The Star. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1881. A PARLIAMENTARY SCANDAL.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume II, Issue 186, 16 December 1881, Page 2

The Star. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1881. A PARLIAMENTARY SCANDAL.

The Milburn Creek Copper Company affair in New South Wales, to which frequent reference has been made in our Australian telegrams of late, involves one of those Parliamentary scandals which occur at intervals, and much too frequently for tbe reputation of colonial Legislatures. "We have not been able to discover very much about the company itself, but the Australasian of a recent date gives information as to its relations with the Government and the origin of the scandal. For some reason or other, unexplained, the Parliament of New Wales robed again of £17,195, apparently as compensation for something, to the company, but at a subsequent meeting of the shareholders one of them complained that the vote seemed to be of little use, as the shareholders, position was very slightly improved. He was told there were vouehei-s for everything, that fcbe directors were honorable men, that all was right, but that it was not wise to ask questions, and that Parliamentary proceedings were expensive. These statements, especially that about Parliamentary proceedings being expensive, attracted notice, rumors began to fly about, and Mr. Salomans. Q. 0., was eyentuaMy appointed Royal Co*ai»issioner to inquire into and report to Parliament upon the whole subject. There pi-oved to have been reason for the inquiry, for it disclosed corruption and jobbery of the worst form on the part of Mi: Baker, Minister for Mines, Mr. Garretfc, a member supporting the Govemmenb, and a number of other people. Mr. Baker, it seems, was one of the trustees of the company, and also its managing director, and the finding of the Commissioner against him was simply this : Of the £17,199 paid by the Government, only £8,558 was applied to the payment of a dividend to the shareholders, and of the sum of £4710, the investigation of which formed the principal object of the Royal Commissioner, the trustees, Mr. Baker and colleagues, received £4500, and appropriated it to their own use, without the knowledge of the shareholders. The trustees began by paying themselves £1000 eacb, for Which t&ey had no 2ega2 or equita\>\e claim, and of the cheques by which these amounts were paid there was no entry or record, nor is there any reference to them in the books or accounts of the company. Not only were there no acounts showing that this money bad been paid ho the trustees, hat there were pavticu« lars presented to the shareholders which purported to show where the money had gone, which particulars were declai-ed by the Royal Commission to be wholly alse. The case against Mr. Baker and the other trustees, Messrs. Waddell and Mathison, is, therefore, simply ihis, that they embezzled the money, presenting cooked accounts to delude the shareholders. That is a strong way of putting it, but we cannot see any other logical conclusion from the i'acts as

stated above. So far for Mess} s Battr and Co. Mr. Garrett 's share iv the transaction is somewhat different, but scaiceiy less disgraceful. The evidence shows that he was the principal party to a collnsory transaction, by which, in consideration of his helping the Milburn Creek Company to secure compensation, and on the ground fcliafc Le lisul tstertod himself very much on behalf of the company, he was to receive 2000 shares ; bnt in addition to this, the evidence also shows that a gold watch and chain were on the *vay from England as a present to Mr. GaiTott. TLe sum iv ing up of the | Commission on. this poini; is terse—- Mr. Garrett was to receive eithev tne value of 2000 shares or £500, represented by his pi'omissory note, as a corrupt reward for services rendered by him to the company as a member 6$ the Legislature ; in other words, that Messrs. Garrett, Wad- . dell, and Russell (solicitor to the company) are guilty of bribery ancJ corruption." These are the main facts of one of the must humiliating' transactions that have ever occurred in Australia. The New South Wales Parliament immediately vindicated its honor by expelling Mr. Baker, the Minister for Mines, but, strangely, it did not take the same course with Mr. Garrett, who had been declared by the authority upon whose findings Mr. Baker was expelled, to have been guilty of bribery and conniption. But the public would not allow matters to stay here. A criminal prosecution was demanded, and a late telegram informs us that warrants have been issued for thre apprehension of Messrs. Baker. Waddell, and Mathison, the trustees. It will be a reflection upon the state of the New South Wales law, if Mr. Garrett should escape.