“LOW LIAR” SAYS ULM

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 688, 13 June 1929, Page 9

“LOW LIAR” SAYS ULM

NEW WITNESS TELLS OF PLAN TO GET LOST SENSATIONAL EVIDENCE . SYDNEY, Today. A ship’s officer told the Air Inquiry Committee, when it resumed its sitting today that in San Francisco in 1927 he heard Ulm mention a plan to get lost in Central Australia. Ulm, in reply, said the witness was a deliberate liar of the lowest order. VATHEN the proceedings were opened it transpired that they had been resumed for the special purpose of hearing the evidence of William Angus Todd, ship’s officer. This witness stated that when he was in hospital in Wellington, New Zealand, recently, he read in a newspaper that FlightLieutenant Ulm had denied having said he wanted to get lost in Central Australia. When witness came out of hospital he saw Mr. Hilliard, a solicitor, and told him he had heard Ulm make a statement to that effect. Other people wanted to know why witness did not give evidence before the committee. PLAN TO GET LOST Witness proceeded: “While I was second officer of the Tahiti, in September, 1927, I gave Smith, Ulm and the late Lieutenant Keith Anderson lessons in navigation. They asked me to become the navigator on their trans-Pacifie flight. “I secured leave from the Union Company,” continued witness, “but as our party was terribly hard up financially I had to give up the idea of the flight and return to work. “While we were discussing some method of obtaining funds at the Hotel Roosevelt, San Francisco, in October, 1927, Ulm interposed. He said that, had his plan for getting lost in Central Australia for four or five days been followed, sufficient money would have been available and the public’s sympathy would have obviated further worry. “Anderson interjected that it would not work.”

Witness said he made no comment on Ulm’s statement because he was not interested in the proposed transpacific flight. Mr. J. Cassidy (who appeared for Smith and Ulm): You have your knife into Ulm, have you not? Witness: I will not admit that at all.

Do you remember Ulm speaking pretty severely to you?—Yes. And I spoke pretty severely to him. You smashed up a motor-cai’ and Ulm had to talk pretty straight to you?—lt was an accident. Ulm drove the car back with me. Did you ever say to Litchfield, navigator of the Southern Cross, that you would do Ulm a bad turn if you could? —I say Litchfield is mistaken. Did you make a claim against Smith and Ulm after the Pacific flight? —Yes. They offered me £75 as a gift. You reckoned you had a moral claim to £l5O? —Yes, because I had spent much of my time with the expedition, and I considered I was taken ashore under false pretences. I am suggesting that you are making this allegation against Ulm for spite.—Yes, 1 understand that quite clearly. Witness added that Ulm had made a statement to the San Francisco “Chronicle” to the effect that he was the navigator of the proposed Pacific flight, and that witness was his assistant. That hurt witness. “A MALICIOUS LIE”

Chai’les T. P. Ulm, recalled, said: “Todd is a deliberate liar of the lowest order, and his statement about getting lost is a malicious lie. Apparently he thought, with Anderson dead, that there was nobody to refute his statement.

“Todd is an excellent navigator with a frightful temper. He used to abuse me when on occasions the crew had to go without meals in America. His drinking used to do harm to our project.” Mr. Myers, counsel for the late Lieutenant Anderson’s relatives: Why do you suggest that Todd should invent the story about getting lost? Witness: Just his bad temper. Several conversations took place at the Hotel Roosevelt, but never did I mention anything about getting lost. Ulm added that Todd was to be paid his living expenses while he was waiting for the Pacific flight to begin, and £SOO on its completion. The reason he did not accompany the Southern Cross was because funds were so low that the airmen received instructions from Australia to sell the equipment and abandon the venture. The inquiry then concluded.