MR CORRIGAN’S CHARGES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19436, 23 October 1925, Page 6

MR CORRIGAN’S CHARGES

A correspondent who signs himself “Patea Elector” expresses the opinion that Mr. J. R. Corrigan’s charge of corruption in connection with the purchase of the Wigram Aerodrome at Christchurch has been endorsed by Mr. George Witty’s statement, which the Press Association telegraphed on Wednesday. What Mr. Witty said was that the aerodrome was bought openly by the Government, on the basis of a valuation made by experts employed by the State, and after the transaction had been completed Mr. H. F. Wigram, out of his own pocket, gave back £lO,OOO of the purchase money to the Government. That means that the Government purchased the property for £lO,OOO less than the valuation put on it by the purchaser’s valuers. “Patea Elector” need not wonder who benefited by Mr. Wigram’s donation. If “Patea Elector” bought a farm for £lO,OOO after own valuer had valued it at that figure, and then received a gift of £3OOO, let us say, from the vendor, it seems to us that the purchaser would get all the benefit. Not one word that Mr. Witty said suggested the “great waste of public money” imagined by “Patea Elector.” So far as we can see, the only people who have lost money are the original shareholders in the Aviation Company, and since they willingly made the loss in order to help the Allies to win the war, they are not likely to regavd their gift to their country’s cauSe as waste money. We shall,be glad to enlighten the electors as to “why the Government refused in the first place to purchase the aerodrome, but after the general election had been held all at once recognised it was in the best interests of the country it should be purchased.” Our correspondent takes his words from Mr. Corrigan, and that gentleman is, as usual, wrong. Mr. C. H. Hewlett, a well-known Christchurch citizen, who was deputy-chair-man and liquidator of the Aviation Company, has stated that “in 1923 the aerodrome and plant were offered to the Government, and accepted on April 30, 1923. No other offer was declined by the Government.” That statement completely disposes of Mr. Corrigan’s allegation, which was based on the same foundation. as the charge against Sir James Parr—no foundation at all.