Opera Star "Jockey"
From Our Own Correspondent, Paris, Jan. 29.
M. Ernest Vilgrain, who was M. Clemenceau's Under-Secretary for Provisions during part of the War period, has just been acquitted of a charge of malingering. He was brought before a court-martial to explain an incident which took place in August, 1914. One would have thought that if -he had been guilty of any military offence ho ought to have been called to account in considerably less than seven years, but they manage these things differently in France. M. Vilgrain is one of the business experts who were called in by the French Government to assist in dealing with the new problems created by} the war. He occupied an important position in the flour-milling indus-; try, and it has been openly alleged that he used his position as Under-Secretary for Provisions to mani-plate prices to the advantage. uf} himself, his friends and connexions, Legal proceedings to test the truth of these allegations have been in progress for a considerable time, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that his adversaries have something to do with the attempt to prove him a coward and thus discredit him in the eyes of any Fiench jury. At the time of the outbreak of war, M, Vilgrain, who was recovering from appendicitis and was not fit for active service, was given light duty as a motor driver. ® was attached to the 139th brigade and held the rank of lieutenant. On August 22 he was ordered to drive to Nancy and collect information concerning the enemy's movements. He set out but never returned to his corps. According to his story, he was on his way back from ancy to his headquarters when he was attacked by a spy wearing French uniform, who shot him through the left hand, so that he had to turn hack to Namey. As he never returned to headquarters, the colonel commanding his brigade endorsed his record in uncomplimentary style, but apparently 16 was not thought worth while ait: the time to prosecute him under military law. and the whole matter would have been forgotten but for someone having revived it seven years afterwards. The court martial was occupied for four days in trying to reconcile the conflicting statements of witnesses whose me-moi could hardly be expected to be v accurate on points of detail after such a lapse of time. The accused also had to explain as best he could why his versions of tha imeident en the road, given at different times, did not correspond. Eventually the members of the court decided. by 6 votes to 1, that there was no proof of wilful desertion of duty, and the ex-Under Seoretary was acquitted. His counsel thought it advisable, in the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.