PETROL MONOPOLY SCANDAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16664, 8 April 1916, Page 7

PETROL MONOPOLY SCANDAL

EOYAL COMMISSION SITTING.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.

Press Association —By Telegraph.—Copyright. SY3>NEY, April 7. Mr Justice Pring to-day resumed hia sitting as a Royal Commission to inquire into allegations regarding commission desired in connection with the establishment of a Government monopoly in petrol ill New South Wales. Mr Wagstaff, continuing his evidence, said that the 1 per cent, commission would have meant at least £8000 per annum for Mr Morgan. He expressed his opinion that Mr Reed was an honest man at heart, but tjiat he had been very foolish. A letter, written by Mr Black, the Sydney manager of the Oil Company, to Mr i Wagstaff was read, expressing the opinion, that the Labour party was falling from grace, and was wanting to rush thia petrol business through so as to get, somei ■ pickings, and thus be secure in the event, of defeat at the elections. Mr Black de-i scribed Mr Morgan's ideas as hellish and; t degrading, to think that Ministers wouMl stoop so low as to sell their country for personal gain. He trusted to God that the companyfs London board would turn the proposal'down. lii another letter, informing Mr Wagstaff that the company's solicitor had placed the whole of the facts before My Holman (Premier) and Mr Hall (Attorneygeneral), Mr Black- said that the company's solicitor was convinced that Mr Holman and Mr Hall were absolutely , ignorant of any move that might be leading the Government into such a position as the Minister of Education had landed , them in. They were both greatly cut up, and Mr Wagstaff might rest assured that there was now nothing in the proposition. ; . A letter from the Oil Company's London , board, turning down the whole proposals, , said: "We are absolutely astounded thai? such proposals should be ptit forward by ~A i , the responsible Government of a British - colony through a broker acknowledged by Mr Griffith as his official agent." (Received April 7, at 10 p.m.) The Attorney-general (Mr Hall), in thai course of his evidence, said there was. no trace of Government remuneration or pay- . ment to Mr Morgan, but Mr Reed mentioned that if the'scheme came off M* . Morgan would expect a good Government job. Mr Wagstaff, cross-examined, said that ■ neither Mr Reed nor Mr Morgan objected - to his statement that any brokerage or , commission would hsuve to be shown clearly on any document recording the sale. Amongst several letters read was ona from Mr Waxman, the British Imperial Company's solicitor, to Mr WagstafE, in which the writer declared that Messrs , Holman and Hall felt intensely over tha / possibility, of the Morgan, proposal filtering through to London as having emanated from them or from the Government aa ~ such, and urging that these gentlemen, should be freed as far as possible from the taint that would otherwise affect their names and reputations in London. Mr Wagstaff, writing to Mr Black, after the facts had been placed before Messrs v ;; Holman and Hall, said: "It looks as.; though we have won hands down, defeat- :V ' ing the Government on this particular "T plank of their platform. I intend to pat the matter before Mr Waxman in such a way as to'be able to show the Premier , the advisability of committing to black < and white that this monopolistic idea is , not to bo proceeded with, because I want ' to send that to London. Such a declaration by him would leave him his freedom in London, and permit of his having aa entree to our principals, which under existing circumstances is most certainly closed against him." ■