THE ZINOVIEFF LETTER.

Otago Witness, Issue 3694, 30 December 1924, Page 33

THE ZINOVIEFF LETTER.

MR CHAMBERLAIN’S REVELATION. (c rom Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, November 18. Air Austen Chamberlain, the new Foreign Secretary, speaking at Glasgow, revealed something regarding the Zinovy tf letter winch throws a strange light on Mr Ramsay MacDonald e statements on the eve of the general election. . e Pfs°de of the Zinovieff letter,” he said “has been left in a very peculiar postnon by our predecessors. In pursuance of a minute written by the late Prime Minister, acting as loreign Minister, a note to the soviet, itepresentative in London, largely written by the Prime Minister himselff m lua own hand, and strengthened and mad# stronger everywhere where he altered the ° 1 = lr ! ui d raft, was delivered to that repretentative and published in our papers. It ciurged tlie Soviet Government with a breach not merely of old, but of recentlyrenewed undertakings. It was a very stern Havia - ™usod it to l and published, the. last act of the abilitv °'' <?ril “ ent waa to express their in. Mi, u , determi ne Whether the Prime which he mad a e Uy f ° UDdiU ‘ on for ** ‘barge. think Wl ; 1 / Cxp , r , es ® no opinion on that, but I trunk it well to say that his Maiestv’e present advisers have at once constituted a committee of the Cabinet to investigate wdl r U , e A B . ef ° re commutes W Th e-, 6 , , whoie of the information late P IV s uvariable to the committee of the late Cabinet, and some supplementary in. formation which did not reach the late Uatunet m time for communication to its In due co urse, upon the report of that committee, the Government will deSiiAoLrsusr “> M^ e rG a3 iJ lle Mornin g Post points cut, “Mr MacDonald pretended at Cardiff that he was not convinced of the authenticity of the even hinted that it was babry another mare’s nest/ Here i£ a pretty example of the new diplomacy. A have dn f e ?i aut , ocr l at ’ like Lord Curzon would firJi followed the reactionary procedure of toe BU 5 e , that * letter waa gename, and then dealing with it. But our socialist leader has discovered a better way: he first writes his violent protest, and then proposes to consider whether what he protests against was really done. “As the resolutions of the International are as much beyond dispute as the fact that the Soviet leader presides over its activities, what do the Communists hope to gam by pretending that the letter is not genuine?” asks The Post. “These bold, bad men of the Communist Party here and in Moscow, these devils disciples, why are they suddenly showing such compunction about thia trifle of a letter when it is admittedly of a piece with their whole policy? And why, in particular, is Zinovieff himself so much annoyed ? Did he not mean what he said when he proclaimed hie intention of destroying the MacDonald Government? Is it possible that he has over-reached himself and been for once too clever by half? “ The Communist position in the matter is puzzling enough; but the attitude of the bocialist comrades is even more difficult to understand. Why should they assume that totter is a forgery ? They know that the Communists are sworn to destroy both them and the British Empire. They have banned these wicked people from their councils. They proclaim that they have no dealings with them; and yet they are perfectly confident that Zinovieff could not have written the letter! Why not?"