GRAFT CHARGES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20433, 13 June 1928, Page 12

GRAFT CHARGES.

THE SYDNEY INQUIRY. ORIGIN OF OFFER. DRAMATIC SCENE IN COURT. (Feou Ora Own CoRHESPOXDEjrr.) SYDNEY, May 24. The remarkable nature of the states enti made before the Royal Commission whict is inqairing into a civic contract continued to startle the people of Sydney. Till inquiry is being followed with pronounced interest, and the newspapers are devoting columns daily to the evidence, scarcely a word being missed As each new nam« is associated with the scandal public interest increases, and the people wondei when the culminating point will be reached, and what its nature will be. Silas K. Maling, the principal of the drama to date, seems to have given his evidence frankly, but it is evident that diver Albert, who received the money on Maling’s behalf, dees not think so. On Monday Albert created a scene in the court by calling Maling a liar. “ I can’t sit here and listen to this,” said Albert while Maling was giving evidence of his association with Albert. Albert, very disgusted, left the court after he had been warned by the judge that he must be quiet. Maling has admitted that he received the sum of £2OOO as a result of the transaction, but he endeavouring to prove that Mr Arnot, the Australian representative of Babcock and Wilcox, the successful tenderers, suggested the payment in the first place. Maling said that he had already recommended the acceptance of the tender, and he told Arnot so when Amot called on him and made inquiries. “ Amot asked me how he stood in regard to the contract,” said Maling. I told him that I had recommended the acceptance of his tender, that the Electrioity Committee had approved of the recommendation. and that it was a matter for the council to deal with. We then discussed what the council was likely to do. I told him that I could not see how the council could refuse to accept my recommendation or pass it over and accept some higher priced tender. Amot referred to the International Combustion Company. He said : ‘ What about the offer of the othtr people,’ and referred to the advisability of the tender being kept in Australia to build up his Regent’s Park works. I said I hoped there would be no delay, as I wanted to get on with the power station, which I had bemi asked to construct in a short time. He then referred to Alderman Holdsworth, stating that he seen him since our last conversation. He said that he bad Alderman Holdsworth £IOOO. .Amot asked me if I had seen the men whom I had in mind when I last spoke to him. and I said that I had. I told him Alderman Green was not prepared to deal directly with him, as he did not know him. but he was prepared to deal with me, and I in turn would deal with Amot. Amot said the contract was divided into three sections, and the council might award his firm only one or more sections. He said he was not_ prepared to nay as much for one section or two sections as he would for the whole three sections. He fixed the amount for each section at £2500. That made £7500 for the three sections, and £IOOO which he had promised to Holdsworth, making £BSOO for the ■nhole business. I promised Arnot that I would see Green about the matter. I did so. “ Mr Arnot then asked me if I would accept a present continued the witness. “ I told him no at first, but after further consideration I told him yes. He offered me £2OOO for ray trouble, and I regret to say that I agreed to that That brought the sum to £10,600. I next saw Mr Albert and told him that Mr Arnot had agreed to pay him £IOO, and that the amount would be £10,600. I asked him the name of the account the money was to be sent to in Sydney, and he told me the name was Francis Buckle, E. S. and A. Bank. He mentioned the branch but I don’t remember for the moment. I again communicated with Mr Arnot and he came to my office. I told him the money was to be sent out in the name of Francis Buckle. Mr Arnot said he would write to Sir James Kemnal. Mr Arnot took a note of the name of the account on a slip of paper before he left my room. I saw Mr Arnot perhaps a week afterwards. He told me he had written a manuscript letter to Sir James Kemnal, of which he had not kept a copy. I did not hear any more about the transaction until, I believe, early in September, when Mr Albert came to my office and told me the money had arrived. He said it was in Mr Buckle’s account, and that he was having it transferred from Mr Buckle’s account to his own account,”

Sir James Kemnal, since dead, was a director in London of Babcock and Wilcox, and all efforts to trace any of the communications sent to him so far failed, This is not surprising, for Mr Arnot has stated that no copies were kept. The commission has intimated that it will later inquire into the alleged offer of £15,000 made by the International Combustion Company. Mating said that ha had nothing to do with the lodging of that amount. In fact Maling said that he was first told of tjjp offer of £15,000 by Mr Arnot, who seamed very worried because of it, and feared, that his company might lose the tender. “I told him that no payment was necessary,” said Maling in his evidence. “I said that a payment to aldermen would expedite the acceptance of the tender. I thought that Holdswortb was unpopular with the aldermen and that Arnot should not deal with him. Arnot said tnat he did not know any of the other aldermen, and asked if I knew any whom he could approach. I said I thought I knew one. man whom I could approach, and I promised to do so. I saw Alderman Green in my office and told him that Babcock and Wilcox wanted the contract for their local works and that they had heard of an offer of money to aldermen by another firm. I said I thought that such a transaction should not "be made through Holdsworth, and asked Green if he would act. He said he did not know Arnot. Could he be trusted? I replied that I was sure he could. Green then he said he would deal with me if I would deal with Arnot,” Arnot referred to the whole business as blackmail, and said that he had received authority from Sir James Kemnal to pay whatever blackmail was necessary to secure the contract. Arnot suggested that he had had some similar dealings with the aldermen, but this line of questioning was ruled out as irrelevant. Counsel and Arnot had many exchanges as to the difference of the meaning of blackmail and bribery. Arnot said that bribery was giving money to a man to do something he should not do, whereas blackmail was giving money to a man to make him do his duty. *The monej his In m had paid was blackmail, and not bribery, and he considered he was morally justified in recommending the payment, since his firm submitted the lowest tender and was entitled to the contract. Dramatically witness exclaimed: “I say now, truthfully, that I am glad in many ways that this scandal is exposed, and that this blackmailing has come to an end.” The inquiry stands adjourned until next Monday.