Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

UGLY RUMOURS.

ALLEGED GRAFT IN N.S.W. OVER THE WHEAT BILL. SYDNEY, March 9. At the Royal Commission's inquiry into alleged corruption in connection with the Wheat Acquisition Act, a witness stated that rumours were current that money had been raised in connection with the passage oi the Wheat Acquisition Bill, and it had gone to the State Attorney-General (Mr Hall). . Another, witness .deposed that he had interviewed Mr Hall and member's , of PaTliaaent, but on no occasion had any suggestion of consideration been made. Other, evidence showed that one of the chief movers in the direction of getting wheat.contracts cancelled would havcbeen involved to the extent of f 15,000 by noncancellation. .That money was subscribed with a view to securing the exclusive service of a solicitor, who was supposed to be in close touch with members of Parliament, to see the matter through. The agreement, as first drawn up, provided for paying the solicitor £2.500. Subsequently this fee was reduced to £1.000.

FOB PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

NO BRIBERY SUGGESTED. (Received 8 a.m.) SYDNEY, this day. The general tone of the evidence in the ■wheat case is indicated by a witness who said that he understood the payments jnade to the solicitors were purely for professional services. There ie no suggestion of bribery or corruption. One witness stated that he had seen cheques signed for £300 and £60 respectively, payable to the solicitors, and the receipt for them set out that the balance due was £240.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19150310.2.36.2

Bibliographic details

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 59, 10 March 1915, Page 6

Word Count
244

UGLY RUMOURS. Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 59, 10 March 1915, Page 6

UGLY RUMOURS. Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 59, 10 March 1915, Page 6