THE PETROL DEAL

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

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if the charge had been one of open brokerage and not secret commission he would have treated it as comic opera, and not withdrawn from his parliamentary duties.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."