BUDGET LEAKAGE

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19891, 21 May 1936, Page 9

BUDGET LEAKAGE

CLOSE or THE INQUIRY. } DENIAL BY MR THOMAS. l l STRONG PLEA BY COUNSEL. t __ i United Press Assn—Else. Tet. Com’rlzbl‘ (Received May 21, 11.0 a.m.) LONDON, May 20. t The tribunal set up to inquire into allegations of the leakage of Budget information sat again to-day. Sir Samuel Porter. Judge of the King‘s Bench Division. presiding. Mr J. 11. Thomas unexpectedly reentered the wilness~hox at his own request. and emphatically denied that he had seen or heard Vergottis until he appeared in Court. Likewise he did not know liearn. \‘ergottis, recalled, denied having mentioned the Budget, as ilearn had alleged. the added: "It is a pure fabrication. and has no other reason than that. llearn fancies he has a grievance against me." Cross—examined, Vergottis said that. he had never met Mr Thomas. Address by Counsel. Mr Morris, for Mr Thomas. address—ing the tribunal said: “No witness had suggested that Mr Thomas gave in—formation to Sir Alfred Butt. Bates denied it. Overmuch has been made of Sir Alfred Butt insuring one way and then insuring the other. A real gambler changes his mind quickly on any information. \\’hat was wonder—ful in the bet when it was a matter of common knowledge that. the Chancel—lor of the Exchequer would have to itnd vast sums"! i ask the tribunal to say that Leslie Thomas was as innocent as his father. if Leslie had the information it is impossible to conceive anything inore'clumsy than that he should deal with this business. The evidence shows how vague rumour tips do incaicuiable harm. The sug—gestion that hali‘ the commission men got information from a t'riend whose client was a friend of Mr Thomas is cruel and wicked. it would help the tribunal it‘ the evidence suggested knowledge that. the income tax was being increased by 3d, but there is no evidence that Bates, Eves, Butt. or Leslie Thomas mentioned :id to any—one.“ “ You Must Believe Me." 311' Morris continued: "There may be times in the tile or any man when fate seems cruelly against him. At such times a man is entitled to say to the world, "1 give you my word that i did not do this thing. You must believe me.‘ “I Invlto the tribunal to any firmly that It he: been proved that Mr Thomas at no time made any sort of disclosure to anyone. “The suggestion that Sir Alfred Butt a‘siiedz. “\\’hat is in the Budget‘!‘ and that Mr Thomas told him of a rise in the income tax and tea is fantas—tic. .\lr Thomas. \\ith a great and honourable record of public service. is not the man to do that. The worst construction should not be placed on the circumstances it they permit an innocent explanation, especially when [\\‘o public men denied on oath that anything improper occurred." .\ir Monkton, on bciiait' of Bates. submitted that it’ it was established that nothing improper had passed from Mr Thomas to Bates or Sir Alfred Butt then the inquiry should stop, since there was no suggestion that in—formation escaped from other sources. Risking a Friendship. Mr Monkton added: "If Bates received inl'ornnttion lrom Mr Thomas, why do business through .\tr ’l‘homas‘ son in his own name? it is not cred—ibie that a wealthy man should risk his own t'riends' reputations, also a friendship of twenty years' standing, for the sake of £30,000." Mr Frampton submitted that Ken.neth Butt‘s statement. contained "halt truths." It was unjust to suggest that hair Alfred Butt was seeking to conceal anything from the tribunal. Counsel for Lloyds, stated that the ‘underwriters had settled all claims. The committee was only actuated by 1a sense of public duty in conveying iiniormation to the Uovernment tribunal.

“711 R; inquiry has closed and the tribunal will submit its report to the Home Secretary.