THE PETROL SCANDAL.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XLII, Issue 12822, 14 April 1916, Page 4

THE PETROL SCANDAL.

[By Ei.ectp.ic Telegraph—Copyright.] Pep. Press Association. Eeceived April 12, at 0.55 p.m. Sydney. April 12. Mr Griffiths (Minister of Education), examined. said he understood 'the charge was that through his agents heasked that a secret commission should be paid to himself or his colleagues by the company through which they were doing business. That-charge was supported bv strong evidence, both oral and written. He was absolutely unaware of the brokerage, and asked for it to be shown in any document to go before the Cabinet. The whole gravamen of the charge was that there was to be a secret document, to be kept secret in Australia, while satisfying the company's auditors in England. Had lie known there was no charge of secrecy, but merely a scheme of open brokerage, to be" paid on contract, lie would not have stood down from his administrative duties and aba intoned his work in Parliament. Giving detail* of the scheme, Mr Griffith said be chose the best man he could get to make inquiries. He told Mr Peed not to bother him with details: and also if a scheme were formulated there would be a possibility of a charge of corruption agaiust the Government by some people, he expected. Mr Peed introduced Mr Morgan, and after interviews he appointed Mr Morgan as agent. !><•- cause.he was impressed with him as a man knowing all about the oil business. Nothing was said about paymeut to Mr Morgan, because he was representing the vendors. Mr Griffith declared that he was never a party to getting commission in connection with the petrol proposal, nor any other in the wide world, nor was any other Minister. He had absolute confidence in Mr Reed, who for 25 years had been a departmental officer. Mr Morgan had no power to bind the Government. There was absolutely no agreement to pay him brokerage. He was merely authorised to act as agent, not as broker. Ho did not for a moment contemplate that Mr Morgan should ask for commission from the company. The -Government wouK have paid for his services. Mr Eeed never mentioned the question of brokerage or commission. Beyond casual reports made by Mr Peed' on progress- of the negotiations, he (Mr Griffith) was not aware of the real position of affairs until the interview in which Mr Holman explained the charges. Received April 13, at 8.45 a.m. Sydney. April 13.

At the Petrol Commission inquiry, Morgan, on being cross-examined, said he had heard rumors that possibly a commission might he asked for in gathering in any big thing. It had been mentioned that there was a big sum paid for securing a big public works contract, such as the NortonGriffith scheme. He declared he would have nothing to do with a secret commission. Had commission in connection with the petrol scheme been knocked oif, the question would have been how much he could get out of the Government. Had commission been J per cent, it would have meant £SOOO yearly, and he would have been satisfied hut it would not have remunerated him so very well. He wanted just as much as he could make. liierc might have been two or three people to pay but he had no one m particular ni his" mind. Reed wanted no commission, and would not have taken any. •Prior to taking up the negotiations he was making £3OO to £4OO a year in salary and commission. Mr Griffith (Minister of Education i, in his evidence, said he understood there was no charge against any Minis, ter other than himself. In reply to questions, ho denied the imputation that Ministers would gee something out of the Norton Griffiths loan. It was simply a piece of political scandal. Over every contract Inhad 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 the Commissioner to take steps to clear him of all these side charges as well as the mam charges. His reputation was involved, and "unless .they" were refuted they wonld be used for political purposes. Cross-examined, Mr Griffith said that if there had been a charge for open brokerage and not secret commission he would have treated it as comic opera and not withdrawn from Ins parliamentary duties. He declared that Mr Reed's statement tliat he (Mr Griffith) had said that Morgan would -want brokerage was incorrect. He had absolutely no idea that Morgan was claiming brokerage. It would have been most improper. Received April 14, at 8.5 a.m. Sydney, April 11.

At the Petrol Commission Air Griffith gave evidence that Air Bccd was mistakeu in saying that he had warned him to be careful against graft. He had warned him to keep everything in writing, so that if allegations of corruption were made, as in other big deals, he would be in a position to meet them. Me knew he would meet with opposition from the oil com-

pames. A letter was read by .Mr AVagstaffc to his London directors, in which it appeared that AVagstaffc sought permission to get other oil companies to work with him in trying to prevent the adoption of the Government scheme. Air Griffth's comment on this was: "I think tin's particular company would say or do 'anything to save their business or their billets." •On being asked "If the vendors had paid Morgan, and thus relieved the Government of the price of his ser-

vices, would you have objected!''' MiGriffith replied: "Certainly. I would have regarded it as blackmail and struck it out."