BUDGET INQUIRY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 21 May 1936, Page 7

BUDGET INQUIRY

EMPHATIC DENIAL BY MINISTER

ADDRESS BY COUNSEL “CRUEL AND WICKED SUGGESTION” (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copy rietitJ (Received 21st May, 9.55 a.m.) LONDON. 20th May. At the Budget inquiry, the Rt. non. J. M. Thomas, Colonial Secretary, unexpectedly re-entered the witness box at his own request, lie emphatically denied that he had seen or heard of Vergottis until lie appeared in Court. Likewise lie did not Know Hearn. V ergot tip, recalled, denied having 1 mentioned the Budget to Hearn as allegi ed. He added: ’'it is pure fabrication and has no other reason than Hearn fancies he lias a. grievance against me." Cross-examined, Vergottis said lie bad not met Mr Thomas in iiis life. Mr Morris, for Mr Thomas, addressing the tribunal, said no witness suggested that Mr Thomas had given information to Sir Alfred. Butt. Air Bates denied it. Overmuch had been made of Sir Alfred Butt's insuring one way and then insuring tlie other. A real gambler changes bis mind quickly ou any information. What was wonderful in a bet when it was a matter of common knowledge that the Chancellor would have to find vast sums of money? “I ask the tribunal to say that Mr Leslie Thomas is as completely innocent as his father,” continued Mr Morris. "H Leslie had information it was impossible to conceive anything move clumsy than that he. should* deal with this business. Evidence shows bow vague rumour tips do incalculable barm. The suggestion that a half-commission man got information from a friend whose client was a friend of Air Thomas is cruel and- wicked It would help the tribunal if the evidence suggested knowledge that the income tax was being increased 3d, but there is no evidence that Bates, Eves, Sir Alfred Butt or Leslie Thomas mentioned 3d to anyone. ’ Mi- Morris continued: There may he times in the life of any man when fate seems cruelly against him. At such times a mail is entitled to say to the world. T give you my word I did not do this thing. You must- believe me.’ I invite the tribunal to say firmly that it has been proved that Mr Thomas at no time made any sort of disclosure to anyone. The suggestion that Sir Alfred Butt asked what was in the Budget and that Mr Thomas told him of a rise in income tax and tea is fantastic. Mr Thomas, with a great and honourable record of public service, is not a man to do that. The worst construction, should not be placed on circumstances if they permit an innocent explanation, especially when two public men denied on oath that anything improper had passed from Mr Thomas to Mr Bates or to Sir Alfred Butt. Since there was no suggestion of information from Mr Thomas, why do business through Mr Thomas’s son in his own name? It is not credible that a wealthy man should risk his own friends’ reputations and also a friendship of twenty years’ standing for the sake of less than. 30,009. Mr Brampton submitted that Kenneth Butt’s statement contained “half truths.” It was unjust to suggest that Sir Alfred Butt was seekipg to conceal anything from the tribunal. SENSE OF PUBLIC DUTY Mi- 'Vandenherg, on behalf of Lloyd’s, stated that the underwriters had settled all claims. The committee was actuated only bv a sense of public duty in conveying information to the Government tribunal.

The inquiry closed, and the tribunal will submit a report to the Home Secretary.