SYDNEY LETTER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12776, 21 October 1919, Page 2

SYDNEY LETTER.

INQUIRY INTO WHEAT

TRANSACTIONS,

A MINISTER AND HIS BETTING

MONEY

[Fbom OrR Correspondent.]

October 7. Should a Minister of the Crown retain hi.s portfolio during investigation by a Royal Commission, appointed by the Government of whicii ho is a member, into the question of whether ho had accepted bribes to favour particular individuals in acts of administration f There may be room for differ-' ence of opinion on the point. Ordinary decency seems to suggest, however, that temporary withdrawal from ministerial olhce pending the result of the inquiry would at least he a prudent step. Mr Gra.hame. the New South \\ ales Minister of Agriculture, does not seem to think so. Nor apparently do his colleagues. A Royal Commission is now making a very intimate overhaul of -Mr Grahamo’s affairs, and he still remains a Minister. (A cable message published ou Thursday stated that Mr Grahamc, at lus own request, had withdrawn from the Ministry till_tho conclusion of the inquiry. Twice previously he offered to resign but Mr Holman declined to accept his resignation). Hie circumstances of this inquiry arc quite unusual. Two or three months ago, consequent upon the noise created by a couple of newspapers, the Government appointed a commission to investigate certain aspects of a contract entered into by the State Wheat Board (of which Mr Grahamo is chairman) for the sale of 70,000 tons of wheat for shipment to Japan. The sale was made to one Gcorgeson, and there was a suggestion of corrupt bargaining. The commission, working under a very limited order of reference, came to the .conclusion that in making the contract the Wheat Board had concluded a good bargain. This finding did not satisfy the people who had clamoured for investigation. They insisted that the scope of the hinstigation should have been wider. Compelled to take further action, the Government ordered another inquiry, this time directly into the question of whether there had been bribery in coi?nection with the Gcorgeson contract and whether the Minister had received illicit payments. Public curiosity had been whetted by the peculiarly suggestive character of some of the evidence taken at the first inquiry. It was whetted still more when the newspapers which had been most clamorous printed particulars of Mr Grahame’s rather extensive dealings in property and mortgages subsequent to his rise to Cabinet rank. Prior to that he had been a man of quite moderate means. The Commission has been sitting about a week. The evidence given, has been of a character to rivet public attention- Though we were on the eve of a. great race meeting—though questions of vast significance are being raised in the political and industrial fields —the principal, topics of conversation everywhere in the city have been —“wheat” and “ Grahame.” The first witness called was the accountant in Mr Georgeson’s office, from whom the hooks of tho business and explanations of certain entries were demanded. The books showed that many erasures of entries had been made in the cash hook and ledger folios, and other entries substituted. The explanation was that mistakes must have been made in the original entries. These erasures weTe regular whenever questions of payments to a man named I albot were raised. When the cheque butts of cheques handed to Talbot and others came_ to be examined it was found that in almost every case there had been erasures of tho original writing. As many cheques had been drawn for Talbot and for large amounts this early discovery was interesting. The accountant’s evidence was that Talbot was a partner with Georgeson; that there was no deed or agreement of partnership; that Talbot was paid his share of the profits on each shipment of wheat as it was made; that no partnership account was kept in the ledger; that no account as between Talbot and Gcorgeson was kept on-the hooks; that what was duo to Talbot was worked out on a piece of paper as occasion demanded.

Next came Mr Talbot. Prior to the. Georgeson contract Mr Talbot was an ■‘organiser” for politicians, a canvasser for the sale of medals to football and racing dubs, and, before that, a groom, a trainer of horses and a bookmaker. On his own evidence ho had experienced considerable difficulty m making a living. Ho had, however, on one occasion been given a present of £IOOO fcy someone for persuading a former Minister to get the decision, of the Land Appeal Court relating to the lease of a pony racecourse reviewed. Another present of £IOOO had come his way for “ getting a report on a stud farm, which the owner subsequently prevailed upon the Ministry to purchase. Confronted with a demand for explanations of where ho obtained large sums of money lodged to his credit since the beginning of last .vear or used in the purchase of property, ho said it was derived from his interests as a partner with Georgeson. Asked to explain what ho had done with the sums of money paid to him by Georgeson and not accounted for, ho found it difficult to remember On it being pointed out to him that he had 'been handed cheques for large sums very frequently—cheques' for £2OO, £3OO and £OOO, at different times, sometimes once a. week, and on occasions upon successive days ho found it impossible to recollect" -what he had done with the money. Why did he cash those cheques instead of putting them through his bank account? Ho did not know. Did lie keep no records of his financial transactions? No. • Did ho carry about thousands of pounds in his pockets? Yes.

Then Mr Grahamo was called. He, too, had difficulty in remembering all his transactions. Some of his income went into a bank account ho- kept at Newcastle. Some into an account at a Sydney bank. He could account for his investments having been largely in excess of his official income since becoming a by having won considerable sums on •the turf. He could also account for certain mortgage advances and property purchases having no corresponding debits in his banking account in the same wav. He had been a regular patron of race meetings for thirty years as a bookmaker, and, after abandoning that profession, as a punter. He always hot in cash, kept no record of his winnings, or of his losses, and generally carried largo sums about with him—-sometimes thousands. Once when his wife wanted to buy a house ho handed her £IOOO m notes, and this she kept while looking for a property which would suit them. Being unable to find a house they approved, she handed him the money back. According to a statement drawn up by an accountant from information ho supplied, he was worth £BOOO In September, 1915; in September this year his assets were £16,000. During that period lie had apparently had a surplus of £BOOO of income. Of this, £SOOO would have been won at races. This is a general outline of the evidence so far—with, of course, denials by Talbot and by Grahame of any payments having passed between them.'