GOVT. VERIFIED ZINOVIEFF LETTER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18418, 21 March 1928, Page 10

GOVT. VERIFIED ZINOVIEFF LETTER.

SIR DOUGLAS HOGG CHALLENGES LABOUR CHIEF TO CRY FORGERY. By Telegraph. —Press Assn.—Copyright LONDON, March 19. Sir Douglas Hogg, Attorney-General, in the House of Commons, challenged Mr MacDonald to answer yes or no whether he would have had the letter published before the election, apart from the “ Daily Mail’s ” action. 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. Sir Douglas asked would Mr MacDonald answer directly whether he believed the letter to be a forgery. Mr MacDonald answered: “I refer you to Mr Baldwin’s speech.” Sir Douglas said: “Mr MacDonald apparently does not desire to give a straight answer to a straight question. I think the House will draw its own conclusions. The truth is that Mr MacDonald knows and believes in his heart that the letter is genuine, but dare net say so. One of the dangers of the proposed inquiry is that it would disclose to Russia Downing Street’s sources of information. That is why M. Tchicherin wanted it. The Government has verified the authenticity of the letter from four independent sources.” Mr MacDonald’s motion was defeated by 326 votes to 132.—Aust. and N.Z. Press Assn.

MR C. D. IM THURN NEPHEW OF FORMER GOVERNOR OF FIJI.

LONDON, March 19. Mr C. D. Im Thurnis a nephew of Sir Everard Im Thurn, K.C.M.G., K.8.E., an ex-Governor of Fiji and High Commissioner of the Western Pacific.—Aust. and N.Z. Press Assn. GOVERNMENT CERTAIN LETTER WAS GENUINE. RUGBY, March 19. Mr Baldwin, in the course of his reply to Mr MacDonald on the subject of the Zinovieff letter, pointed out that the Labour Government made an inquiry at the time in 1924, but could not make up its mind. When the Conservative Government came into office it began by setting up a committee, and the results of its investigations were that the Government was convinced that the letter was genuine. The Government had information that after the publication of the letter M. Tchicherin told his colleagues in Moscow that he had questioned M. Zinovieff concerning the letter, and that M. Zinovieff admitted that it had been sent to the; Communist Party in England, but he was at a loss to know how the British Government had got a copy of it. It was due, said M. Zinovieff, to treachery, either in Moscow or London.

M. Zinovieff pointed out that the text of the document was in some places slightly mutilated, and M. Tchicherin said that it would be impossible to accuse the British Government of having mutilated the document, because that would be equivalent to a confession of its authenticity, and the only course they could take was to denounce it at once as a forgery. About a month later M. Tchicherin told his colleagues that the original had been destroyed. This, said M. Tchicherin, would enable the Soviet Government to insist on an investigation into the < matter, because no original copy could ever be produced. Not very long after the publication of the letter a Russian was apprehended in Moscow by the Soviet Government The Soviet Government had every reason to believe that he was connected with giving away a copy of the letter, and he was shot.—British Official Wireless.