Lord Melchett Denies He Has Ulterior Motives in Dead Sea Concession

Lord Melchett has taken steps to dispel rumors which were current here and which found expression in public print that he sought to prevent the full exploitation of the Dead Sea concession because of his financial interest in the German potash works.

Writing to the “London Jewish Chronicle,” which published this rumor, Lord Melchett declared: “Neither I nor any company connected with me has any interest whatsoever in continental potash. The question whether the potash salts of the Dead Sea are capable of being commercially successfully utilized further experiments will determine. My motives are not influenced by personal financial gain, the fact of which those who know me can be certain after my sufficiently long public life. From my speech in the House of Lords, it is obvious that I am doing my best to secure the rights of the Jewish Palestinians in the concession for the National Home.”

The editorial in the “London Jewish Chronicle” in its issue of April 12 read:

“The vexed questions that have clustered about the concessions which the British Government is considering in respect to the working of the deposits to be found in the Dead Sea are still subjects of negotiation. We refer to them here not in order to discuss the question in any detail, but to call attention to a paragraph which appeared in a recent issue of ‘Britannia.’ We reprint the whole of the reference, which is as follows:

” ‘With all respect for Lord Melchett, we are not concerned with the fate of the continental monopolists, who find it necessary to restrict output in order to keep up prices. If their potash mines are deep and expensive to work, they are in no worse plight than half the coal-owners in Britain and entitled to no greater sympathy.

” ‘On the contrary, it is quite definitely to the interest of this country that the monopoly of the Franco-Ger-

(Continued on Page 4)

(Continued from Page 3)

man cartel should be broken, that agriculture should obtain cheap potash (which would make Britain less dependent upon imported food), and that the vast deposits of mineral wealth which now lie fallow in the Dead Sea should be exploited by British companies with British capital, and remain essentially under British control.’

“Now the underlying suggestion here made is one which we venture to say should receive the careful attention of Lord Melchett. The implication made is clear. It is that he is exercising what influence he possesses to prevent full advantage being derived from the Dead Sea deposits in deference to interests in which he personally is concerned. This would be a serious imputation, even if Lord Melchett’s influence were only that of a very wealthy English public man. Because it would inferentially point to his setting up what he thinks is his private advantage against that of the country’s. But Lord Melchett’s position is far otherwise. He is deeply interested in Palestine work. He is a prominent Zionist and President of the English Zionist Federation. He will surely be the first to see the incompatibility-to put it no more strongly-in the circumstances of the attitude which the paper alleges he is taking up in the matter of the Dead Sea concessions. We hope that he will lose no time in putting this matter right. In all probability there is nothing in the ‘Britannia’ story. But, on the other hand, it is but right to say that it is one which has for some time past been the subject of general rumor. So that not only for his own sake, but for the sake of the cause for which he has made so many material sacrifices and of which he is one of the chief upholders in this country, we hope that Lord Melchett will take the earliest opportunity of making explicit denial that he is in any sense striving by any means to obtain a restricted output of the Dead Sea deposits, so that the prices of competing Continental products, from which he derives large profits, may be upheld.”