LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE ALLEGED MASSACRES IN TRIPOLI,

[TO TRW EDITOR OW THE "iSPROTATOR,"]

Sin,—In a letter published in your columns on February 10th Mr. Richard Begot makes several very grave charges against all the non-Italian correspondents who wore in Tripoli at the end of October last. He calls us " unscrupulous correspond- ents"; he asserts that we circulated "abominable calumnies " ; that we were tools in the hands of the Young Turks ; that we were "paid agents" of the Ottomans ; finally, that we were not in Tripoli at all when the oasis atrocities were committed. To quote his words on this latter point :-

" The journalists and others who described in such glowing language Italian cruelty in the suppression of the Arab revolt were many miles away from Tripoli during that suppression. The few journalists and other civilians who wore present have unani- mously testified to the fact that no such acts of cruelty over took place."

This charge is not new. It was first made by the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs when, early in November 1911, he granted an interview to a German correspondent. I bad hardly expected this from a Cabinet Minister who must have been familiar with the facts of the case; but I can well under- stand that Mr. Begot has been misled if he has gone for information to a quarter which puts such a statement into circulation. That it is an untrue statement is proved by hundreds of witnesses. I shall only mention one, Signor Tullio Giordano, the correspondent of the New York Herald in Tripoli. Being a fanatical supporter of this war, Signor Giordano attacked me bitterly in the New York Herald (Paris), November 9th, but he admitted that I was in T ripoli when the massacres occurred, and that I voluntarily returned my papers to General Caneva by way of protest against those massacres.

All the non-Italian correspondents who were in Tripoli at the end of October witnessed those massacres and described them. If we leave the Italians out of account as being preju- diced witnesses, we find that the denials came in all cases from journalists, novelists, and others living in Italy, France, and England. My attention has been drawn to a denial of the massacres signed by a number of gentlemen who were not in Tripoli when these massacres occurred. One of the signa- tories is Monsieur Jean Carrere, the Rome correspondent of the Temps. I shall take his case a s typical.

Monsieur Carrera did not visit Tripoli until three weeks after the massacres had occurred. While staying in Naples early in November, on my return from the Tripolitaine, I noticed that all the Italian newspapers were full of what they called a complete vindication of Italy's honour and a crushing exposure of la lnalatede, la ignoranza, l'odio of these English hirelings of the Turks who had accused General Caneva's troops of murdering innocent Arabs. The " vindication " in question was specially written for the Italian Press. It was from the pen of M. Jean Carrere, and it took the form of a long series of articles asserting, in most violent and dog matie language, that the massacres did not occur, and raking up all the "atrocities" that have been laid at

England's door since the burning of Jeanne d'Arc. In- cidentally, of course, we, the British correspondents, were denounced as liars, perjurers, swindlers, and spies. M. Carrere visited Tripoli some weeks later, and is now the great authority on that oasis " repression " which he did not see.

Another witness is the New York Herald of Paris. When my account of the massacres was published in the West- minster Gazette the editor of the New York Herald wired to his local correspondent to investigate my statements. I have already pointed out that the correspondent in question is a jingoistic Italian who would certainly have shown me no

mercy if what I had said was untrue. But as he could not deny the accuracy of what I had sent, he confined himself to

saying that I had failed to take into account the provocation which the Italians had received. Some weeks after, an American journalist seems to have been sent to the spot by the Herald in order to confute me. I have not seen his articles, but Italians quote them as a complete disproval of what I said Here, then, is another witness who was not present.

A third witness is Mr. Martin Donohoe, of the Daily Chronicle. Mr. Donohoe was quoted first in the Malaya of Turin and afterwards all over Italy as saying that there had been no massacres at all. In the enormous headlines which gave prominence to this statement we were told that a truthful Englishman had at last killed the whole calumny.

But Mr. Donohoe had left Tripoli before the date on which the massacres are said to have taken place ; and, speaking on his behalf, the Chronicle has formally and publicly denied that he ever made any such statement as that attributed to him. But the Italian Press refuses to publish that denial, and Mr. Donohoe still continues to figure in Italy as one of the innumerable journalists who have testified to the fact that there were no massacres.

Other witnesses to the same effect are Italians who were representing prominent English and American papers as well

as very obscure Sicilian papers. Reading those men's testi- mony without knowing their names, the English reader might well have been excused for believing that a fair proportion of English and American journalists denied the massacres, But if all the messages from Tripoli had been signed, the British public would have seen that while the British, German,

French, and other non-Italian correspondents bore witness to the massacres, the only defenders of General Caneva were Sicilian or Neapolitan journalists who, from motives of

economy, had been engaged by a surprisingly large number of

prominent English and American papers. If those gentlemen had told the truth they would have had to leave Tripoli at once,

with its high pay, its freer life, its chances of journalistic: distinction. If the British correspondents bad concealed the truth they could have remained in Tripoli for a long time, enjoying war pay, the hospitality of officers, the applause of patriotic Italians all over the world.

So much, therefore, for the evidence on the Italian side. It is almost entirely the evidence of absentees. What have we on the other side P We have impartial Englishmen, Irish-

men, Scotchmen, Germans, Austrians, Frenchmen, who were all in Tripoli when the massacres took place, and who, to

their great regret and horror, saw those massacres. We have Reuter's correspondent, Mr. Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett. We have Mr. Davis, a young Cambridge undergraduate, who

represented the Morning Post. Mr. Davis is not a pro-

fessional journalist, and it was with the utmost reluctance that he gave his evidence against the Italians, for he has many friends among the Roman aristocracy. I hope, by the by, that those aristocratic friends of his will never succeed in making him attempt to weaken the statement to which, with a full knowledge of the consequences, be signed his name in the British Consulate at Tripoli last October. Then we have Mr. Grant—a canny and bard-headed Londoner of Scotch descent—who, being extremely anxious to remain in Tripoli, said as little against his hosts as he possibly could, but who felt that it would be a crime to keep entirely silent. We have

Baron von Gottberg, a Prussian officer, who has long been connected with the Lokal Anzeiger, and who enjoys a high reputation in Berlin as a military critic. In addition to von Gottherg we have five other Germans, not local Italians writing for German papers, but Germans per- manently connected with the greatest organs of the Press in Berlin and Vienna. The French journalists present also declared that there had been massacres. The correspondent of the Excelsior sent his paper a dreadful account of the Italian atrocities. French penny-a-liners from Tunis, Sfax, and Marseilles appeared on the scene long afterwards and signed statements confirming the official Italian version of an event which they had not witnessed.

Of my own testimony, Sir, I do not care to speak, but my contributions to the Westminster Gazette proved that when I arrived in Tripoli it was with strong prejudices in favour of the Italians. As an Irish Roman Catholic, I would not be likely to declare without good reason that murders had been committed by Roman Catholic soldiers wearing scapulars and religious medals.

The Times correspondent did not, it is true, go so far as the rest of us. This was because he had been at the front and had seen only the smallest fraction of the massacres carried out by the Italians in the oasis. Yet even ho declared that parts of the oasis had been turned into "human abattoirs "; that " the Italians having set themselves to cow the Arabs, the flood- gates of blood-lust were opened, and in many cases the men got beyond control, and the innocent suffered with the guilty." Writing in the Daily Telegraph of the innocent oasis Arabs, Mr. Bennett Burleigh declared that " many unquestionably have been wantonly murdered."

Yet General Caneva denies that a single innocent Arab was killed, while Mr. Richard Bagot tells us that "the most searching investigations carried out by Italian officers and civilians of the highest honour and integrity have failed to bring to light one single case in which any Arab either has been ill-treated or put to death unless convicted of treachery."

If this is true, all the non-Italian correspondents must have fabricated the news which they sent. But that they could not possibly do so will be the verdict of any reader who has accompanied war correspondents in the field. Collective action by doctors, by lawyers, or by the clergymen of any one denomination is possible ; but, owing to the nature of their calling, collective action of this kind by war correspondents is impossible. The great, the primary, object of each of them is to steal a march on the others. If one of them sends false news the others will lose very little time in denouncing him.

Mr. Begot explains our unanimity by saying that we were all bribed by the Turks. Now, does any one seriously imagine that an impoverished, corrupt, and doomed people like the Ottomans could bribe the whole European Press outside Italy P If Constantinople had tried to do so the Turk to whom they would entrust the money would promptly disappear with it. But in the first place they have not got any money to spare for this purpose.

If there was any bribery it was on the other side. There is a close connexion in Italy between the Public Treasury and the amenable journalist who can be got to see things in a " proper " light. Baron von Gottberg and I would in all probability have been comparatively rich men to-day if after we had returned our papers to General Caneva we had not resisted the numerous, determined, but excessively courteous attempts to open up a friendly " discussion " in some quiet place.

But, needless to say, Italy's principal advocate in the present controversy is not her gold but her tremendous past, her literature, her art, her old cities, her superb twilights, the bewitching beauty of her hills and coasts, the irresistible charm of her people. Those are the influences to which Mr. RiChard Bagot has succumbed. Those are the influences which we all find it so hard to resist. The Bedouin of Tripoli has no such advocates—I am, Sir, &a., FRANCIS IiICCULLA.OH.

"1:sorbash," Caterham, Feb. 10.

[We must not be considered to take any responsibility for the allegations contained in Mr. McCullagh's letter. Having printed a statement from each side, we must now close this correspondence.—En. Spectator.]