THEODORE FAILS TO GIVE ANY ANSWER TO CHARGES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19117, 9 July 1930, Page 1

THEODORE FAILS TO GIVE ANY ANSWER TO CHARGES.

Makes Statement In House, Declaring Allegations False. (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Received July 9, 11.30 a.m.) CANBERRA, July 9. Mr E. G. Theodore, contrary to expectations, made no attempt yesterday to answer the charges of fraud and dishonesty levelled against him by the Queensland Royal Commission (Mr Justice Campbell). His statement in the House of Representatives, which was awaited throughout the Commonwealth with the greatest interest, concluded with the hope that the Queensland Government would give him an opportunity of answering the charges seriatim by presenting an indictment against him. A message from Brisbane states that Mr A. E. Moore, Premier of Queensland, said that he was not going to be rushed into doing anything that might be absurd. He pointed out that the evidence given before the Royal Commission could not be used against any individual who might be prosecuted.

Before Mr Theodore began every inch of space in the House was occupied. The Prime Minister (Mr J. H. Scul!jn) briefly explained the events which had led to Mr Theodore’s resignation of the Treasurership and paid a tribute to the manner in which he had carried out his work. He said that Mr Theodore had brought to bear immense industry and intellectual capacity in dealing with a complicated and most difficult financial situation that was unprecedented in the annals of the Commonwealth.

“Is it any wonder that I have come to the conclusion that I am the victim of a hired assassin?" Mr Theodore said. He repeated the charges against him, and added: “I am not going to answer these now. I am looking for a better opportunity. All the charges are false, damnably false! ” He read a letter received that day from his solicitors, and the counsel before the Mungana Commission. This stated: “The Commissioner’s finding is absolutely unjust and biased. There is no oral evidence to connect Mr Theodore in any way with the charges. We regard it as a scandalous decision, based merely on assumption and inference.” Mr William M’Cormack, former Premier of Queensland, interviewed at his fiat in Darlinghurst, said that the Mungana report reeked with political malice and was based entirely on hearsay and inference. He demanded a full investigation of the charges in a Court of Justice. Mr M’Cormack pointed out that Mr Justice Campbell was in error in associating him with Goddard’s appointment as general manager of the Chillagoe Smelters. The fact was that “I was not a member of the Government until several months later. “The report also condemns Treasury officials for laxity at the time of the purchase of the Mungana leases. The fact was that the purchase was made upon the report of an independent engineer, a Mr Poole, of Sydney. “The additional factor that £300,000 worth of metal was obtained after the purchase of these mines, is given no consideration whatever by the Commissioner. I believe that if a high grade of ore only had been mined, this venture would have proved profitable. “I was unable to attend the Royal Commission, owing to a complete nervous breakdown while, in addition, I knew that all the records of Mungana were available for anybody desirious of probing the history of the transactions."

Mr Theodore, in the course of a long statement, said that he did not want anyone to infer that his retirement from Ministerial office was in any sense an admission that the report of the Royal Commission was justified. He merely desired to correct wrong impressions on a couple of matters which were agitating the public mind. One was that he had only himself to blame for not appearing before the Commission and giving evidence. The terms of reference of Mr Justice Campbell’s commission, however, in no way impugned his honour.

“I do not want a further Royal Commission/’ he said. “I ask for a fair trial, by formulating an indictment against me covering every

one of the charges.” Mr Theodore said that he had tried to appear before the Commission at the end of May, but the dates suggested had not been acceptable to the Commission. He next received an invitation to give evidence before the Commission on July 7, but this was not acceptable to him, owing to the preparation of the Federal Budget. He wrote suggesting another date, after the delivery of the Budget, but received an answer from the Commission saying that his letter was vague and unsatisfactory. He thought he should have been heard, he added, particularly as his banking affairs had been raked up by the Commission. It was a recognised principle of British justice to grant an adjournment of the Commission in such circumstances, to enable him to give evidence.