GRAFT CHARGES.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1865, 26 September 1913, Page 7

GRAFT CHARGES.

THE WADE-GRIFFITH CASE. A ROYAL COMMISSION AND A CHALLENGE. By Telegraph—Proas Aosociation—Copyright Sydney September 25. Voting on strictly party lines, the Legislative Assembly, by 33 votes to 20, adopted tho following motion: — "That tho action of Mr. Wado (Leader of tho Opposition), in agreoing to waive Parliamentary pnvilego in respect of anticipated legal proceedings by Mr. Griffith (Minister of Public Works) on statements made in tho House, is an abrogation of tho rights of members of the House." (Res. September 25, 8.10 p.m.) Sydney September 25. Cabinet has discussed tho GriffithWado quarrel. At t!he conclusion of the meeting Mr. Griffith stated that if Mr. Wade or anyone else had any evidence of impropriety in his conduct as Minister thoro would be a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter. (Reo, September 25, 9.15 p.m.) Sydney, September 25. When tho Assembly mot, Mr. Holman, tho Premier, referring, to Mr. Wade's charges against Mr. Griffith, stated that if any member dosired to mako any speoific charges against a member of the Ministry, that woro new charges, and supported by any tangible evidence whatever, ho would, within six hours of the formulation of such charges, appoint a Royal Commission, under the presidency of a Supreme Court judge, to investigate them. Ho desired, he said, to end the reign of suspicion that had endured for the last few weeks. . Following Mr. Holman's offer to sot up a Royal Commission, Mr, Wado repeated his chargos against Mr. Griffith, and declared that lie was prepared to bring evidence to support them. Ho dared Mr. Griffith to faco tho charges. In his attack on_Hr. Griffith, Minister for Public Works, in connection with hia motion o£ censare, Mr. Wade, Leader of the Opposition, charged the Minister with purchasing land at Medlow under assumed names, the land being in such a position that it must havo increased in value sooner or later by the carrying out of certain public works—namely, an overhead bridge over the railway lino, and diversion of the main Toad.

The second cliarge was' founded on a communication made to Mr. Wade by A. J. Riley, a city draper, that Mr. Griffith belonged .to a land syndicate which had bought tho lease of premises in George Street occupied by Riley, and tho lease of which ho had tried to resell to Riley at a hjgli figure. Mr. Wade alleged that the negotiations had occurred When the site of an underground station, connected with the city railway scheme, was changed to a spot in close proximity to Itiley'a shop. TJie gravamen of Mr. Wade's attack under the next three heads—namely, the Kookwood-Banktown railway, TJhrs Point

timber yards, and tho Brookvale-Narra-tram —wag that Mr. Griffith had de-

liberately ignored tho necessity for referring these questions to the Public Works Committee, each having cost obovo .£20,000. Mr. Wado alleged that in each instance thoy had the same sinister circumstances of certain persons owning land which must bo improved by these undertakings. Tho same people,, under the sixth item, owned land which was benefited by the Government's purchase of tho suspension bridge_ and tho extension of tho tram in the vicinity. Mr. Griffith, replying, denied the first two ctorgc9 categorically. As to tho others, he referral anyone to 'the finding of the Royal Commission, which found in effect that whilo Mr. Henley, under cover of privilege of the House, had charged him with corruption, ho (Mr. Henley) had not had tho courage to repeat it on oatlhl. •

Mr. Wado subsequently waived his right of Parliamentary privilego in reply to a challenge by Mr. Griffith to meet him in an action for slander. Mt. Wade then received' a letter from Mr. Griffiths's solicitors informing him that they liad been instructed to issue a 'writ claiming damages in connection with what is described as "numerous false and malicious statements and charges of base corruption published by you against our client." The letter, however, referred only to dhlarees made bv Mr. Wade in February, 1912. Mr. Wade, in a letter in reply, demurred to the raking up of an old charge, and stipulated that it and the recent charges (in connection with tho vote of censnTO over which Mr. Wade offered to waive privilege) should' be treated separately, and made the subject of two He also stipulates that tho actions Should "be commenced not later than October 20, and that Mr. Ch-iffiffii should enter the witness-box and submit himself to crossexamination. ■