ARMY CANTEEN SCANDAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15554, 11 March 1914, Page 4

ARMY CANTEEN SCANDAL.

CONTRACTORS AND SOLDIERS

ALLEGED SYSTEMATIC BRIBERY

[FROM OT7E OWN CORRESPONDENT.]

London, January 30. The army canteen case is not only important as it stands, but it promises to develop into something much larger, for Mr. R. D. Muir, representing the Public. Prosecutor, announced last week that it might be necessary to add to the number of defendants, whose total is already sixteen, divided equally between military and civilians. They appeared to answer summonses charging them with corrupt conspiracy. All the eight civilians are employees of Messrs. Liptons, Ltd., but no charge is made against the firm itself. Mr. Muir alleged that for years past officials of Liptons, Ltd., had been engaged in persistent bribery— they had made illicit payments to quartermasters and senior non-commissioned officers with the object of obtaining or preserving contracts for the supply of food and drink to regimental canteens.

Two of Liptons's officials are described by the prosecution as principals Cansfield, general manager and a director of the company, and Archibald Minto, head of its naval and military department. At present Minto is in Paris, suffering from extreme nervous debility, and unable to appear in Court, while two of the military defendants are on their way home from India and are expected to arrive at the end of this month. Of the soldiers, two are honorary captains, four are honorary lieutenants, and all had influence with their commanding officers in deciding what firm should " run" the canteens. They are accused of using this influence improperly in favour of Messrs. Liptons, and of taking systematic bribes for doing so, the reason for the arrangement being, it is said, that not a few firms are keen competitors for the work of managing and supplying canteens. How the Case Arose.

Mr. Muir outlined an interesting story as to how the prosecution arose. About two and a-half years ago, E. Stratton Sawyer, who is to give evidence, left Messrs. Liptons's service, in which, according to the prosecution, he had acted as dispenser of the firm's bounties to obliging array men. He transferred himself to a rival establishment called the Canteen Mess Society, whereupon his old employers brought an action against him for breach of agreement, but came to a settlement with Sawyer on his paying certain costs. A year later some newspapers published a statement, which led 10 an interview between him and the heads of the Canteen Mess Society, with the result that Sawyer was induced to communicate with the Secret Commissioners and Bribery Prevention League. That body sent Sawyer's information to the War Office, which held an inquiry and received evidence from some of the present defendants. It is not, however, intended to use any of that evidence on the prosecution now begun. After the War Office investigations a court-martial was appointed to try persons suspected of receiving bribes in connection with canteen contracts, but on second thoughts the court-martial was not allowed to begin operations, as it could not have tried civilians or retired soldiers whose offence was more than three years old. Hence it was thought desirable to bring the whole case to Bow Street. Remarking that a deal of the evidence would consist of letters between the persons bribed and Liptons's employees, Mr. Muir pointed out that the wording of the documents displayed a considerable amount of caution. It was plain that Minto and Cansfield desired to conceal their responsibility, and that their subordinates would be sacrificed if anything was found out. From the many letters read by counsel it seemed that the usual amount paid to a soldier for forwarding the firm's interests in relation to a canteen was £5 a quarter, that the officers did not hesitate to write for the money, and that one recommended the sergeant-major in another regiment as likely to be useful to the linn, while still another was so zealous as to suggest an increase in the price of potatoes supplied to his canteen.

The Canteen System. The charges upon which evidence would be laid before the Court, Mr. Muir said, arose out of a system for the supply of provisions for the" army called the tenant system of canteens. Under that system, firms which catered for that class of business entered into contracts with the officers to supply, if might be, regiments or battalions, or a unit or section. Liptons's, Ltd., was one of a number of firms which catered for this class of business. ' Under the system the contractor under- ! took to run the canteen. He sold to the soldiers provisions which were not pro- j vided for them by the Government, and which the men required for their mess, and also drinkables. The undertaking was that the provisions should be good in quality and the prices not excessive. For this privilege, the contractors were ! content to pay to the regiment a sum of money, which was in the nature of a rent. The ordinary price paid was from £17 to £20 per 100 men in mess per month. There was keen competition among the different firms to get these contracts. If the work was done to the satisfaction of the commanding officer, he would probably recommend to the succeeding commanding officer the firm which had catered so well. The test of whether the work was well done was whether complaints had been numerous. The medium through which complaints could be manufactured or smoothed over or suppressed, were the quartermaster's and sergeant-major's— quartermaster's with regard to the regiment generally, and the sergeant-major with regard to the sergeants' mess. The quartermaster, by fostering or multiplving complaints, might easily lose a contractor the contract he held. Christmas Hampers. The person most able to give evidence of what was done, said Mr. Muir, was Siwyer, who had been between the head of the firm of Liptons and the inspectors of the canteens. Sawyer entered the service of Liptons, Ltd., on February 1, 1903. He was engaged by Minto. His salary was £200 a year, and commission of or 1£ per cent, on the business which he introduced. He was instructed by Minto that he was to approach certain sergeantmajors and quartermasters, find out what they wanted— he (Mr. Muir) suggested, meant how much they wanted— and get from them, as cheaply as he could, the promise to use their influence in favour of Liptons, Ltd. At first the bribery did not take place through Sawyer's hands. It was made, as he expressed it, " over his head," and i*. was evident that the system of bribery was in full swing in February, 1903, when Sawyer entered the service. The canteen business grew rapidly under Sawyer's influence, and at a later date he "was entrusted with the making and payment of the bribes. The business grew still more, and inspectors- were appointed. Sawyer drew money from headquarters, and the inspectors distributed the bribes they received from him.

Counsel then dealt with specific cases in which money had been paid to the various military defendants. He mentioned £25 from Sawyer to Quartermaster Mitchell, who in reply asked to have two Christmas hampers sent to "the enclosed addresses." The letter added: "In the first I should like a turkey, a fowl a bottle of whisky, a bottle of port, and a quarter of a pound of tobacco. This is tor my wife's father, a dear old gentleman about 70. I should like the second packed like the first, but without the tobacco."