Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE PETROL DEAL

_— . iV»B GRIFFITH'S EVIDENCE. JtEED CONTRADICTED. THE BURDEN OF SUSPICION. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. SYDNEY, April 13. Mr Griffith (Minister of Education), in his evidence before the Commission of Inquiry into the attempt to set up a State monopoly in petrol, said he understood there was no charge against any Minister other than himself. In reply to questions, ho denied tho imputation that Ministers would get something out of the Norton Griffiths loan. It was simply a piece of political scandal. Oyer every contract he had been connected with there had been the trail of these poisonous suggestions. He- also denied that he or his colleagues used improper means to influence the Trades Hall in connection with the scheme, or that any attempt was made to bribe members of Parliament. Mr Griffith asked tho Commissioner to take steps to clear him of all these side charges, as well as the main charges. His reputation was involved, and unless they were refuted they would be used for political purposes. Cross-examined, Mr Griffith said that if the charge had been one of open brokerage and not secret commission he would have treated it as comic opera, and not withdrawn from his parliamentary duties. He declared that Mr Reed's statemerit that ha (Mr Griffith) had said that Morgan would want brokerago was incorrect. He had absolutely no idea that Morgan was claiming brokerage. It would have been most improper. April 14. (Received April 14, at 8.5 a.m.) Mr Griffith, in his evidence, said that Reed (Government Controller of Stores) was mistaken in saying that he (Griffith) warned him to be careful against graft. However, witness warned Reed to keep everything in writing, so that if any allegations of corruption were made, as had been the case in other big deals, he would be in a position to meet them. He knew that the scheme would meet with opposition from the oil companies. A letter was read from Mr Wagstaffe (Melbourne manager of the British Imperial Oil Company) to his London directors, m which it appeared that Wagstaffe sought their permission to get the other oil companies to work with him in trying to prevent tho adoption of the New South Wales Government scheme. Mr Griffith's comment on this letter was: "I think that this particular company would say or do anything to save their business or their billets." Asked "If tho vendors had paid Morgan (the outside expert) or relieved the Government of the price of his sendees, would you have objected?" Mr Griffith replied : "Certainly; I would have regarded it as blackmail, and would have struck it out."

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19160414.2.60

Bibliographic details

Evening Star, Issue 16089, 14 April 1916, Page 6

Word Count
437

THE PETROL DEAL Evening Star, Issue 16089, 14 April 1916, Page 6

THE PETROL DEAL Evening Star, Issue 16089, 14 April 1916, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert