COLOSSAL EXTRAVAGANCE.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5361, 19 February 1916, Page 2

COLOSSAL EXTRAVAGANCE.

FRENCH WAR CONTRACTS.

DEBATE ON SCANDALS.

The special correspondent of the “Daily Chronicle ” writing of a. debate on war contract scandals which l occupied the French Chamber of Deputies for several days, says that M. Si my an, a leading Socialist deputy, icited a number of cases in which “men (or women) of straw” are alleged to have obtained large contracts. In one ea#e a woman, associated, .^ith. a man .having 20 convictions against him, had founded in the centre of. Paris,., between the Elysee and the Madeleine, a. philanthropic workroom, where, under pretext of making articles of clothing for soldiers, she exploited both her work-women and the cJtiaritable public. This woman, an ex-chambermaid, had posed first as a countess, then as a Russian princess. She had obtained a contract from an army supply officer in Paris, and an official enquiry had apparently not been pursued. —£3ooo Advanced. — An agent for the sale of small businesses, representing himself as a manufacturer with 1700 workers, obtained, in October. 1914, tyith the aid of an official of the Ministry concerned, a contract for nearly £40,000. He asked lor an advance of £IB,OOO, and received £3OOO. The goods, when delivered, were of bad qualtity ,and were refused, flic agent and the official were arrested and then released, and the affair was forgotten. M. Gu i lie mo tot, a contractor for public works, is alleged to have received a contract for 1,500,000 pairs <j v socks at 20 francs a dozen, and to have obtained an advance of a franc a pair. He* got his socks together. paying on tin average 10 francs a dozen for 'them; but the Government found part of the delivery impossible to accept. He had incurred a penalty of over £BO.OOO, but it was still being discussed what should !>e claimed of him. An offer of M. Voisin and the master tailors of Paris to supply uniforms at cost price, said M. Siniyan, had l>een refused end a contract at a much higher figure had been given to a Paris firm by an official who proved to be one of tin* chief l>em:ficiaries by the In passing, M. Siniyan referred to two affairs that lufve long been a subject of discussion— that of one Baumann, formerly manager oC the Gorbeil Hour mills ,who, as a Government agent, is to have made large and improper profits on buying wheat mid flour, and that of the French Codfish Company, in which a trial for fraud is believed to have Imx'H unsatisfactorily conducted. —A London Horse Dealer. — Various acts of alleged favouritism having boon cited, M. Siniyan passed to a more serious case, concern--5 ing the horse-dealing transactions of a. person In London. It is stated - that between August, 1914, and last, ' January, the French Ministry of War concluded with this individuals j throe contracts, the first two for 10,000 horses at £54 a horse, and tho j last for 20,000 ,tho total exceeding . £2.000.000. * M. Siinynn road a report by Genj oral do lu Garonne, inspector of re- . mounts, on the affair. A retired I cavalry officer named d’Hobray Pouzols had been a potty financier, and * the interpreter is believed- to have * tn-en mixed up with the famous o Boehette ,the great lmgus company •1 and bank promoter of five or six

years agp. The hors<>s were received at Borden ux by n, certain F.irquis do Crevoooour, also said to have boon an ns-svinte of pochette, who received a commission of €4 a horse. Board of Trade Warning.---In the contract <«* September 25, stipulation was made for a thixd oT the profits plus a sum of C 4 a horse.

Various warning were received by the French authorities from their representatives in London and New York, and from the British Board of Trade. Nevertheless, on October 14, the person in London n>ade a contract with Genera] Ancellin, Director of Cavalry ,the price being advanced from £54 to £57 a horse. On January 25, 1915, the third contract for 20,000 horses at £56 was signed. This last contract, however, was ultimately cancelled. There was a later contract, for 25,000 horses (in which d’Hebray was also iconcerned), made by a man described in a report to the Controller of the Army as a Consul-General in London.

The next development was a difference leading to the issue of writs ip London and Paris over the division of the spoils. M. Simyan’s proposal is that two enquiries should now be opened.

There was yet another contract of Dr d’Hebray with a British firm, but this was not completed.

M. Simvan's revelations on the subject, which occupy 12 columns of the “Journal Offieiel,’* excited the liveliest interest .and there is little doubt that the Chamber will endorse his demand for an investigation.