"DOUBLE LIFE."

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20331, 14 June 1934, Page 16

"DOUBLE LIFE."

Exposure of Sydney

Professor. EXTRAVAGANCE AND FRAUD. (Special to the “ Star.”) SYDNEY, June 3. On May 25, Professor Henry G. Chapman, of Sydney University, died suddenly tinder suspicious circumstances. He was Professor of Physiology, but as Director of Cancer Research he had a laboratory in the physics building. A cleaner, entering this room, found the professor “crumpled up in his chair” and gasping for breath. Medical aid was summoned, but it was unavailing, and the professor was soon dead. He had shown many of the symptoms of poisoning, and the doctor refused to give a certificate. Some portions of the body were taken for analysis, but the result of this investigation has not yet been made public. The general impression is that this was a case of suicide and that the professor, who was a highlv-skilled toxicologist, poisoned himself to escape exposure of the financial ruin which threatened him. Imaginary Wealth. Professor Chapman left a will bequeathing all his possessions to his wife, and the nominal value of the assets in terms of the legacies was at least £IOO,OOO. A search showed that nearly all this wealth—particularly the many thousands of pounds worth of Commonwealth bonds—was entirely imaginary.

Mrs Chapman and her son (twentysix years old) lived at Blackheath, in the Blue Mountains, and the professor lived at the University Club in Phillip Street. But he had two or three flats rented in various parts of the city, and all these abodes were searched for signs of something substantial in the way of property, but without avail. When the quest was completed and an estimate of the available assets was made, they w’ere put down by competent valuators at about £2OOO. It should be mentioned here that the flats to which I have referred point to a side of Chapman’s life which had been the subject of much comment and gossip long before his death. A great many people seem to have known that he kept several separate “ establishments ” and that he lavished money upon the occupants—jewels, furs, model gowns and motor-cars. Extraordinary Extravagance. In keeping with this side of his life was his extraordinary personal extravagance. A big, bluff, jovial man. “ hail-fellow-well-met ” with many and widely-differing types, he squandered his money recklessly, living, it is said, at the rate of hundreds a week. lie owned three motor-cars and had a private chauffeur; but he would not walk across a street if he could help it, and he spent £lO or £l2 a week in taxi fares. The known ways in which he spent hfs money are sufficiently illuminating, but it is probable that there were other secret drains upon his resources which helped seriously to deplete them. There is a report to the effect that, shortlv before his death, cables were received from England signed by a woman with his surname ■•asking for money for the maintenance of three children; and that, since his death, another cable message has arrived with the same signature and written in the same strain. The rumour may be false, but it is a significant fact that such reports are regarded by many as not inconsistent with what is known or suspected about the “ seamy side ” of Professor Chapman’s life. Embezzlement Alleged. These matters all bear very directly on Chapman’s financial position. Immediately after his death it was whispered in many quarters that at least one of the sources of his great apparent wealth, or at least of his remarkable spending power, was to be found in trust funds which he had embezzled or misused. This rumour naturally suggested that something had gone wrong with University finance, and Professor Wallace, as Vice-Chancellor of the University, found it necessary to make a public statement to the effect that Professor Chapman had not had charge of any University funds and that these are intact. But after several other reports of the kind had been contradicted, suspicion was gradually transformed into certainty in regard to the finances of two important public organisations—the Royal Society of New South Wales and the Australian National Research Council. As soon as it was certain that Chapman’s assets amounted to about £2OOO, and that the wealth mentioned in his will—including £85,000 in Federal Bonds—was a figment of the imagination, steps were taken to straighten matters out. With the consent of Mrs Chapman, a motion to declare the estate bankrupt was brought before the Court, which, as a matter of urgency, sat on the King’s Birthday It was then represented to Mr Justice Lakin that Chapman had been treasurer of the Royal Society and that the funds which he had handled showed a deficiency in cash and securities of about £3400; and also that Chapman had been treasurer of the National Research Council, that important books disclosing its financial position cannot be found, and that nearly £16.000 alleged by Chapman to be on deposit with the Royal Society or invested in Commonwealth Bonds cannot be accounted for. “ Grave Difficulties.” Here, indeed, is matter for a searching investigation, which has already been set in train. In the meantime it would appear that Chapman, a few days before his death, was faced with grave difficulties when called upon to produce the annual balance-sheet of the Royal Society. For the auditors refused to sign the balance-sheet until certain documents were forthcoming. Chapman was reduced to the pitiful expedient of pretending that the key of a box was lost, and actually charged the bank officials with negligence, to cover his own default. At the last meeting of the Royal Society he produced a balance-sheet which he alleged, falsely, had been signed by the auditors. and it is quite probable that, having thus manoeuvred himself into an impossible position he chose “ the easy

Much of this may be idle rumour, though the main charges seem to be well sustained. But there is little doubt

that Chapman had, as the phrase goes. “ lived a double life.” and that he had developed the practice of

“ bluff ” into a fine art. His admirers and flatterers talked with bated breath about his gigantic intellect, his marvellous researches in toxicology, and his epoch-making work for cancer cure.

The truth seems to be that he neglected his professional work, just as he betrayed his other personal and official responsibilities, and that, though originally endowed with great intellectual ability he had degenerated into a reckless spendthrift, a vulgar libertine, whose fate, while it may evoke a certain amount of horror, can claim from us little sympathy or pity,