory, and declared that the Jutland fight was an exact repetition. He pictured Lord Balfour sitting at the Admiralty with his feet on the mantelpiece signing the Jutland communique without reading it. Lord Alfred Douglas, in giving evidence, said that the attitude he had adopted towards the Jews injured his newspaper very much, because advertisers boycotted it. He knew that he might be prosecuted for the Jutland article, but lie had risked that, knowing that he was trying to do-a bit of good. Asked if he thought it was the action of a gentleman lo make such statements about a Minister of the Crown, he said that he was no respecter of persons, arid it would not be the action of a gentleman to obscure the truth.

Cross-examined, Lord Alfred Douglas said that he was of opinion that the Jews

had murdered Lord Kitchener in order to prevent his going to Russia, because if he had stopped the revolution the war would havn ended two years earlier. Witness bei.evta what he said when he wrote that feir Alfred Mond (who was Minister of Health in the Coalition Government) was out to destroy the Christian race by pro pagating a certain disease. Witness adhered to his statement that the late (Sir Ernest Cassel made money out of speculations a week or so after the Jutland battle. It was Mr Paclce (Lord Balfour s secretary) who at a dinner party said that Mr Churchill had prepared the Jutland report. Witness said that he would like to have the traitor in the Admiralty hunted down. Mr Pvm, assistant editor of Plain English, said that Captain fepencer had told him that Mr Churchill was always kept short of money by the Jews. That was to say, by Sir Philip Sassoon and Sir Alfred Mond. Mr Hastings opened the defence. Lord Balfour’s evidence, taken on commission, was read. He stated that when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, the course of the Jutland battle was reported to the Admiralty by file Commander-in-Chief. Lord Balfour drew up a communique, which, after being shown to his colleagues, was sent to the newspapers. Mr Churchill had nothing to do with the preparation and issue of the communique. Mr Churchill gave evidence that, there was not a single word of truth in the allegation that he was in the hands of the Jews. There was not the slightest truth in the statement that he entered into a compact with Jews or anybody else in reference to the Jutland report. It was an absolute lie to say that Sir Ernest Cassel or anybody else had paid him anything for the L ;art he played in the matter. Sir Gordon He wart (AttorneyGeneral) had strongly advised him against instituting proceedings, on the ground that the status of the plaintiff’s paper was so obscure and contemptible that it would only give it endless advertisement and notoriety. Mr Churchill said he had nothing to do with the preparation of the Jutland report, and did not see it till it appeared in the newspapers. The jury, in giving their verdict, awarded one farthing as damages. This decision was received with applause. The judge said that he entirely shared the jury’s opinion. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.