the claims of justice. It is not difficult for an energetic newspaper to create such an impression, and the obstinate silence of the surviving partners of Sir John fanned the flame of public curiosity. So rooted did this conviction become that at last it took hold of Scotland Yard. Once[55] a settled conviction obtains a footing in that quarter, it usually sticks, and the Home Office took a hand in the game and asked for an assurance from the firm that the secret trust had no connection with the murder. [54] [55] The firm replied that they were unable to give that or any other assurance. A lengthy correspondence followed, which culminated in a personal letter from the Home Secretary, egged on by Scotland Yard, asking the partners of the firm to disclose in confidence the terms and purposes of the secret trust, and conveying concurrently an intimation that the disclosure could be made personally to the Home Secretary without witnesses, and his personal assurance that, no matter what the trust might be, no action against any member of the firm should be based upon any such disclosure. The letter was misunderstood. The promise of the indemnity was made bona[56] fide. The Home Secretary was perfectly cognisant that many secret trusts are illegal or made for illegal objects, and his only desire was to let the firm know that he personally would respect that trust and their confidence, if they would show him that this particular trust had nothing to do with the murder. [56] Knowing the high reputation the firm deservedly enjoyed, the partners were perfectly furious at the bare suggestion that they might be parties to either illegal or dishonest actions, and the reply to the Home Secretary was brief and to the point. “Sir,—On behalf of myself and the other surviving partners of this firm, I beg to state that we resent the tone and contents and the insinuations of your letter. We point-blank decline to supply you with any information whatsoever.—I am, sir, your obedient servant, (Arthur Baxter) for[57] Rellingham, Baxter, Marston & Moorhouse.” Sir Arthur Baxter [57] The Home Secretary replied in another personal letter, regretting that his letter had been misunderstood, and stating that he felt assured the letter of
Prev.
Back
Top