The Caillaux Drama

, "We'll try and give you leave at all events before the affaire Prieu is decided finally." For many years l'affaire Prieu had been the Jarndyce v. Jarndyce

e title of "Monsieur Caillaux's Secret Combinations" in an article signed by Mo

fitable concessions. At his death the French Government considered that these concessions lapsed to the State, and sold them. Monsieur Prieu's heirs claimed from the State a considerable sum, something between ￡120,000 and ￡160,000, of which their lawyers contended that the Government

14, sent for their representative. [Pg 116] The Figaro declared on the 8th, over the signature of Monsieur Gaston Calmette, that Monsieur Caillaux had stated to this gentleman that the claim of the Prieu family appeared to him to be justified, that the French Government would probably have to pay from ￡200,000 to ￡240,000 including compound interest on the debt, and that a transaction might be possible if the Prieu heirs were inclined to ha

eclare that a second interview had taken place at the [Pg 117] Ministry of Finance the next day, the Tuesday, when Monsieur Caillaux had demanded 80 per cent. of the debt for the party coffers, and that on the Wedne

ny settlement of the Prieu case on the lines above mentioned became quite impossible. One is inclined to wonder, now, whether the claimants will proceed against the French Government, prosecute their claim again, and call Monsieur Caillaux as a witness to declare in court

claim was that the Brazilian Government had on August 30, and on September 6, 1879, paid the French Minister for Foreign Affairs in two cheques, one for ￡200,000 and one for ￡400,000, as a settlement of his concessions. These cheques were, he declared, made payable to the firm of Baring Brothers in London, and on January 4, 1880, the money-￡600,000-was [Pg 119] paid over by the Baring firm to the Paris bankers Hottinguer and Co. Pierre Marcel Prieu declared that the payment of this money was compensation by the Brazilian Government due to him personally for the unjustifiable seizure of thirteen merchant ships with merchandise by the Brazilian Customs. After Prieu's death his heir, Monsieur D'Ariste, did not care to fight the case a

large proportion of the money over to the party funds. Whether such an agreement was ever come to or not is the affair of the law courts. It must resolve itself into a case of hard swearing, for the contradictory as

on the Prieu affair, of which I knew all the details. There are certain mistakes in the Figaro article, and it [Pg 121] struck me as advisable to put the people interested in direct touch with the Figaro. I went therefore, on the evening of January 8, at about half-past ten, to see Monsieur Schneider, who lives at 57 Boulevard Beauséjour at Auteuil. Two people wen

Calmette had not sent me [Pg 122] to ask him to come, but that I thought that in his own interests and in those of the heirs, he would do well to go to the Figaro office without delay, and tell the truth and all that he knew about this business. Monsieur Vidal got up from his seat, and said to Monsieur Schneider, 'Sir, I do not advise you to go. You must know what has been agreed.' I insisted, and Madame Schneider, who was putting her baby to bed in a room next door, came brusquely into the room and said to her husban

n of the Prieu affair, a meeting was called to hear what Monsieur Schneider had to say. Monsieur Schneider declared: 'I was very much surprised at the fuss made in the papers. The affair was going to be settled, and I had an appointment to-morrow, Saturday, January 10 (the m

Messieurs Monniot, Mazars, and Boileau. Naturally the [Pg 124] conversation bore on the incidents of the day, and when I expressed my astonishment and my indignation at the proposal that the Government should take 80 per cent. for its electoral needs while the heirs received only

of the Comptoir d'Escompte, had been received at five o'clock one afternoon by Monsieur Caillaux, and that some days afterwards the ￡16,000 had been placed at the disposition of the Minister of Finance. Everybody concerned contradic

in which he referred to the Prieu affair, and to the affair of the Comptoir d'Escompte. In this article, which is the more worth quoting because it attacks not only Monsieur Caillaux but the present parli

e visible. When a man is drowning it is perhaps an excess of precaution to refrain from throwing him a rope for fear of splashing him with a few drops of water.

satisfactorily, were brought by Monsieur Ceccaldi when the colonial Budget came up for discussion, and the fact that Monsieur Ceccaldi has since become a close friend and supporter of the Caillaux Government makes these charges all the more significant now. Each Governm

ous with money in the past. This year it is said to [Pg 127] have withheld a large proportion of its usual subsidy, and the Figaro and other Opposition papers dec

d of the Argentine Crédit Foncier, the Egyptian Crédit Foncier and other enterprises of international finance, was for personal and pecuniary reasons unable to resist the pressure brought to bear on him by his colleagues among the director

ation, and one of the most influential directors of the big French bank, the Société Générale, had

rgentin and on the board of the Crédit Foncier Egyptien, of which two boards of directors Monsieur Caillaux was a member. The intermediary between the Government and the Société Générale in the secret and delicate negotiations which resulted in the resignation of Monsieur Spitzer had been Monsieur [Pg 129] Luquet, one of the principal permanent officials in the Ministry of Finance. Shortly after Monsieur Caillaux's return to power an intimate friend of Monsieur Spitzer, Monsieur André Homberg, a director of the Société Générale, and another financial magnate whose name the Figaro does not mention, called on Monsieur Caillaux at the Ministry of Financ

r his conduct from certain financial magnates, among whom was Monsieur André Homberg of the Société Générale. On January 19, Monsieur Gaston Calmette announced for the following day a series of articles describing "the nefarious part played by Mons

n with an emission of two million pounds sterling of Ottoman bonds. Monsieur Gaston Calmette returned the next day to the question, twitting Monsieur Caillaux somewhat cruelly with his inability to give a satisfactory reply. On Wednesday, January 28, he

onths of Monsieur Caillaux's tenure of office as Finance Minister in 1911, that is to say from February to June of that year, South American bonds and shares to the amount of forty million pounds sterling received an official quotation on the Paris Bourse, and he drew up and published a Table showing the prices at which the quotations had been give

as agency, and in reply to his communiqué Monsieur Calmette on Janu

tion from the board of the Crédit Foncier Argentin, Monsieur Calmette comments on it in these words: "Monsieur Henri Poirier, an intimate friend of Monsieur Spitzer, has taken his, Monsieur Caillaux's, place provisionally. When Monsieur Caillaux wishes to return to the board there is no doubt that Monsieur Poirier will make way for him." On February 19, commenting on the statement in the Senate of Monsieur Caillaux, two days before, that he had never said in 1901 that a Minister of Finance would never consent [Pg 134] to interfere with all the taxes, the Figaro gives him the lie direct, quotes the speech he made on July 4, 1901, and declares that it is a complete condemnation of his whole fiscal policy at the present time. On the 20th Monsieur Calmette returns to the charge, compares several speeches of Monsieur Caillaux made at different dates, and comments on them in these words: "Monsieur Caillaux modifies his declarations and his financial programme according to whether he is a Minister in power or anxious to become one, according to whether he is speaking so as to remain in office or speaking against the Ministry so as to overthrow it." On February 25 Monsieur Gaston Calmette returns to "the secret combinations of Monsieur Caillaux," and the big fine of ￡325,000, "which was imposed but never collected," and ends his article by the accusation that Monsieur Caillaux, for pr

public against a loan which is to be issued by this company, and suggests that Monsieur Caillaux's reasons for encouraging it are reasons of party policy, and anything but straightforward. On March 5 the Figaro, over the si

French Rentes from taxation was the reason of a rise of French Rentes. On the Thursday, [Pg 137] March 5, Monsieur Caillaux contradicted the rumour of the afternoon before, and declared that he intended to propose the taxation of French Rentes. At twenty minutes to twelve on that morning, when the sworn brokers of the Paris Bourse fixed the opening price, the official contradiction had not r

tte stigmatizes Monsieur Caillaux's behaviour with reference to the immunity and taxation of French Rentes as "a double pirouette, a looping-the-loop act which allow

of the Crédit Foncier Egyptien and the Crédit Foncier Argentin, that Monsieur Caillaux had mis-stated the truth, and that he was still a member of these boards and drawing a large sum for h

this volume, would, if published, support the charges made by Monsieur Gaston Calmette against Monsieur Caillaux, and Monsieur Monis. It marks t

an if he remained unsentenced three years after his first prosecution in 1908. On March 2, 1911, wrote Monsieur Calmette, "Monsieur Caillaux became Minister of Finance in the Cabinet of which Monsieur Monis was Prime Minister, and Monsieur Perrier Minister of Justice. Rochette had been arrested on March 20, 1908. On May 8 he was released provisionally. He was tried on July 27, 1910, sentenced to prison, appealed

Prime Minister, Rochette took flight. He is a free man to-day, freer and better protected than all of us. He will smile as he reads this indiscreet account of his troubles which are over, and in his gratitude he will send from overseas a gracious greeting to the Minister of Finance, his saviour and his friend. Monsieur Caillaux it was who demanded, who obtained, who insisted on, the various postponements which allowed Rochette to thieve with impunity. Monsieur Caillaux it was who allowed Roch

indulged in secret machinations and criminal intervention, the Finance Minister of the Doumergue Cabinet! Neither the Commission of Inquiry nor Monsieur Jaurès ever really understood the Rochette affair. They guessed something about it, they felt what it meant, instinctively, and they stoppe

Figaro of the day before. On Thursday, March 12, he called public attention again to Monsieur Caillaux's silence, and in heavy black typ

BLISH TO-MOR

DEDICATED

LAUX TO HIS

us will take note that it was a Friday and a thirteenth of the mo

ype="