New-York tribune., 1901-04-05
ENGLISH LIBEL LAW.
SEQUEL To A CAMPAIGN OF DEFAMA.
TIoN-BUSINESS INVESTMENTS OF
THE CHAMBERLAINS.
London. March p

for the Colonies during the recent elections IT
has been tried before the Lord Chief Justice and
special jury in the Kings Bench and has
been conducted with great ability by Sir Ed
ward Clarke for the prosecution. and by Mr..
Rufus 1saacs for the defence. The libels
plained Of imputed. among other things that
Mr.. Arthur Chamberlain. who was chairman Of
Kynochs. had used his relationship with the
Secretary OF the Colonies to obtain contracts
for that company and for other manufacturing
concerns in which he was interested. The de-
PENDANTS pleaded that there was no defamation
Of the plaintiff. hut only fair comment mat
ters Of public interest. The only witness was
Mr.. Arthur Chamberlain brother of the great
imperialist. and the defence attempted to make
out its case by cross-examining him with the
aid. as was claimed by the prosecution. OF pr-
vate and confidential letters obtained mysteri-
ously by persons formerly in his employ. The
case was summed up with exceptional skill on
both sides. and after a we'll balanced charge to
the jury by the Lord Chief Justice there
verdict against the newspapers with nominal
damages for f2GO.
The newspapers dsclaimed any intention Of
charging either Mr. Arthur Chamberlain Mr.
Joseph Chamberlain Mr.. Austin Chamber
lain with corruption. They affirmed that an in
curry before a committee OF the House of Com
mons aroused suspicion that there had been
preferential treatment by which Kynochs had
secured better terms than competitors in cordite
and material. and had been allowed TO re-
wise their tenders They asserted that this
preferential treatment justified them in ques-
tioning the accuracy of Mr. Joseph Chamber
lain's denial Of August s. 1900 that either he or
his family had any financial interest in Kynochs
or in any firm manufacturing war material for
the government. Accordingly, they supplied
proof that he had direct interest in Kynochs
as = shareholder in the birmingham Trust. and
that the bulk of the shares in Hoskins & Co
employed by the government was held by the
Chamberlain family. Their motive. according to
arr Isaacs. was to draw attention 10 the hold
incs Of the families OF two Ministers Of State in
co-7nanies doing business with the government.
There was no charge OF fraud bribery or cor
ruption hut the undesirable connection OF the
Chamberlain family with government contractors
for war material was a legitimate and proper
suoiect for press comment. Mr.. Arthur Cham
herIain was brought in incidentally, and ne
would not have complained OF the nbels' ac-
cording TO Mr.. Isaacs, IL his brother and nephew
after being advised by eminent solicitors that
-be-- had no power OF action themselves. had not
urged him early IN December TO vindicate the
honor ~ the family. The two newspapers were
entitled. bv the pleadings OF their counsel to
Comment upon the fact that ministers mad
rlaced themselves in an anomalous position ana
~ describe the connection Of the Chamberlain
family with government contracts as scanoalous'
hK-batezer NAV have been the plea dings IN
co,1-t there was something more last autumn
-. an ar+enopt TO criticise the Chamberlains
for = matter Of taste OF propriety. hynochs got
,r.o the political canvass and Liberal newspa-
ners and speakers made an extensive use OF
the affair 10 prejudice the country against the
,o,.ernnent. II was a political raid and not
,,5+icsI argument in the interests Of public mo-
rs1i-v Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was taunted
With his denial. and many coarse attacks were
made upon him and his family. Whether Ohe
two newspapers heading the assault commented
on the affair fairly or otherwise. there was
cs-7natgn az systematic defamation from Which
his reputation would have suffered II ne had
not taken steps TO vindicate ii by proxy NO"
r.. The ,ibe1 action brought by his brother is
ended his official conduct is left in much more
favorable light His denial of August 5 is now
evr,airea h,y the fact that he did not know that
.ta F7;-r,,grerarn Trust had taken over certain
number Of shares in the Hoskins company HIS
inacc1racv was due 10 ignorance Of MS direct
interest in the contracts as shareholder IN lne
trust managed by his brother. Moreover tne
use made Of his name and office was trivial ana
Re ,o,,15 not properly be held accountable for IT,
The T.ordon manager Of Kynochs had obtained
from two Agents General Of the Coionles letlers
~ Introduction mentioning the relationship OF
Il ~
This had been done without the knowledge OF
any neraber OF the Chamberlain family ahd tne
manager had subsequently been got rid OF and
bse, tslxen into the employ OF the rival firm OF
Nobe1s The explicit reference in the letter or
the Agent-Ceneral OF Queensland was this; MT.
Arthur Chamberlain is the brother OF the oecre-
tsrv or State Of the Colonies. These letters
we're worthless from a business point Of view.
and were written the sole responsibility OF
the r,or5on manager OF Kynochs. No other use
was made OF the secretarys name nor was
there snv nroos that the contractors had ever
obtained business favors from government oe
par+roents through political influence, nor re-
ceved any preferential treatment IN consequence
Of the relationship of Mr. Arthur Chamberlain
20 two members Of the government:
The frnputations against Mr.. Joseph Chamber
lain were based in reality upon his brothers
neglect TO inform him that through his shares
in the birmingham Trust he was interested in
Kvnocbs and in the Haskins contracts. He did
not know what use had been made of certain
family investments He was entirely ignorant
of the fact that the London manager OF kynochs
had obtained On one occasion letters OF introduc-
tion with an improper reference TO his official
position for a business agent going TO Australia.
That is all that remains OF the venomous cam
paign OF detraction Of last autumn. The trial
has brought out nothing against MI Ausun
Chamberlain and so far as MI arthur Chah-
berlain is concerned his complaint that ne had
been charged with discredtable conduct IN op-
tanning business preferences by political innu-
enoe and family relationship has been sustained
albeit with a light assessment for damages
The Journals which made a systematic attack
upon the Chamberlain family for the neneht OF