BRIBERY CHARGES.

Waikato Times, Volume 101, Issue 16946, 8 November 1926, Page 8

BRIBERY CHARGES.

HIGHLY-PLACED OFFICIAL. PREMIER REFUSES NAME. (From a Correspondent). SYDNEY, October 27. The Premier, Mr Lang, refused yesterday to divulgo to the Select Committee on “bribery” charges the name of the “highly-placed Government official” who, he said on Thursday, had told him of a plot to bribe members of the Labour Party. Before the Premier appeared, Dr. Evatt (chairman) announced that the committee had decided that Mr Lang should bo asked to furnish the name. Dr. Evatt said that the committee had not decided on Thursday not to press Mr Lang for the name of the official. On the contrary, the committee had pressed Mr Lang for the source of his information, and Mr McTiernan had dissented. Mr McTiernan still dissented. Dr. Evatt referred to a statement by the Premier on Thursday, of a happening in Caucus, wnen tho appointment of a Royal Commission was discussed. Mr Lang said that Dr. Evatt had stated that judges hated Labour and that would not get anything out of them. Dr. Evatt declared that he had never made any suggestion, either in Caucus or out, as to the impartiality of the judiciary. Later, Mr Lang appeared before the committee, and Dr. Evatt asked for the name of the “highly-placed Government official.” Mr Lang: All I have to say is the information was given me by a highlyplaced Government official, and I think 1 owe him a duty not to divulge his name. Mr Jaques: Then you refuse? Mr Lang: I do. Replying to Mr Jacques' regarding his evidence on Thursday, Mr Lang said that it would be one of the members of the National Consultative Council who told the highly-placed Government official of an attempt to bribe Labour members. Mr Levy: In these circumstances do you not think we should know the name of the official? Mr Lang: I don’t think you should know what I said in the party room. In answer to Mr Jacques the Premier said , that he did not think Ihe evidence given before the committee had been available to him before he appeared before the committee. However, he had not discussed the evidence, nor had he seen it. Mr L. Ircdalo (secretary of the Civic Reform Association) gave details of interviews between himself, Aid. Waldcr, and Mr Murdoch, M.L.C. (president ot the association), with Mr Farley, corroborating the statements made by Mr Murdoch on Thursday concerning these interviews. He said the executive of the association had discussed the question of offering a reward for Ihc conviction of Labour aldermen on charges of corrupt practices, and though no decision had been arrived at, Mr Murdoch had thought the association would not have let him down, if lie offered Farley a reward for securing convictions. The executive of tho association considered itself in the same position in the matter of rewards for convictions as the Police Department, which frequently offered rewards for the detection of crime. Overheard in a Train. John Edward Freeman, cordial manufacturer, of Enfield, whose name was mentioned by previous witnesses, as having told of a £20,000 bribery plot to a member of the staff of the “fcubour Daily,” asked by Dr. Evatt to tell the committee where he got his information, said that he had overheard two men talking on a train. They were discussing the 44-hour week. One man said he had heard that £20,000 was to be spent to put the Labour Party out of office. Witness did not attach any importance to the statement at the time. He had overheard the conversation before the publication of the article. He did not know the men whom ho had overheard talking on the train. Frank John Robinson, retired, ol Rockdale, said he was a Justice of the Peace, and had witnessed a document for Farley. Re believed Farley had read the contents of tho document over to him, but he could not remember if it was an agreement under which lie was to be employed by Aid. Waldcr. Re bad discussed the document with a Mr Blumcr, but could not remember anything about it. Harry David Mcatheringham, who described himself as an engineer, said that when Mr Kay was appointed to the Meat Board he approached the secretary of the Labour _ Party, and claimed the vacated seat in the Legislative Assembly. He could not get any satisfaction, so went to the National Association, and saw Mr Farrar. ’Die question of bribery arose and Labour members crossing the floor of tiie House. Mr Farrar- had said that if Labour members did desert their party tlicy would have to do so of their own volition, because anything like bribery was impossible, for Mr Bavin was too honest and would denounce anything like that. Mr Farrar mentioned the names ot one or two Labour men whom be thought would cross the floor of the House, because they were dissatisfied with Mr Lang’s administration. There was no question of bribery'. Farley was recalled, and was asked bv Mr Jacques if it was a fact that when he was employed by the Water and Sewerage Board, he was unsuccessful in a claim for sick pay, because it was proved that when he was supposed to be sick lie was actually working at a picture show. Harley denied that he was working at the time at the picture show, though he admitted that he went there on one occasion. , The inquiry was adjourned.