ELECTION FUNDS

Mr. Peschaud subsidized the union of railway shareholders, a member of the Union of Economic Interests

The commission of inquiry into election funds heard a number of railway directors yesterday. All stated that the Companies took a sum from private funds for advertising and that the management of this budget was entrusted to Mr. Peschaud. When questioned, he gave the following statement:

The railway companies have very strong interests in defending those of the shareholders and bondholders, their credit; for this purpose, we have an advertising budget that has existed for many years and which I have managed for some time. How is it funded? The companies have two types of accounts, the initial establishment and operating accounts subject to State control: this is the public fund. Alongside this, there is a private domain made up of funds that are the property of the shareholders. It is from these funds that the advertising budget is funded, the need for which has never been greater, given the difficulties we have had in contracting our recent loans. Since the end of the war we have borrowed fifteen billion francs. We were able to obtain these sums thanks to our credit supported by our advertising budget. The railway companies have never subsidized the Union of Economic Interests or any group connected to it from their operating funds. However, about 15 years ago, an association of shareholders and bondholders was formed outside the companies with the aim of defending their interests. It does not deal with the management of the companies, but relations of trust have been established between us. One day, the members of the board of this association came to tell us that they had decided to raise funds to intensify the defense of the good performance of their securities. Their project seemed legitimate to us. We felt that we had to respond to their appeal. We have given various sums to this association. Personally, from the advertising budget of the Companies, I have taken sums that I have given to this association, not ignoring its relations with the Union of Economic Interests. That is exactly what happened.
It is clear, indeed. Thus, to defend the good performance of the Companies' securities, Mr. Peschaud has paid significant funds to an association in close relations with Mr. Billiet.

Mr. Peschaud can always claim that politics had nothing to do with all this.
It remains to be seen whether the government will find that the Companies can waste their private funds for anti-republican political purposes while their operating accounts are in deficit.