Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1935 > Select Committee on Mining Rights > Interim and Final Report - Demise of Certain Mining Rights

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Mairt, 1adh Deire Fómhair, 1935.

Tuesday, 1st October, 1935.

The Committee sat at 3 p.m.

DEPUTY WILLIAM NORTON in the Chair.

Chairman.—I have a letter here which I had perhaps better read for the information of the Committee. It is a letter from Messrs. D. and T. Fitzgerald, solicitors, and is dated 30th September, 1935:—

“Dear Sir,

I observe from the newspaper reports of evidence given before the Select Committee last week that reference has been made to a draft prospectus, which on inquiry from you this morning I understand is headed “Proof No. 2— 26-6-’35.” I have in my possession a proof similarly headed, and upon which this firm is named as solicitors to a company intended apparently to be styled “Wicklow Goldfields, Ltd.” That document was first seen or even heard of by me on the 28th June last, when it was shown to me by Mr. Harrison of Messrs. Harrison, Sugden & Co., and I might mention that we had had no previous connection with, or even knowledge of, any Wicklow gold-mining project beyond what we had read of the reports of the debates on the subject in the Dáil. Moreover, this interview with Mr. Harrison was also the first occasion upon which this firm had been brought into touch either verbally or in writing with this matter.

Immediately on observing what had been done, I pointed out to Mr. Harrison that it was without our knowledge or consent that our name so appeared, and that in no circumstances was the name of this firm to be used in such a connection unless and until we had an opportunity of investigating the standing of the promoters and the financial soundness of their proposition, and I added that it was very unlikely in any event that we would allow our name to go forward on a gold-mining prospectus. Mr. Harrison replied that the document was, of course, only a draft, and that needless to say our name would not be used without our consent. We were quite satisfied with this undertaking, and by Mr. Harrison’s assurance that in any further prints our name would be omitted.

If it is desired that I should give formal evidence to the above effect, I can, of course, attend, but I am on vacation at present, and in fact expect to go over to England on Wednesday or Thursday next.

Yours faithfully,

Edward M. Fitzgerald.”

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I do not think we need call on this gentleman for evidence.

Deputy Robert Briscoe further examined.

4182. Witness.—Deputy Costello asked me to verify the date of the visit of Mr. Harrison to Mr. Cox’s office. I have since verified the date. It was 27th June at midnight, in Mr. Cox’s office.

4183. Deputy Costello.—That was the date on which Mr. Harrison came over here by aeroplane?—Yes.

4184. And can you recollect the date on which you had first met him in the Gresham Hotel somewhere towards the end of May?—24th May, I think.

4185. I had been asking you, Deputy Briscoe, on the last day about this prospectus, and I gathered from you that you had no communication with Mr. Harrison from the time of your interview on 24th May until you met him in the Dáil Restaurant on 27th June?—Except in so far as I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Harrison. I cannot say what the date was, but he phoned me and said that he had written a letter to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and that I should endeavour to see the contents of the letter.

4186. That letter, I take it, was the letter which was written after these matters had been raised in the Dáil?—That is so.

4187. With that exception, do you know anything whatever about the formation of this Wicklow Goldfields, Limited?— Absolutely nothing.

4188. When he produced the prospectus to you at the interview on the 27th June, were you surprised?—I was.

4189. He gave you a copy which you have kept?—He gave me a copy which I produced to Mr. Cox and which was in his possession until it was produced for this Committee.

4190. So Mr. Harrison and his associates were making all arrangements to float a quarter of a million company without your knowledge or consent or without the knowledge or consent of Senator Comyn?— That is correct.

4191. In fact, your evidence was that Mr. Harrison was not on speaking terms with Mr. Heiser on 25th May?—I would not say he was not on speaking terms; he was not on friendly terms.

4192. But he brought you to the boat to prevent him speaking to him?—To prevent him from having a private conversation. He did not want to have a private conversation unless somebody was present.

4193. After that interview of the 24th and 25th of May when you visited the goldfield, had you any relations with Mr. Heiser?—No.

4194. What was to become of the financing of the goldmine?—We left the matter in the hands of Mr. Cox because we thought it was rather a serious matter of an agreement we had made and the use which Mr. Heiser and his friends were making of that agreement. We instructed Mr. Cox to take the matter up for us from that on.

4195. Was it after Mr. Harrison’s interview with you on 24th May that you instructed Mr. Cox? Your evidence was that Mr. Cox was not acting for you at the time of entering into the sub-lease of 10th March?—Our instructions to Mr. Cox were given prior to Mr. Harrison’s arrival.

4196. What made you go to Mr. Cox? Were you worried about Mr. Heiser?— First of all, what made us go to Mr. Cox was that we had definitely come to the conclusion that Heiser was not what he had represented himself to be and that he had made an agreement with us, having represented himself as being the agent, if you like, of persons who had money to form a company for the purpose of developing this particular project. We were satisfied, or at least I was satisfied, that he was not the person he described himself to be in that sense. We had made an agreement and we had certain obligations to the Department, or to the Government, if you like, and we wanted to protect ourselves as far as we could.

4197. Can you tell me when you first instructed Mr. Cox to act on your behalf in connection with your troubles with Mr. Heiser?—I am afraid I cannot give you that information now. I can get it from Mr. Cox’s office if I am permitted to get my secretary to ring up the office.

4198. Perhaps we can get it in another way. On the last day, I brought you down through your transactions with Mr. Heiser. I think you told me that you began to feel uneasy at a certain stage, and that then Heiser sent you a letter in which he said that great progress was being made towards financing the concern, and that that letter gave you great comfort?—That is so.

4199. What is the date of that letter?—That was after I had been in London?

4200. Yes?—The date is the 17th May.

4201. So that it must have been some time between the 17th and 24th May that your uneasiness revived. You told me you were comforted by that letter, which was written on the 17th May, and which, presumably, reached you on the 18th May. You had an interview with Mr. Harrison on the 24th May?—I think that it was next day or a day or two afterwards that we were with Mr. Cox.

4202. What happened after the receipt of that letter of the 17th May which revived your uneasiness in connection with Mr. Heiser?—The arrival of Mr. Harrison.

4203. That was on the 24th?—Nothing happened before that.

4204. I understood you had consulted Mr. Cox before the arrival of Mr. Harrison?—Before his arrival with the prospectus.

4205. I only want to know when you began to have serious conflict with Mr. Heiser?—Immediately on Mr. Harrison’s arrival.

4206. You thought there was something wrong?—Yes.

4207. And you instructed Mr. Cox?— Yes.

4208. You cannot say the date?—It was shortly afterwards.

4209. Did you repudiate the formation of this quarter-million company, as Mr. Comyn did?—Mr. Cox had given us to understand, while we believed that our agreement would expire on 13th September in any event on account of the operations not having been commenced by Mr. Heiser, that before we would do anything we would have to start an action to set aside that agreement, and start an action to recover under the bond. He said that, without consulting counsel. He could not advise us definitely as to what our position was. Consequently, I was rather worried as to where we would be. This was in my mind, and when Mr. Harrison arrived with the prospectus, on the advice of Senator Comyn, I was to have no conversation with him as regards our position, but to bring him to Mr. Cox and let him deal with him.

4210. When did Mr. Cox give you that advice?—In the period that intervened between the first arrival of Mr. Harrison and the second arrival of Mr. Harrison.

4211. Then, after Mr. Harrison had gone away on the 25th May, the whole bubble was burst?—What do you mean by saying that the bubble was burst?

4212. Mr. Harrison had been repudiated by Senator Comyn?—No, the transaction had been repudiated.

4213. That is what I mean. The transaction proposed by Mr. Harrison to form this quarter-million company had been repudiated by Senator Comyn, and you then came to the conclusion that there was nothing to be got out of Heiser. The quarter-million proposition had gone, and you were left in the position in which you were on the 8th March?—Our position was that we did not know how far Heiser could hold us beyond 13th September under that agreement.

4214. It is a long cry until the 13th September?—We had repudiated that transaction and we did not know whether we could make any arrangements without setting aside the arrangements made with Heiser.

4215. I want to know when you repudiated Heiser?—Immediately on the arrival of Mr. Harrison.

4216. That was on the 24th May?—Yes.

4217. You had made up your mind to burst this £80,000 agreement?—I had made up my mind that Mr. Heiser had not carried out his agreement.

4218. You were then in a position in which you had nobody to finance this gold mine?—We have.

4219. I am referring to that time. You had repudiated Heiser, and you had repudiated the proposed transaction put up by Mr. Harrison. Who was to finance the gold mine?—Until we get rid of Heiser, we cannot do anything with the gold mine.

4220. Mr. Harrison’s transaction was repudiated on the 24th May, and he came here on the 27th June to produce the prospectus to you?—Yes.

4221. I understood you to say last day that you then said: “In consequence of what has happened, we shall not have anything to do with Heiser”?—I drew attention to Heiser’s name on the prospectus, and I asked him if he could associate himself with a business transaction and have that man’s name on the form after what he had done.

4222. I do not make any point about it, but I understood you to say last day that what Mr. Harrison said to you was: “I shall not have anything to do with Heiser now”—because Deputy McGilligan had raised the matter and Heiser had played the dirty on you?—I think my answer was, when he explained to me that this was a proof of a draft prospectus which had been drawn up before he came to Dublin, so far as I can understand, the first time——

4223. When was the first proof of this prospectus available?—I have no idea.

4224. When was it drafted?—I do not know.

4225. You did not inquire?—No.

4226. You did not see the draft prospectus at the 24th May interview?—There was no reference whatever to it.

4227. Would it be a correct inference that this prospectus was drafted after your interview with Mr. Harrison on the 24th May?—I should be inclined to think it was drafted before he came over. When he came over, I think it must have reached a certain stage, because Professor Holman’s name was also on the draft prospectus, and I have since been informed by Mr. Cox that Professor Holman had intimated that he was withdrawing from this company.

4228. Professor Holman was withdrawing from the company?—As a director.

4229. Before what date?—I do not know.

4230. Would it be before or after these transactions were raised in the Dáil that Professor Holman intimated his intention to withdraw?—I cannot say.

4231. But at some stage he intimated his intention to withdraw?—Yes.

4232. The position is that Mr. Harrison, whom you described as an outstandingly honest man, drafts a prospectus, without consulting you or Senator Comyn, in which he proposes to give £10,000 to Mr. Heiser, and in which, as we now learn from the Chairman’s statement, there appears on the face of the document the name of a firm of solicitors whom he had not consulted?—I described Mr. Harrison as an outstandingly honest man as far as human judgment could go. I was judging from meeting him and talking to him, and his honesty was confirmed to me by the manner in which he attacked Mr. Heiser.

4233. You did not think there was anything peculiar about his producing a prospectus in which he proposed to give £10,000 to Heiser, and without consulting you or Senator Comyn, to make this proposed purchase or in his putting in the name of D. & T. Fitzgerald without telling them, and appointing Professor Holman as a director, the Professor subsequently retiring?—That is rather peculiar. My first knowledge as to the position of D. & T. Fitzgerald was in the letter read by the Chairman.

4234. That adds to the peculiarity of the position as regards the prospectus and the proposed company?—The whole thing was peculiar all right.

4235. When this proposal was made on the 24th May, did they give you any details of what they were going to do beyond telling you that they were going to form a company? You discussed with Mr. Harrison the proposal to form a company?—He mentioned that he was forming a company. In his outburst to Heiser, he referred to having £250,000 to form a company for the purpose of working the place. He made that reference.

4236. Was it at that interview he told you that he proposed to form a company on the basis that there was £17,000,000 worth of gold deposits there?—Yes.

4237. He mentioned Mr. Dunn’s report and Professor Holman’s?—That is so.

4238. You were present in Wicklow when Mr. Dunn was down there examining the place on behalf of some person or persons?—Yes.

4239. I understand he got a fee of 1,000 guineas for going down there?—So we were informed.

4240. Did you know what he was doing on the ground that day?—Mr. Heiser told us that his friends were not satisfied to put up the money without getting a second expert opinion, and that Mr. Dunn had been briefed at a fee of 1,000 guineas to come over and “vet” the proposition for his friends. Mr. Dunn spoke of his employers, and we assumed that those were the employers.

4241. Did you assume that Mr. Dunn’s employers were the people who were to put up the £80,000?—Absolutely.

4242. It would appear to be a fair inference from this prospectus that his real employers were Mr. Harrison’s underwriters?—That would be the construction of it.

Deputy Costello.—I gather from you that you did not know that. You thought he was acting for Heiser’s people.

4243. Deputy Moore.—Are you sure that Heiser mentioned the 1,000 guineas? —Yes.

4244. And Dunn also mentioned it?— Mr. Dunn did not mention the 1,000 guineas to me, as far as my recollection goes, but I think Senator Comyn had some conversation with Mr. Dunn as regards the fee.

4245. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Did Heiser mention the fee of 1,000 guineas to you in the presence of Mr. Dunn?—Yes, several times.

4246. Deputy Costello.—Did you think it was a big fee?—It impressed me because I thought the man must have an extraordinarily high standing in his profession to get such a fee for such a short job.

4247. And having regard to the small amount of capital involved—£80,000?—It might be worth people’s while to spend £1,000 before they would put up £80,000.

4248. He did not mention on whose behalf?—I asked him the question. I asked him certain questions about the value of certain deposits, and his answer, given abruptly, was: “That information is for my employers.”

4249. You heard Mr. Harrison say that Dunn was acting on behalf of the principal underwriters in the proposed quarter million company?—Mr. Harrison never said that. He was never asked here in the presence of Dunn.

4250. On May 24th, he informed you that he proposed to form a company of a quarter of a million on the basis of Mr. Dunn’s report?—Professor Holman’s.

4251. Did you ask him if he was acting for Heiser?—No.

4252. It did not strike you as peculiar? —I was rather reserved after what happened.

4253. You heard the questions I put to Senator Comyn on the subject of a complaint being made by certain people in the Department that nobody could get leases of these properties in and around this gold mine from the Department of Industry and Commerce except through you?—I heard the question, but it was slightly different. The question I heard you putting was that no one could get leases without coming through us. I do not think you said our property.

4254. Deputy Moore.—I think the statement was definitely about any property in the whole of Ireland?—That is what I understood the question to be.

4255. In fairness to you I will put it in the same way as I put it to Senator Comyn, by quoting the words of the report of what has been already given in evidence by Mr. Clarke—not so much in evidence as in reference to the file:—

“These remarks were to the effect that Mr. Heiser and his associates were wasting time and money in buying maps and preparing applications for leases of gold areas; that such leases could be acquired solely through Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe; they (the Senator and Deputy) implied that by reason of the fact that they were first in the field they had priority and a lien on all the gold deposits. These statements were confirmed by Messrs. Heiser and Dunn.”

4256. Is there any truth in the allegation I have just read?—No truth, whatever.

4257. You know what Mr. Summerfield said?—I heard the last day that Mr. Summerfield made a complaint.

4258. And that it was confirmed by Messrs. Heiser and Dunn?—I do not think that is correct.

4259. I think the statement made by Mr. Clarke is probably not correct that Mr. Heiser confirmed it, and that Mr. Dunn was present. I do not think that Mr. Clarke said that.

4260. I think it may be necessary to recall Mr. Clarke?—I may say that there could be no truth in that, because I was aware of the fact that Mr. Dunn had gone with Mr. Heiser to Donegal and was prospecting there, and was about to make application for a mining lease in Donegal and also for some place in County Dublin. I was aware of that. I do not think Mr. Summerfield would tell the Committee when he comes here that he ever met either of us when Mr. Dunn was present. I never met Mr. Summerfield there.

4261. I do not know. I am merely reading what is here?—I am trying to prove that Mr. Dunn could not possibly have verified a statement which, if it was made, was made when he was not present.

4262. Could it be that Mr. Dunn alleged you made the statement when the other man was not present?—I do not think so. Mr. Dunn has written me. If I made the statement I do not think Mr. Dunn is the kind of gentleman who would write a friendly letter to a person afterwards. I do not think he is a low mean type to do a thing of that kind.

4263. I want to ask you what is your interpretation of the last paragraph of this letter of 25th April, 1935:—

“The reason we said in our agreement ‘a licence for their company is to be obtained from the Minister’ is because we felt this speculative class of venture should rather be subscribed for abroad than by our own people.”

4264. What is your interpretation of that paragraph and the reasons which impelled you to put it in?—I was in the Department, I think, the previous day. It may be the morning of that particular day, and when discussing it with an officer of the Department, he asked why it was we were getting this £80,000 from these people and so forth. I think he drew our attention to the Control of Manufactures Act, and said that in the application for a licence for a firm to operate with non-Saorstát capital, a substantial reason had to be given for having it that way. It was an answer to that. Prior to that, in my view Heiser was quite willing and said he knew all about this, and had greater information of the Wicklow possibilities than I had. He said he had money to put up and I was anxious that people who said they knew more than we did, should be the persons to put up the money—t: gamble their own money in a venture of this kind which is highly speculative.

4265. Assuming that is the reason you put in the last paragraph particularly with regard to the licence, and by reason of the Control of Manufactures Act, why should that lead you to refer to the fact that this was a speculative class of venture, which you would “rather be subscribed for abroad than by our own people?”—I will answer that in another way. It is very hard to get it into another person’s mind. I have on occasions invited persons in An Saorstát to risk capital on ventures here when I had the view that they had a fairly reasonable chance of succeeding or going on. In this particular thing I would never ask persons to put up money to develop it unless I was sufficiently satisfied that, in my opinion, it had a fair chance of success. At the time Mr. Heiser came along with the partner, he had in mind a process in which he claimed to have special rights over what other persons had. He had two or three years’ experience of prospecting in the area, and I thought it was up to him to get the capital from his friends and not here. I was not prepared to vouch for him.

4266. Surely that comes as a surprise to me, that you were not prepared to vouch for a man putting up £80,000?—I was not. It is a different story putting up his own friends’ money and our relying upon him.

4267. That is to say you are prepared to stand over a proposition that will enable foreigners to gamble on properties in the Irish Free State?—That is not the position.

4268. Is not that the meaning of the last sentence: “We felt this speculative class of venture should rather be subscribed for abroad than by our own people?”—It was the same position with regard to the first sugar beet factory started here. Foreigners were ready and they got concessions in an agreement which turned out to be very substantial in the way of returns for the money invested. At that particular time it was found difficult to get Irish nationals to subscribe to it, because they did not know much about it. It was quite a new thing and foreigners, in the same way, were given the benefits of a very good thing. Subsequently, having learned all about it, our people have turned the benefits of this particular industry into the country as a whole. It is the same position I understand in connection with the manufacture of cement. No Irish people are prepared to put up money for cement factories without knowing something about it, and as far as I know-and I speak from rumour—I understand a licence will be given to enable some foreigners to manufacture it here as a reserved commodity.

4269. You know that gold above all other commodities is a thing which is more speculated on?—I would not say gold, I would say gold shares.

4270. Gold shares, in fact, where there is no gold?—I do not know. I never owned gold shares.

4271. Numbers of companies have been started in England and abroad proposing to work for gold, but all the work done was the buying and selling of shares?—I have none.

4272. Was there any danger of that happening in this instance?—Not if there was a private company involved in the spending of a certain amount of money.

4273. If money was subscribed for this speculative venture would you agree that it would be most undesirable to form an international company?—I do not know what you mean by an international company. Neither Senator Comyn nor I ever agreed to anything in the nature of a public company being floated for the exploitation of this or any other concern.

4274. We have gone over all that. The thing is that you neglected to put in the word “private”?—If Mr. Heiser contemplated a public company he could put in “public.”

4275. If you were contemplating confining him to the private company you could have put in the word “private”? —I put it that anything in connection with the company was not my business. That was a matter for the Department. I understand that these people did make an application to form a company. I did not know what form the company was to take, but I believe they informed me they were in touch with the Department and that they were asked how they would get a licence, and so forth. The company that would operate this particular mine was a matter for the Department to take care of.

4276. Chairman.—Who told you that? Where did you get that information?— Mr. Smyth, Mr. Heiser and Mr. Summerfield.

4277. Told you they had made representations to the Department with regard to the licence?—To get a licence. It was a non-national company to which a licence would be attached. They could not form a company on account of it being a foreign one.

4278. Deputy Costello.—That they actually applied to the Department of Industry and Commerce for a licence?—So they informed me.

4279. Have you any reason to think there was any truth in the suggestion?— Yes.

4280. Under the Control of Manufactures Act?—Yes.

4281. And in the course of that they would have to give particulars of the people who were putting up the money? —Yes.

Deputy Costello.—We have heard no evidence from the Department’s officials in that behalf.

4282. Deputy Geoghegan.—Who are they?—Mr. Smyth, Mr. Heiser, Mr. Nunan and Mr. Summerfield.

4283. Deputy Costello.—Surely Mr. Smyth and Mr. Summerfield were not interested in Mr. Heiser’s flotation?— Yes, Mr. Summerfield was interested from the beginning and was very upset when we would not let this deal go forward with Mr. Harrison.

4284. That is interesting. I understood from the evidence of Senator Comyn that Mr. Heiser came forward with a proposition to put up £80,000, and mentioned Sir Harry Brittain and a Greek magnate who would produce £80,000?— Yes.

4285. I have not heard that Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Smyth were to be in it. I understood it was all foreign capital?—Perhaps we would get nearer if I could get a proof of my evidence. You will find that I told you that all these names did not impress me at all. I asked Mr. Heiser to bring here some one of substance who would vouch for him, and he brought Mr. Summerfield. He told me that Mr. Heiser was all right and that he was associated with him.

4286. Did he ever tell you what interest was putting up the £80,000 with which Heiser was to finance the working of the gold mine?—Mr. Summerfield explained that he was to get shares in Risberget in lieu of what he had spent on another transaction.

4287. I understood Senator Comyn’s evidence to be that he accepted the arrangement embodied in the lease of the 10th March—or whatever the date is —1935, on the basis that Mr. Heiser was in touch with certain foreign capitalists who had, in fact, the sum of £80,000 ready to put into the concern? —That is so. I am not disputing that.

4288. Well, where did Mr. Smyth and Mr. Summerfield come in? They did not put up a penny of that £80,000?— No, and they had no intention of doing so.

4289. And, notwithstanding that, they are some of the people who made an application to the Department of Industry and Commerce for a licence to form the proposed Heiser Company under the Control of Manufactures Act?—Yes, and Mr. Nunan’s name is on their letterhead as Secretary. The name is down as Manus Nunan, K.C. I understand that that was put down without his consent. I must say that all the time he impressed me as being a strictly honest and decent man, but his name is on here, without his consent as the Secretary of the local Company.

4290. What Company?—The Risberget Company.

4291. Mr. Heiser was to form a company under that agreement, to be known as the Consolidated Gold Fields of Ireland, Ltd.?—Yes, or some other name.

4292. Or some other name. The capital was to be found by a Greek magnate, Sir Harry Brittain and certain other foreign financiers?—Yes.

4293. What did Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Smyth, who were not putting up any money and who were Irish nationals anyway, do to justify them in applying for a licence?—Well, Mr. Summerfield can answer for himself—probably to-morrow.

4294. Do you think such an application was made?—I do.

4295. Was it made at the time of this agreement?—I believe it was made before that.

4296. Well, I should like to hear from the officials of the Department if such an application was made in writing?— I do not know if it was made in writing, but Mr. Smyth showed me some note in which he informed me that the difficulty with regard to foreign capital would not be so serious as I thought.

4297. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—The information that such an application was made came to you from Mr. Smyth and Mr. Summerfield, and not from the Department?— Oh, no. I have not suggested that.

4298. You have no information from the Department?—No.

4299. You are simply going on what you were told by these gentlemen?— Yes, and I have no reason to think that it was wrong.

4300. Deputy Costello.—Were you and your associates interested to the extent of £12,000 in whether or not this Company was formed, and which, if your information was correct, could not be formed without the consent of the Department? Were you not vitally interested in the question of whether or not the Minister would give the licence?— Yes.

4301. And were you not vitally interested in knowing whether or not Mr. Smyth’s or Mr. Summerfield’s information was correct?—Not of necessity. I believed that if they could satisfy the Department’s officials as to themselves there would be no difficulty because I realised that, hand in hand with getting the licence there would also have to be some negotiations about the ultimate lease and they would not put up £80,000 for a prospecting lease. In the lease, before they would give a 97 year period, whoever the Company was would have to satisfy the Government that they were financially solvent and technically sound. It was for them to satisfy the Government, not for me.

4302. But you were very vitally interested in seeing that they did it and that they got the licence?—Well, the greatest guarantee I had for the security of our interests in it was in the Government passing them, but if the Government did not pass them I would have lost nothing.

4303. You would have lost £12,000, or your share of it?—But if the thing was all right our 12,000 shares would be of £12,000 value.

4304. Well, now, Mr. Briscoe, I should like to ask you a few questions about your relations with Mr. Norman. Did you ever have any complaint for or on behalf of Mr. Norman, that you were not paying him properly or that he was working in bad conditions?—No. Do you mean as to not paying him properly?

4305. Yes?—No, I did not.

4306. Deputy Geoghegan.—How is this relevant, Sir? After all, our time is of some importance. How are the relations between Mr. Norman and the gentlemen referred to relevant to the terms of reference here? If Mr. Norman has a grievance or if he thinks he has a grievance, surely the courts is the place to ventilate that?

Deputy Costello.—I thought that this was the place to ventilate everything about the lease.

Chairman.—And I think the terms of reference do put that obligation upon us. In any case, however, evidence has been given of the circumstances under which Mr. Norman came, in the first place, and evidence has been given of the circumstances in which he did not persist in making the application and of the circumstances in which his portion of the original application was dropped for some financial consideration.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Having regard to the allegations which have been made, I certainly think that Deputy Costello and everybody else is entitled to pursue this matter so as to find out what the actual facts are of the relations between Mr. Norman and Deputy Briscoe.

Deputy Geoghegan.—That may be Deputy Flinn’s view, but I respectfully ask you, Sir, to indicate the particular term of reference to which this is relevant. We are told to investigate the circumstances—I am speaking now from memory —connected with the grant of this lease. It would seem to me that the relations between Mr. Norman and Deputy Briscoe, while they may be interesting, are not connected with the grant of the lease.

Deputy Moore.—Particularly, the conditions under which Mr. Norman worked. Surely, he was at liberty to go on strike?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I agree that under a narrow interpretation of the terms of reference you would be entitled, and possibly bound, to rule it out of order, Sir, but I am suggesting that you do not do so.

Deputy Costello.—I do not wish to interfere, but I should like to point out that part of the allegation is that neither Senator Comyn nor Deputy Briscoe had any technical qualifications which would entitle them to get this prospecting lease and that they had made application in conjunction with a third man who, admittedly, had technical skill. It has been proved in evidence here that that third man was bought out for £25 and that he disappeared from the transaction, a transaction which, on Senator Comyn’s evidence to date, is worth £12,000 to himself and his surviving partner. Surely it is relevant to inquire how it was that Mr. Norman, who had the technical skill, disappeared from this transaction which, shortly afterwards, became worth £12,000, and was only given £25.

Deputy Geoghegan.—If there were a dispute here as to whether Mr. Norman had, in fact, dropped out, if somebody was contesting that Mr. Norman had remained in, I could follow the submission that has just been made by Deputy Costello; but seeing that everybody is aware that Mr. Norman dropped out at a certain date, which is evidenced here by a document, it would seem to me that it is scarcely germane.

Deputy Costello.—The allegation was also that neither Senator Comyn nor Deputy Briscoe had done anything which would entitle them, from the sense of the Irish taxpayers, to get a property worth £12,000 for doing nothing. Part of the proof of their doing nothing was that they let drop the only man who was skilled and who was also an Irishman and brought in foreigners. The suggestion is that, surely, before these foreigners appeared on the scene, Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe wrote a letter to Mr. Norman saying that they proposed to let the whole matter drop and asking him to accept £25.

Deputy Briscoe.—That is not correct.

Deputy Costello.—I am not putting this question to you, Deputy Briscoe. I am merely putting this now to Deputy Geoghegan.

Chairman.—I think Deputy Geoghegan will appreciate that the last portions of the terms of reference are extremely wide.

Deputy Geoghegan.—What are they, Sir? I have not got them with me.

Chairman.—They read: “And further publicly to investigate and report to the Dáil on all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the application for and the grant of the said lease, and all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the agreement made by the lessees for the assignment of their rights and obligations under the said lease.” A good deal of the time of the Committee has been occupied in considering the circumstances in which Mr. Norman came into the first application and the circumstances under which he disappeared from the second application. I think it is a fair inference to draw from some of the questions which have been put that it was suggested that Mr. Norman was unfairly got out by the second application and that subsequently he got a very small price—£25—for a share which it was originally contemplated was worth £250. Now, I think it is sought to show that Mr. Norman, having been got out of the second application for a consideration of £25 for a share which was given a nominal value of £250, was also left out in the making of the agreement to this Heiser group, an agreement under which the two surviving applicants were to get £12,000 in shares. I think that Deputy Costello, from the nature of his previous questions and from the way he opened the question on this occasion, is likely to take the line that Mr. Norman was, in his view, unfairly treated in the matter, and I think, having regard to the terms of reference, he can properly put questions on that line.

Deputy Geoghegan.—My particular objection, as you will remember, Sir, was directed to a question as to the relations between Mr. Norman on the one side and Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn on the other side; that is to say, at a time when Mr. Norman was there, as to whether he got good or bad wages.

Chairman.—I think that if Deputy Costello proceeds on that line he will make his questioning much more germane even than I thought he was going to, because I think a question of that kind could be well asked in order to ascertain what the lessees, in fact, did when they got the lease up to the time they proposed to make the agreement under which they were to get £12,000.

Deputy Costello.—Yes, Sir, that was the line I was going to take.

Deputy Geoghegan.—The other objection I had was that the fact that Mr. Norman had dropped out was not in dispute. The date on which he dropped out was ascertained and there is nothing we can ascertain about that. However, it is a matter for you to rule on, Sir.

Deputy Traynor.—The point you read out, Sir, mentions all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the application for and the grant of the said lease and all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the agreement made by the lessees. I do not think that Mr. Norman can come under the latter portion of the terms of reference at all.

Chairman.—I think that we are entitled by the terms of reference to investigate all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the application for and grant of the lease. We cannot simply pull down the blind, so to speak, on the date upon which the lease was granted and say that this business is now closed and then open it up again on the day the agreement was made. I think we must investigate the circumstances which obtained between the date upon which the lease was granted and the date upon which the agreement was made. I think it is relevant to ask what the lessees did when they got the lease.

Deputy Moore.—The last question was as to the conditions under which Mr. Norman worked. I think that that question could not possibly be related to the terms of reference. Further, if it is to be of any value, we shall have to get witnesses to tell us the conditions under which miners generally work, because all these things can only be judged by comparison. Where will that lead us to? Apart from that consideration, I submit that any question as to the conditions under which Mr. Norman worked could not be related to the terms of reference.

Deputy Costello.—I shall save a lot of trouble by asking Mr. Briscoe one question.

Deputy Coburn.—Am I to understand that Deputies Geoghegan, Moore and Traynor are questioning your authority. Mr. Chairman?

Deputy Geoghegan.—Oh, no.

Chairman.—I do not think they are questioning my ruling.

Deputy Geoghegan.—I want to make clear that I thought you were inviting us to discuss your ruling.

Chairman.—I treated it as a submission.

Deputy Traynor.—I am sure any member of the Committee has a right to address a question to you without its being suggested that he is trying to take over your duties.

Chairman.—I have no reason to resent any question that has been put to me so far. Deputy Costello now wants to ask the witness a question.

4307. Deputy Costello.—Were there complaints made to you by young Norman or by his father or mother as to the conditions under which he worked?—His mother wrote me a letter stating that she had been down there to see him and that he was working in rainy, wet weather. She was afraid he would get pneumonia and she asked me to stop him from doing that work.

4308. Did Mr. Norman, senior, complain to you that the conditions under which he was working were dangerous?—No.

4309. Did he ask you had you got his son insured against accidents?—I do not remember that, but I had the insurance covered in any case. I had quite a controversy with the insurance brokers on the matter. They pointed out to me that the insurance of workers on that class of work would have to be on a much higher basis than in the case of ordinary workers, and that unless I had qualified engineers sinking the shafts, if they were going to be deep, I would have to pay a premium equal almost to the amount of their wages but as the work did not go very far the matter ended and we decided to—

4310. To take a chance?—No, but to get away.

4311. Have you got a copy of the document which was discussed by Senator Comyn in which the value, the valuation or whatever you like to call it, of your share was put at £250?—No.

4312. Was there not a document?— There was in this way.

4313. Where is it?—If you let me answer I will tell you. I was anxious to get the project put on the basis of a limited liability company, and young Norman was anxious to feel that his position was secure in the matter. I remember drawing up some kind of document and asking young Norman to submit it to his father and ask his father’s opinion on it. I think that whatever document was prepared young Norman has it.

4314. Did you not get that back when you gave him the £25?—No.

4315. Did you ever see a letter written to Norman, Junior, saying that you were letting the whole affair drop, and asking what he would take for his share?—No, I never invited young Norman to go out.

4316. I asked you did you ever write to him saying that you intended to let the whole affair drop?—I understood your question to be did I ever write to him stating that I would let the whole affair drop and asking him would he take so much for his share. I never wrote such a letter. I certainly wrote to him telling him that the method on which we had been working was wrong, and that I was going to drop that. The consequence of that was that young Norman asked me to allow him to spend £30 on the manufacture of some implement by which he felt he could make his own wages and the wages of a man. While there would be no profits, he said there would be a sufficient return to pay the wages. We let him make that implement, but it was subsequently abandoned by young Norman himself. He then wrote to me asking me to allow him to spend £130 on another implement which he would design, which I was not inclined to do. He then came back to me and told me of certain difficulties which he had. That was how the question arose. He asked me if I could give him £40 to enable him to buy a truck with which he could start carting gravel. He wanted to get out of the whole thing, and he could not possibly see the sense of waiting until we got things going when we were not paying him any wages. I said that I would consult Senator Comyn on the matter, but Senator Comyn objected vigorously to the proposal. He said: “Would he not get a truck for £25?” Knowing his circumstances, I said why not take over his share for £25, but Senator Comyn objected. Finally, when we were served with this letter from his solicitor, I showed it to Senator Comyn and he said: “Did you leave him under the impression that you would give him £25?” and I said: “I did.” “Then,” he said, “you had better pay him.”

4317. Was the payment of the £25 a further manifestation of charity on your part?—Mr. Norman can answer that.

4318. Did you regard it from your point of view as a further manifestation of charity?—I certainly meant it to assist him.

4319. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—You would prefer to use the expression “a kindness”?— I would prefer to say nothing about it because it might be misconstrued.

4320. Deputy Costello.—How long had you ceased to pay young Norman’s wages before this thing occurred?—I think we had ceased to pay him wages about the August or September prior to this transaction.

4321. It was the August or September before you had ceased to pay him any wages?—Yes, I think so.

4322. Was he working from August until you got this lease?—Oh, no.

4323. He had not done anything in connection with it?—I am talking of August, 1933. We got the lease in November, 1934.

4324. From August, 1933, to November, 1934, he did nothing. That document of release is dated?—He had ceased working for about two or three months before the document was drawn up. Have you got the document?

4325. I have not got the document?—I have it here. The date of the release is April, 1934. The first letter we received from Mr. O’Connor was about 13th April, 1934, on behalf of Mr. Norman.

4326. And as a result of that correspondence you paid him the £25?—Yes.

4327. From August, 1933, to April, 1934, he had been doing nothing?—Oh, he did something. I sent him off to Galway to get this apparatus built according to his own specification. He was paid while he was there and I paid for his keep.

4328. When was this?—I want to know if your suggestion is that he was working for nothing from August, 1933, until some period in November, 1934?

4329. You used the expression yourself that you had ceased to pay him wages?— Yes.

4330. I want to know if he worked after you ceased to pay him wages?—He worked for three or four days on the sluice and the cradle and then abandoned it. On the 26th January, 1934, he wrote me a letter in which he said:

“Dear Mr. Briscoe,

I went down to Ballinasillogue and I found Keogh working with the cradle at a place on the river which I suggested when others were proposing other methods and other locations. I designed that cradle as a result of my experience and located the deep deposits as a result of my experience also. I want an explanation why Keogh was told to work and the fact was not even mentioned to me. I want to be treated fair over the whole thing. I did my best to try and keep the job a success and stuck to it when I could have gone to other jobs. It is a pity that Senator Comyn has no confidence in my mining knowledge. I suppose he thinks that I am too young. I have designed a small plant that will work those deep deposits which contain down to 1/3 worth of gold per ton and will cost only £150 to instal, giving work to four men constantly. I will be prepared to talk about this if you do not want to buy me out at the price mentioned in my last letter. The drawings can be seen here.”

4331. What was the price mentioned in his last letter?—£40 I think it was.

4332. Did he design that cradle himself to which he referred in that letter?—Yes, he designed that.

4333. He designed that and was working it himself?—Yes.

4334. With Keogh?—Some other man He kicked up a row about Keogh being working at it.

4335. He was working at your gold mine and you were not paying him any wages?—I told you in the last day’s evidence that I had come to the conclusion that there was no possibility of the thing being worked in the way that Senator Comyn had in mind, namely, manual labour without up-to-date modern machinery. We decided that we would stop the method we had been operating and that with that would cease the wages for Norman. He then suggested that we should allow him to design a cradle and sluice and he said that he would be able to show us in working it that not only would he be able to pay his own wages but that he would be also able to pay a man as well with what would be won from the soil. He, himself, abandoned that when he found it was impossible.

4336. Did you attach any significance to his abandonment of it, as to whether or not there was any gold in this place?— Oh, no. I came to the conclusion that the machinery he had designed, his method was not up-to-date, that no cradle could do the work.

4337. If a cradle could not do the work, how was it that Deputy Seán Hayes, on his first appearance there, found sufficient gold with a shovel to startle Professor Dunn?—I am not going to answer for Professor Dunn’s calculations.

4338. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney asked you on the last occasion to produce all the documents you had in connection with this transaction and I think you said you were in a position to do so?—Oh, yes.

4339. Would you mind putting them in, then?—You do not want any of them explained?

4340. Deputy Costello.—I do not know what documents you have.

Witness.—Might I ask if I am obliged to hand in all the correspondence with our solicitor, Mr. Cox, up to this date?

Deputy Costello.—You are entitled to claim privilege for correspondence between yourself and your solicitor.

Deputy Geoghegan.—Is it proposed to put in any document which has not been mentioned here already.

Deputy Costello.—Undoubtedly. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney put it to Deputy Briscoe on the last day, when you were not here, that the practice was to ask a witness to make a discovery on oath of all the documents he had.

Deputy Geoghegan.—I let that “you were not here” pass as merely being in character. Having let it pass, let me say that I object strongly to any witness putting in a document which is not mentioned and identified. If it is desired that any document should be put in let the document and the date of it be called out here.

Deputy Costello.—You know very well that we have no knowledge of the documents which Deputy Briscoe has. The procedure even in the High Court is for the person in whose possession and control the documents are to make an affadavit on oath as to what the documents are. The other side then knows for the first time what the documents are. We are in the same position.

Deputy Geoghegan.—The object of that procedure is to prevent there being included in a bundle of documents one which is totally irrelevant.

Deputy Costello.—The object is to let the other side know precisely what documents there are in the case.

Deputy Geoghegan.—One is almost provoked to laugh at the suggestion that a number of documents should be put in as it were in a bag. Each document is a separate document. Any document that a witness has put in is part of the evidence given by him. Let every document be put in and let each document be identified.

Deputy Costello.—I agree that each document to be put in should be identified. I was trying to save Deputy Briscoe trouble in reading out every document. I suggest instead that he should hand them to the Clerk and I am prepared to accept his word.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I suggest that Deputy Briscoe should number each document.

Deputy Geoghegan.—Yes. Nobody suggests that he should read the document.

4341. Witness.—The first letter is dated 9th May, ’33, from Mr. Norman, from Woodenbridge.

4342. Deputy Dowdall.— Is that the father or the son?—The son.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I suggest that you should number the documents.

Deputy Geoghegan.—I want to hear what they are. I want to hear the date and the nature of the document. I want to know every document that is going in.

Witness.—They will not be in order.

Deputy Geoghegan.—I do not care about that.

4243. Witness.—The next letter is 16/12/’33 from Mr. Norman to me.

Deputy Coburn.—Why not read the contents as suggested by Deputy Geoghegan?

Deputy Geoghegan.—I never suggested that. That silly suggestion, in so far as it was partially made, was made on the other side of the room.

Chairman.—Let Deputy Briscoe proceed.

4344. Witness.—The next letter is dated 8th June, ’33, from Norman to myself.

Deputy Coburn.—On a point of order, I should like to say that my deductions from Deputy Geoghegan’s suggestions were that he asked Deputy Briscoe to read out every document in his possession to be produced by himself. I understood that he wanted each one read for the Committee and identified for the Committee. Of course, I may be putting a wrong interpretation on what Deputy Geoghegan suggested, but that was my impression. Deputy Costello wanted to save time by handing in the letters, and having them identified afterwards by the Clerk.

Deputy Geoghegan.—Perhaps Deputy Coburn wants them read; I do not want them read. I want them identified.

Deputy Coburn.—And read. What is the use in identifying a document if you do not know the subject matter contained in it? I should not like to put down my name as identifying a letter unless I read its contents.

Chairman.—There does not seem to be any general desire to have all the documents read.

Deputy Geoghegan.—I am content with having them identified.

Chairman.—The witness can go on describing them in the manner in which he has been describing them.

4345. Witness.—There is an undated letter from Mr. Norman to myself. I have “No. 4” on it.

Deputy Coburn.—Again I insist, or at least I put it forward as my proposition, that if these letters are to be identified they should be read to the Committee.

Deputy Geoghegan.—I think that is Mr. Coburn’s right, if he insists on it.

Deputy Coburn.—Deputy Geoghegan is fond of saying that we are wasting time. In regard to Deputy Costello’s questions to Mr. Briscoe, he said they were not relevant, that they did not come within the terms of reference, and were wasting time. He himself has now made a suggestion which is going to waste more time.

4346. Chairman.—How many documents are there?

Witness.—About 50.

Deputy Geoghegan.—Most of them could have been identified by now.

Deputy Coburn.— And Deputy Costello could have asked most of his questions, were it not for Deputy Geoghegan’s interruption on a point of irrelevancy.

Chairman.—I do not think Deputy Costello can complain about not being allowed to ask questions. He asked a lot of questions on the last day, and to-day he has had the witness here from 3 o’clock until 4.15. The Deputy has not complained to me, and I think he himself feels that he has had a good innings. I think it will be sufficient for the purpose of identifying the documents if Deputy Briscoe indicates the date of each document, who it is addressed to and by whom it was sent, and if an official of the Committee affixes a number to each document.

Deputy Coburn.—And read.

Chairman.—They are going to be identified in that manner. There are 50 documents, Deputy.

Deputy Coburn.— I am only saying that that is Deputy Geoghegan’s suggestion.

Deputy Geoghegan.—He is only “pulling my leg.” He is the humorist of the Committee, and he is doing this in a good-natured way.

4347. Witness.—The next is dated 21st March, ’34, from Mr. Norman to myself; 6th April, ’34, from Mr. Norman to myself; 9th February, ’34, from Mr. Norman to myself; 10th February, from my Secretary to Mr. Norman—this is a copy of a letter; 20th February, ’34, from Mr. Norman to myself; 4th May, ’34, a letter from myself to Messrs. O’Connor and Company, Solicitors; 7th of May, a letter from O’Connor to me; 8th May, O’Connor to me; 12th May, copy of a letter from myself to O’Connor; receipt from O’Connor for the £25 and costs; 14th May, from O’Connor to myself; 16th May, from O’Connor to myself; 13th April, from O’Connor to myself; 19th April, from myself to O’Connor; 20th April, from O’Connor to myself; 23rd April, from myself to O’Connor; 24th April, from O’Connor to myself; 26th April, from O’Connor to Norman; 30th April, from O’Connor to myself; the release; 30th May, ’33, Irish Boring Company to me; 12th March, ’35, the agreement beween Risberget and ourselves and the Bond; the lease, 1st November; 23rd June, ’33, a statement in Mr. Norman’s hand-writing showing accounts and wages; 28th March, ’35, Crusade Prospectors to me; 4th May, James Darcy, Solicitor, to me; 17th May, Risberget to me; 25/5/33, telegram from Norman to me; 23rd May, Risberget to me. Then there are Mr. Cox’s letters to us, his clients. I will leave them out, I presume?

Deputy Geoghegan.—Yes. They seem to be privileged.

4348. Witness.—4th May, 1935, copy of our return under form M.A. I have a series of letters here from Mr. Norman, senior, to me. I have them here because there was some reference, I think, by Deputy McGilligan in his evidence.

4349. Deputy Geoghegan.—What are the dates?

Witness.—5th April, 1932. It is in connection with his own business—asking me to try to help him in getting certain assistance from the Department.

4350. Deputy Geoghegan.—Call out the dates. That is all you are asked at the moment.

Witness.—14th September, 1932; 12th October, 1932; 24th November, 1932; 6th April, 1935, from Risberget to me; 26th March, 1935, from me to Risberget; 11th August, 1933, from Mr. Norman, senior, to me; 9th October, 1933, from myself to the Minister for Local Government; 19th November, from the Department of Local Government to me; 20th October, from me to Mr. Norman, senior; 2nd May, 1935, from Manus Nunan to Senator Comyn and myself; 29th April, from Mr. Nunan to Senator Comyn and myself; 27th March, 1935, from Messrs. McGrath, solicitors, to me; 22nd March, 1935, copy of a letter from Mr. Smart, High Commissioner in London, to Mr. McGrath, solicitor; a further undated statement of expenditure by Mr. Norman, junior; 31st May, 1933, from myself to the Irish Boring Company; 1st June, 1933, Irish Boring Company to me; 20th June, 1933, Irish Boring Company to me; 9th June, 1933, Irish Boring Company to me; 16th October, 1933, Irish Boring Company to me; 14th October, 1933, from myself to the Irish Boring Company; 12th October, Irish Boring Company to me, and a statement dated 12th October, 1933, from the Irish Boring Company to me; a letter dated 30th March, 1934, from Mr. Keogh, Woodenbridge, to me; cheque from me to Mr. Keogh, dated 27th March; a letter from Mr. Keogh, Woodenbridge, dated 20th June, 1935; letter from myself, dated 27th March, 1934, to Mr. Keogh, Woodenbridge; letter from Mr. Keogh, dated 6th March, 1934; letter from Mr. Keogh, dated 26th January, 1934; letter dated 22nd June, 1935, from Mr. Dunn—this is the famous Mr. Dunn—to me; 25th April, 1935, a letter from myself to the Secretary, Department of Industry and Commerce; 23rd March, 1933, copy of an application to the Department; 16th May, 1933; letter from the Department to me; 18th May, 1933, letter from myself to the Department; 12th June, 1933, from me to the Department; 17th June, to the Department from me; a second copy of the application dated 16th May, 1933, 9th March, 1934, from the Department to me; 25th April, 1934, from the Department to me; 26th April, from myself to the Department; 3rd may, 1934, from the Department to me; 5th May, 1934, to the Department from me; 4th June, 1934, from the department to me; 26th June, from the Department to me; 4th May, 1935, from the Department to me; 6th June, 1935, from the Department to me; 1st May, 1935, from met to Mr. Nunan—there are two copies of that; 2nd May, 1935, from me to the Secretary, Department of Industry and Commerce; 6th May, from me to the Department of Industry and Commerce; 24th September, 1935, copy of a letter addressed by the Secretary of the Roscrea Meat Company to Mr. McGilligan.

Deputy Geoghegan.—Up to the moment, 19 out of 20 of those letters seem to me to be worthless and irrelevant. Not one-twentieth of those letters should have been put in.

4351. Deputy Moore.—How does the letter from the Roscrea Meat Company arise?

Witness.—I asked permission of this Committee to send a letter to Mr. McGilligan in view of certain references he made here, which were untrue and had no foundation in fact.

Deputy Moore.—I am sorry. I did not know you had made that application.

Witness.—I made application to the Chairman for permission to send that letter. I think the Chairman gave me that permission.

4352. Chairman.—I told you on that occasion that I did not see how it was a matter that concerned the Committee, though I did not see any objection to your handing it in.

Witness.—It can be taken out if necessary.

Deputy Geoghegan.—It is now identified.

Witness.—Then I have a geological map.

4353. Deputy Geoghegan.—Is that a State publication?—Yes Then there is a receipt for some timber that we bought at Woodenbridge in 1933. Then I have a document telling me Mr. Nunan wanted to see me. There is a document from Lennox Chemicals Ltd., dated 30th March, 1933; a receipt from Tuck & Co.; Keogh & Co., enclosing an invoice for sacks. Then there is a communication from the Irish Ochre and Minerals Co. Ltd., dated 1st May. There is a copy of a letter from John Tracey, Avoca, and a letter also to that gentleman. There are letters between me and the Secretary, Irish Ochre and Minerals Co. dated April, 1933. There is a letter from myself to a man called Brady, dated the 8th January, 1934; and a letter from myself to a man named Stevens dated 9th May, 1933. There is no date on some letters. There is a letter from Dublin Castle from the State Solicitor’s office to me; there is an application for various townlands in connection with the letter of 25th April. There is a letter—I have not got the date of it—from Norman, senior, to the Press. I have a letter of which I would like to give an explanation because I think it has something to do with the question put by Deputy Costello. It is dated July 18th, 1934, and it is from Norman, senior, to myself in which he raises a variety of complaints against Government Departments and everybody else.

4354. Deputy Geoghegan.—Is that the last?—Yes.

4355. Deputy Geoghegan.—I submit, Mr. Chairman, that having heard the description of these documents, it must be manifest to anyone here, that, at least, 19 out of every 20 of them, are either irrelevant or worthless or both. If you propose to let in these documents I would like to know, as a matter of information, how are they to be dealt with? In the ordinary way all these documents would be printed. Is all this rigmarole stuff to be printed at the public expense? Is that the intention? If not, what is the point of putting them in?

Chairman.—I think we need not necessarily decide that these documents must be printed. A good deal would depend upon what value the Committee will attach to what you describe as worthless, or irrelevant or both.

Deputy Geoghegan.—19 out of every 20 of them!

Chairman.—If that view is shared by other members of the Committee they would not need to read these documents.

Deputy Geoghegan.—Whether they are read or not they would, ordinarily, be printed in the report or as an appendix.

Chairman.—Perhaps we could allow these documents to remain in the possession of the Clerk to the Committee until such time as a desire is expressed that they should be printed. Then we could decide.

Deputy Geoghegan.—That would meet my view.

Chairman.—Perhaps Deputy Costello would agree to that?

Deputy Costello.—Yes, certainly.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—That, I assume, would cover all of the documents; they need not necessarily be printed, except to the extent that some members of the Committee might desire. That would apply to the Departmental files.

4356. Witness.—There was one other letter that was handed to the shorthand-writer. Mr. O’Toole had the letter but I forget at the moment what it is.

Deputy Geoghegan.—It must be a very important letter if you forget about it.

Chairman.—It is identified if it was handed in.

4357. Witness.—There are a few other documents that I wanted to put in and I would ask for direction in the matter. There is a correspondence, for instance, from a gentleman who lent me a book, and who complained to the Minister for Finance that it was because of that book that I found the mine. It was the Annual Register 1798. To what extent that would help me to discover the mine in 1933 is more than I can understand.

4358. Deputy Moore.—Has that book been banned by the Censor?—No. I have also some letters from a gentleman named Denver offering his assistance at a sum of 3 guineas per week. I did not avail of his services.

4359. Chairman.—That finishes the documents you want to hand in, and now I want to ask you a few questions. You saw this Proof No. 2 of the Wicklow Gold Fields Ltd.?—Yes. The Prospectus.

4360. Yes. There is a report in this purporting to be signed by Mr. G. V. S. Dunn, Mining Engineer?—I am sorry but I have another letter dated 20th May, 1935, from the Department to me

4361. Chairman.—You saw that report by Mr. Dunn?—Yes.

4362. You saw there what Mr. Dunn thought the particular gold deposits were?—Yes.

4363. Had you any reason to question the soundness of that report?—No.

4364. Do you think it accurately describes the position there, as far as you know, as a layman?—As far as I know as a layman that is the description.

4365. You are satisfied of the essential soundness of this report by Mr. Dunn?— I would not like to be asked to decide whether it was a good or bad, correct or incorrect report. But with the views I hold as to the possibility of discovering gold in that area—I would probably be prejudiced—I would be inclined to believe from a spirit of optimism what others might describe as too optimistic.

4366. Had you any information to lead you to believe that this was an exceptionally optimistic report?—No.

4367. You see, he says, in that report that on the basis of an initial capital of £200,000 the earning capacity of the mine would equal a return of 41½ per cent. per annum?—Yes.

4368. That was a very substantial dividend to be paid to the shareholders?—I do not think he stated it was dividend. Taking 41½ per cent. of the capital invested they might choose to put some of it to sinking fund, to the repayment of capital and so on, but I cannot say.

4369. After they provided for contingencies, incidentals, overhead charges, depreciation, etc., he said that the profit on investment would be 41½ per cent.? —Yes.

4370. I suggest that is a very substantial return for investment for capital in gold mining?—Yes.

4371. This group putting up the money were to come in and get a dividend of 41½ per cent. per annum?—Yes.

4372. And these people, who in the main were non-nationals, were to get this 41½ per cent?—Yes.

4373. Do you remember the Oireachtas passing the Control of Manufactures Act?—Yes.

4374. I take it you probably voted for it?—Yes.

4375. And you are in agreement with the provisions of the Act and with the principle of the Act?—Yes.

4376. The basic principle was to ensure that there was control of manufacture and industry in this country by Saorstát nationals to the extent of 51 per cent. of the capital?—Yes.

4377. If it was desirable to have Saorstát control of industry generally, would there not appear to be a specially strong case for the Saorstát having control of such a matter as that of a gold mine? —May I answer that in my own way. I say you must start proving it. My view is that this area is a very small area in relation to the total area of mineral deposits in the country. My view was, and I explained it to Mr. Heiser, Mr. Smyth, Mr. Nunan and Mr. Summerfield, that while the Government might, in exceptional circumstances, agree to licensing non-national capital, they might insist on an agreement whereby a certain amount of the shares would have to change hands and go into the hands of Irish nationals, after a period. My main idea was that where a licence should be granted it would be for the purpose of proving a certain thing. If they proved, to the satisfaction of themselves and the community, that gold mining was not only possible as a very limited business, but that it meant that you could open up mines in other areas, then you could sell to Irish nationals. But I was of the view that pioneers who come along and invest their money should be well treatd in the way of allowing them to have a substantial amount for proving something that is going to be of paramount importance for the nation afterwards.

4378. In other words, you considered it right that those who blazed the trail —to use an expression associated with gold mining—should be allowed to get that profit of 41½ per cent., but having established the proof of gold mining in the country, some greater control should be exercised over subsequent licences?— May I say that when we made that agreement we had not Mr. Dunn’s report and when we wrote to the Department we had not that report; it came along subsequent to the prospectus.

4379. At all events, both Mr. Dunn’s report and the references which have been made to the flotation of a Company on the basis of deposits to the extent of £17,000,000, if they are to be relied upon, indicate that the gold mining lease which you held is very valuable?—Yes.

4380. And the proposal was that that valuable gold mining lease should be handed over to non-Saorstát nationals? —Again, I want to draw your attention to the fact that I did not propose to give a licence to a Company. It is the Government Department that has to give the licence and the Government Department could decide to have 25 per cent. of the shareholders Irish, or 49 per cent. of them Irish—they could satisfy themselves in that respect. It is not for me to decide whether they are going to get a licence or on what terms and conditions they should get it.

4381. Having subscribed to the idea of control of Irish industry in the manner provided in the Control of Manufactures Act, you interested yourself in a certain proposal. What I am concerned with here is in respect of what is probably the most valuable of all minerals and a proposal was calmly made to the Department that a licence should be given to a foreign group to exploit a project which Mr. Dunn said was capable of providing a profit of 41½ per cent. per annum?—I was not in a position to invite capital from local people on something that I was not sufficiently well satisfied in regard to the satisfactory working of. These people claimed to know a whole lot more than we did and I said “If you know so much about it, put up your money and work it.”

4382. I think that was the serious portion of the whole agreement—the proposal to hand over a deposit estimated to be valued for £17,000,000?—We had no knowledge of its value then, in that sense.

4383. I think it was almost providential that you had not, if that were still the proposal?—If nobody could be got in this country to give employment to numbers of people in a place where there is a lot of unemployment and if a foreigner were prepared to give that employment I believe I would do the same again provided I was satisfied that things could not be got going by ourselves.

4384. Bring your mind back to the day when you and some of your colleagues were at Woodenbridge with Heiser and Dunn and when, after examination of certain deposits, a panning operation by Heiser showed that the pan contained six pieces of gold? — We were in the soup then; we had the agreement made.

4385. At that stage Heiser was obviously impressed with the gold deposits?— He was.

4386. So was Dunn, I take it?—Yes.

4387. Did you give any consideration then to the very serious situation which was likely to arise by reason of the handing over of an area so rich in gold content to a group which consisted of an American, a Greek magnate and certain titled people in Great Britain?—Mr. Summerfield, Smyth and Nunan. Mr. Summerfield said to us that he was representing Mr. Duggan and Mr. McGrath. I saw nothing wrong with it at all.

4388. What about your arrangement with Heiser?—Our arrangement with Heiser was made only after Heiser was vouched for to us by Summerfield. Summerfield associated himself not only in the vouching of the man but as being a business associate of the man.

4389. All your previous discussions with Heiser were on the basis that those friends of his, who have already been named, were to put up £80,000?—Not all of it.

4390. There was no mention, was there, that Summerfield, Nunan or Smyth was to put up anything?—Mr. Summerfield— he will probably answer you himself—in the beginning of the negotiations intimated to us that Mr. McGrath and Mr. Duggan had spent a considerable sum in having prospecting done by Heiser.

4391. When was that?—In 1932 and 1933.

4392. They spent the money then?— Yes.

4393. When did Summerfield tell you that?—A day or two before the agreement was signed, when we were discussing the thing and drawing it up. It was during that period that he intimated to us that, while he was not actually entitled to say it, Mr. McGrath and Mr. Duggan were in this thing. He said that as soon as he was satisfied the thing was going on they would come in on it Two or three weeks after that, Mr. O’Reilly, Mr. McGrath’s solicitor, sent a message to us to say he had nothing whatever to do with the matter, that he was in no way connected with it and that he was not associated with Heiser. At the time of the drawing up of the agreement, Mr. Summerfield made that statement.

4394. When you wrote the letter of the 25th April to the Department had you any reason to believe that Mr. McGrath or Mr. Duggan or any other Irish national was prepared to put up a substantial sum for this project?—No.

4395. When you put up the proposal to the Department you were satisfied that a substantial sum could not be put up by Irish nationals?—At that time we were satisfied there would be no money from Irish nationals.

4396. Did you not think it was a rather curious proceeding to hand over to a group of non-Saorstát nationals control over a deposit of this kind which, if Mr. Dunn’s report is to be relied upon, is an exceedingly valuable deposit?—I was anxious to get the thing developed, but I had nothing to do with the handing over of the lease or the licensing of the Company. That is a matter for the Department and if the Department agreed to do it, I would say it was then responsibility and not mine.

4397. Did you not regard it as a serious thing to invite a group of foreigners representative of the United States, Greece and Great Britain to were satisfied there would be no money come in and exploit a mineral deposit which, according to Mr. Dunn, or the suggestion revolving around Mr. Dunn’s report, is worth £17,000,000?—I did not think there would be anything wrong in it if, as a result of that, we were able to develop our other mineral deposits which would probably yield far in excess of that sum, even if that £17,000,000 worth of gold is there.

4398. You probably saw in the paper some time back that such an inocuous commodity as pepper caused quite a financial shock?—In that case a gentleman was trying to control all the pepper, but in this instance we had only a small amount of the mineral deposits in the country.

4399. Would you not imagine that the control of £17,000,000 worth of gold in a small country such as this was a pretty serious thing to hand over?—If it could be assumed that the £17,000,000 worth of gold—if it is there—could be taken out and that it remained £17,000,000, I would say it would be a serious thing; but it must be remembered that in recovering £17,000,000 worth of gold a great many pounds would be spent over a period probably of 20 years and that money would go into wages, income tax and other incidental lenses. Surely it is not suggested that they are going to pull £17,000,000 out of the ground and walk way with it.

4400. An industry which could pay 41½ per cent. would, from an investor’s point of view, be regarded as the best money making industry in this country?—I would not say so. There are other industries paying 41½ per cent. on the original invested capital.

4401. The sooner we know them the better?—They are well known. In one instance the shares are quoted at £10. If a £1 share is quoted at £10 it is certainly paying more than 5 per cent. on the original investment.

4402. Can you indicate what industry is capable of yielding a dividend of 41½? —I will instance Messrs. Guinness before their shares were written down, as one.

4403. Any others?—I would say the Gresham Hotel is a good investment, and they have recently issued bonus shares. Take Austin Motors as another example.

4404. But they are not in Ireland and I am taking purely Irish undertakings?— The Hospital Trust would be a very good indication of what could pay more than 41½ per cent. I am not saying this in any sense of disrespect to you. I am merely giving my view from my knowledge of the financial world.

4405. These examples will do. But even those two undertakings you have indicated took some time before they reached their present state of affluence. Particularly is that so in the case of Guinness’, which is regarded as one of the plums of the financial world. Yet this project was to take its place side by side with an undertaking of the character of Guinness’?—No. I have the view that there is no element of speculation or gamble about Guinness’ or the Gresham, but there is in regard to the development of a gold mine.

4406. That might be true at the time yourself and Mr. Comyn came into it, but I take it that all doubts had disappeared when Mr. Dunn’s report came on the scene?—That came on the scene about June 27th.

4407. Deputy Moore.—Since the inquiry started?—Yes, long after we were head and heels into the thing.

4408. Chairman. — We know now, according to Mr. Dunn’s report, that this is a very valuable deposit?—Yes.

4409. Do you view with any great complacency a proposal to hand over a project of this kind to be controlled by a non-Free State national group?—I know the Department of Industry and Commerce can issue a licence to a non-national concern. It has been done in one or two cases—I have heard it said it was done. They can make a provision that if there is more non-national capital than national capital in the undertaking those interested in the undertaking must be prepared to hand over at the market value of the shares every succeeding year a certain proportion of the shares of the Company that are held in non-national hands. I understand it has been agreed to in one or two cases. In the same way if the Government found that Mr. Dunn’s report was not only good but accurate, they could say to those people: “You have £80,000 in this undertaking, less the £12,000 worth of shares held by nationals such as Mr. Briscoe and Mr. Comyn, and you must unload some of the balance at so much a year over a period of years,” and the original members would have to agree to that, as otherwise they would not get a licence. In that way you would have this Company ultimately controlled by nationals if everybody was satisfied it was going all right and they knew enough about it to be able to handle it.

4410. You know the State has already invested money in other industries?—I do.

4411. And they lost in one industry approximately £50,000?—Yes.

4412. Did you give any consideration to the question of giving this State the largest holding?—I have a letter here which I will probably have to hand to you. Before we made application for this particular prospecting lease I wrote a letter to the President, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Minister for Finance, in which I outlined a plan for the relief of unemployment in County Wicklow, and I stated as an illustration that the market value of lead at that time was something around £10 per ton, while the cost of winning the lead in that area would be somewhere about £12 a ton, so that it could never be an economic venture. Clearly if the Government put up £50,000 for unemployment, and utilised it in winning lead for instance, they would recover from the ground approximately £40,000. Utilising that money in giving further employment it would mean further employment to one extent of £40,000. I argued that that would be a way of developing employment. I sent a copy of that letter to a man who is very much interested in mines and minerals in the country, Mr. O’Driscoll of the Killaloe Slate Quarries, and all I could trace is an acknowledgment from him in which he states he is enclosing another proposal by which unemployment could be relieved. The letter is dated 2nd of June, 1932, and reads:—

“I enclose you my comments on your suggestion and another suggestion which has been in my mind for a considerable time. Whilst I am not too hopeful that you will be able to persuade the Government to agree to this, it would be a jolly good thing for themselves and the country if they did.”

That letter was written before we started applying for any prospecting lease for gold mining in Wicklow. To show you the frame of mind I was in at that time in connection with this gold, that is at the time when we made this agreement with Mr. Heiser, I want to make it clear that I was not in a position to state whether his group would lose money or make money on the venture. If Mr. Heiser had laid his cards on the table and said he was expecting to get £17,000,000 there, first of all we would not have agreed to giving him the agreement, and in the next place we would have said that we would require more than 12,000 shares in his company, and the Department on receiving an application for a licence would stipulate that the company should allow an opportunity to Irish nationals to buy certain shares after a year or so or as soon as the balance sheet was published.

4413. What value did you attach to the gold deposits in that area?—I could not attach any value to them.

4414. You contemplated, uninformed, as you were, to hand it over to a certain group to exploit it?—I did not contemplate it—I actually did agree to hand it over

4415. Was there any advertence at that stage to the suggestion to get the Government to exploit these gold deposits rather than hand them over to foreigners?—No. And I do not think if I did so that I would be very successful. They would not give me a long hearing on any proposal that they should exploit the gold deposits themselves.

4416. They probably would do so now? —Yes, if Mr. Dunn’s report is to be relied on. In giving a lease they would consider to whom it should be given.

4417. If you agree that it is desirable to have Irish control over industries and manufacturing enterprises generally, would there not appear to be a very special case for having unquestioned Irish control over the exploitation of these gold deposits?—I can answer you that by saying that up to the time Deputy McGilligan referred to this matter in the Dáil and up to the time we had this arrangement with Mr. Heiser, most people suggested that the proper place for me was Grangegorman for suggesting that it was possible to work gold mines in Ireland. Most people used to laugh and jest and joke and say: “This fellow is going off his head altogether.” That is the sort of reaction we got on these proposals. They would say probably that Mr. Dunn was equally looney as myself.

4418. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I rather think it would be a good idea if we took a poll now of the members of the Committee to know how many of them hold the opinion to which Deputy Briscoe has now referred?—The Chairman himself would probably at that time hold the opinion that I have stated.

4419. Chairman.—Why was there an objection to the flotation of a public company?—I have never in my life been associated with a public company nor have I experience of public companies nor did the matter arise. The only time it arose was when Mr. Harrison brought up the prospectus. That was the first we ever heard of a public company and Senator Comyn’s outburst was so clear that even if I had views I would not have expressed them.

4420. Do you not think that if there had been a public flotation of the company there would have been a better chance of getting the money?—No, I do not; we had been working around that area for years and the only interest taken in our operations was to jest and joke and look upon us as optimists of the most supreme character.

4421. Did not Mr. Summerfield appear to be interested and was not Mr. Nunan also interested?—I never knew Mr. Summerfield until he came on with Mr. Heiser nor Mr. Nunan either. All these came on after we had met Mr. Heiser.

4422. Would it not be better to float a public company which had some chance of getting Free State capital in preference to handing it over to non-nationals? —If these people came along and made a definite application and had shown their details to the Minister and the Department, the Minister might have taken your view and said: “This is all right and I am satisfied it can be floated.” I think there are certain formalities to be gone through in the flotation of public companies both here and in England, but I myself would make it clear to these people that I would have nothing whatever to do with their application for a licence because at the back of my mind I realise they would never put up the £80,000. They would only get a long lease if they satisfied the Department of their bona fides.

4423. You mentioned that in the case of the Carlow Beet Factory the majority of the shares were held by foreigners?— Yes

4424. I think it is true to say that the Carlow Beet Factory was floated as a public company?—Yes, but nobody or very few here subscribed to it. If some Irish nationals had floated that company and got only the amount of Irish capital that was subscribed to it, they would not only have destroyed any possibility of ever starting a beet factory in this country, but they would also have destroyed their own reputations. If you can visualise half a dozen Irish nationals going out and depending solely on Irish money to meet with the success that these Belgians have met with you will understand what the position is. These Irish nationals would have lost everything though the last Government was anxious to impress Irish nationals that the sugar beet company was a good thing. But with all the efforts they made they could not get Irish nationals to subscribe to that undertaking to the extent of anything important.

4425. Do you not consider from the public point of view that it would be better if you provided Irish nationals with an opportunity of subscribing to this company?—I do not believe we would have got a halfpenny from the public.

4426. Your letter to the Department of Industry and Commerce appears to be open to the suggestion that you were shutting out Irish nationals from subscribing?—No; the proviso was there that if they could prove themselves, that then they would give certain shares to Irish nationals.

4427. But there was no suggestion of that nature in your letter?—No, because we could not speak for the Minister.

4428. You were obviously entitled to have your views heard and to be consulted?—We would probably have been consulted if the thing had got to that stage. We would be asked to further amplify our letter and our views.

4429. Deputy Dowdall.—The Chairman has been asking you some questions with regard to this company which was to pay a dividend of 41½ per cent.—when did you make your agreement with Mr. Heiser for handing over your interest? —It was on the 12th of March—I may be a day or two out.

4430. The first you heard of the company was on the 26th or 27th of June?—The first I heard of the proposal of Mr. Heiser to sell his option agreement was on the 24th of May, and the first time we ever saw this document was on the 27th of June

4431. So that when you made the agreement with Mr. Heiser you knew nothing at all about the 41½ per cent. that was going to be earned?—I did not.

4432. Had you known that it was to earn 41½ per cent. You would have made a different bargain and also different arrangements for the exploitation of the gold?—I was satisfied that it was not a chance figure.

4433. With regard to this £250,000 company, you cannot prevent any strangers like Mr. Harrison from getting a prospectus printed and putting down anything they like?—No, no more than I could prevent Irish nationals from subscribing to it.

4434. You are not responsible for the names which appeared?—No.

4435. I take it that the dividend earning capacity of this company which was to be formed on the basis of gold deposits for a certain area of £17,000,000 is a thing of which you were not aware until you saw that prospectus?—Yes, that is so.

4436. you also know that there are such people as company promotors?—Yes.

4437. And they endeavour to get the public to subscribe to either a good or a bad prospectus. If it is a good one so much the better for the public, but if it is a poor one so much the worse for the public. Could I take with regard to this £17,000,000 in gold that it is quite possible that this £17,000,000 is not there at all and that this figure was only an estimate or calculation by Professor Dunn, who estimated a certain number of cubic yards and their contents and then estimated the whole area of the deposits at so many acres and made his calculations accordingly?—Yes.

4438. So that the gold might not be there at all or you might have to pay out £50,000,000 to win the £17,000,000, but I think so far as that company is concerned there is really no good to bother about it at all. I asked Senator Comyn some questions the other day on this matter. It was on the 12th of March you made your agreement with Mr. Heiser to hand over your interests in the company for a certain amount?—Yes, that was on the 12th of March, 1935.

4439. In the course of his evidence, Senator Comyn states that both of you made an agreement with Mr. Norman April, 1934?—April, 1933.

4440. No, April, 1934?—that was the release, yes. the application was April, 1933.

4441. And that in January, 1934, you practically promised that Mr. Norman would get £25?—That is so.

4442. So that in January, 1934, you got that release from Mr. Norman and you did not know what the value of your property was until Mr. Heiser came to you on 12th March, 1935?—That is right.

4443. That was practically 15 months afterwards?—It would be about a year afterwards.

4444. From the time of the release?— Yes, but from the time of the agreement to give the money, it was 14 or 15 months? —Yes.

4445. During the course of Deputy McGilligan’s evidence—I may say, Mr. Chairman, that Deputy Geoghegan objected to bringing up this matter of Mr. Norman at all, but in view of the fact that certain allegations and insinuations were cast out as to the behaviour of Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe in relation to him, it is only fair to them that we should get some sort of evidence as to whether what Deputy McGilligan states is in accordance with fact—he states:

“I got further information in the meantime. I had a very shameful and sordid story revealed to me in which I found Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn were not merely exploiting this country’s resources in the matter of some material in the way of gold that may or may not be found . . . .

Evidently Deputy McGilligan did not think there was much gold there.

. . . but they had in the most scandalous fashion exploited a young national of this country.”

In view of the fact that Mr. Norman had been drawing no wages and that he append to your group to buy out whatever interest he had, would you say that your treatment of him could be described as Deputy McGilligan describes it here?—The only answer I can make to that is that I do not think Deputy McGilligan’s statements in connection with this whole matter. either in the Dáil or here, were based on fact or any substance or any evidence, but were based on feelings of viciousness and vindictiveness against an individual.

4446. You do not consider that you took Mr. Norman out of a valuable interest in a gold mine which, at the time, so far as you are personally concerned, did not have very much value?—I do not think so and I do not think Mr. Norman would say so when he comes before the Committee.

4447. Deputy McGilligan says:

“Mr. Norman, senior. was the unfortunate means of bringing his son Grattan into conjunction with Deputy Briscoe.”

So far as Mr. Norman, junior, was concerned, would you think it was unfortunate that he was brought into contact with you?—I would not say so.

4448. It appears to me that he would have been without any position at all otherwise. For what period did you employ aim?—We paid him, according to his own statement, for 13 weeks for one period. and I would say we paid him 20 weeks altogether.

4449. After that 20 weeks did you cease So employ him as an employee?—Yes.

4450. Therefore, he could not except to get wages?—He did no expect. He asked for an opportunity of making his own living out of this thing. We gave it to him and he himself abandoned it.

4451. I asked Senator Comyn also about that estimate of £250 as representing each of your shares, and I put it to him that it might have been £1 or £1,000,000 each and that it really only meant that von were equal partners each having a third interest in the company. Do you agree with that view?—I do.

4452. We come now to this question of the boring. In the papers which you have handed in there is a letter from the Boring Company to you or to your group stating that they were sending off the plant required for boring, including tubes? —The reference is to tubing there.

4453. And naturally, I presume, you thought they were going to tube the boring?—Boring without tubing would be useless.

4454. As a matter of fact, when they stated that they were sending the tubing, you naturally assumed that they intended to tube?—I did, of course.

4455. There would be no reason, I presume, for simply boring down until they came to the rock—they said it was at 35 feet—and only to the rock, if you expected to get any samples of the soil. You could not get it without tubing down?—They undertook to give us samples from every certain number of inches and feet, and that would be an impossibility if they did not put tubing down.

4456. And, of course, you could get nothing out of the quartz if they did not bore through it. They stopped when they came to the rock?—Yes.

4457. I am not quite satisfied as to who was present in the Dáil restaurant on the evening of May 1st. Mr. Summerfield was there. Who else was there?— I cannot recollect the date.

4458. When the statement was supposed to be made by you people that a lease could not be obtained?—Yes, on May 1st. Dan Breen, Seán Hayes, Senator Comyn and myself were there.

4459. And Mr. Summerfield came to you?—He did, with Mr. Smyth.

4460. And in the course of the conversation, you or some of you are supposed to have said that there was no use in getting maps printed or applying for leases and that they could only get them through you. Is that the occasion?—It could not have been May 1st. Is this the occasion on which Mr. Summerfield told us that we would hear more about it?

4461. That is what I want to get at? —It was probably June 1st, because it was after Mr. Harrison’s arrival, which was on May 24th. That was the occasion on which Mr. Summerfield tried to press us to agree to the agreement which Mr. Heiser had made with Mr. Harrison. I was sitting with Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Smyth before Senator Comyn arrived. Deputy Hayes and Deputy Breen came along almost simultaneously, and I sent for Senator Comyn also. Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Smyth on that occasion wanted to know why we were so foolish as to stop the deal going through and asked if it was a case of wanting to get a bit of a divide of their £50,000 and indicated that he was prepared to consider that. Our attitude was that we would not have anything to do with it and on that occasion I read to him the letter I had written to the Department on 25th April.

4462. Was it on that occasion he said that you would hear more about it?— Yes.

4463. That was some time in June?— About June 1st. I cannot say exactly, but it was immediately after our row with Mr. Heiser.

4464. Do you know if he took any steps to put his threat into operation? —That I cannot say, but I think if Mr. Summerfield were asked he would answer, and also if he did not make complaints on other matters equally without foundation.

4465. Deputy Moore.—Did you invite Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Smyth or did they come of their own accord?—They came of their own accord. I tried to avoid them and that is why I kept that little document showing that Manus Nunan, who is a very decent man, put on it at the gate that he had no appointment with me. Every time they came, they came without an appointment and without any indication.

4466. Was it purely business or semi-social and semi-business?—It was not social by any means. It was purely business on their part. They came to know whether we would not come to terms with them and to ask were we not foolish not to let this go on.

4467. I am more interested in the allegation that you said that you had got control over all the mining rights of Ireland. I think that is what, in essence, it was?—Would I not want to be a very great fool to make any such statement.

4468. Was Mr. Smyth there that evening?—There is no evening that I can remember on which I would have said anything of that nature. The evening he came to the Dáil restaurant he was with Mr. Smyth.

4469. It is on record from Mr. Clarke’s evidence that the complaint was made in the Department that you or Senator Comyn did make that statement, and I think it arises from the conversation in the Dáil restaurant?—I am getting somewhat mixed in the dates. I wrote that letter on 25th April. I had seen them several times, but I cannot say how often. Subsequent to writing the letter I showed it to them all. We were always meeting. It was before the arrival of Mr. Harrison. The meeting in the Dáil restaurant at which we had this bit of a tiff was certainly after we had the disturbance with Mr. Harrison and Mr. Heiser on 24th May, but I had seen Mr. Summerfield when I attended a meeting of the Motor Traders’ Society, at which Mr. Summerfield was present. He and some other gentlemen came over here and had a drink and we chatted about business. Summerfield more or less related his experiences of finding gold and his opinion of Heiser, who was going to make pots of money out of this, and convincing some of the hard headed motor men who were rather suspicious of talk about making gold mining pay that the thing was a good proposition. I had several meetings with Mr. Summerfield either with Mr. Smyth and Mr. Heiser or some of his other friends.

4470. I asked you a while ago was it entirely a business meeting or a semi-social meeting, because I could imagine you saying that as a joke—“You lads are only wasting your time; we have control of the whole mineral rights of Ireland.” You do not think you made a joke of that kind? —I may have said in the course of the conversation—I would not like to dispute that I did say it—that I thought they were very foolish in trying to get control of all the mining rights of the whole of Ireland when the Department knew they had this deal with us and probably might want them to prove themselves and get on with the deal they were on. I may have said that, but I cannot imagine myself being so foolish as to say I controlled all the mining rights of the whole of Ireland.

4471. To you, that would seem to be a foolish statement?—Yes.

4472. Would it not seem a foolish thing for one of them—a man of experience, for years and years, of the Civil Service—to go and make that complaint to the Department?—When I gave them the letter to read, they probably put an interpretation on it I had not intended. I gave them the letter to read. It was on the occasion of the offer to us to join with them in a syndicate for acquiring all leases, which offer we refused, and it was about the time they had registered their Irish Prospectors, Limited. I deny that I ever said anything which would suggest that they could not get leases without our sanction.

4473. I am curious to find out what on earth is behind the complaint. You agree that Mr. Smyth could easily find out from the Department the information he required by a telephone message?—He had been a civil servant in that very Department and had recently come out on pension.

4474. Mr. Smyth would know that unless it took documentary form no such arrangement could have any effect?—He would be bound to know that.

4475. He would know that an understanding with the Minister or with any officer of the Department would not be of any value?—It would be absolutely without value and he would know that from his long experience of the Department.

4476. Can you see any sense in a responsible man making such a complaint to the Department?—I cannot. I should be long sorry to be accused of making such complaint myself.

4477. Deputy Dowdall.—With regard to the £17,000,000 worth of gold supposed to be down there, in your sub-lease I presume that would refer to three townlands and not nine?—I cannot say. I imagine from the prospectus it would be nine.

4478. The Chairman asked you about giving an opportunity to Irish nationals to invest in this undertaking. Do you think that if the Government seriously thought that there was anything like £17,000,000 of gold within a comparatively limited area which could be mined to produce 41 per cent. they would be disinclined to grant a licence to those people without observing fully the terms of the Control of Manufactures Act? If they were looking to the interests of Saorstát citizens, you think they would not do that?—That is so.

4479. You told Deputy Costello that, notwithstanding the feeling of comfort you got between the 17th and 24th of May, you went to Messrs. Cox. I presume you went there to get them to look after your interests in a proper, legal way so that you would not get into pitfalls while dealing with these people?—There were several reasons. Mr. Heiser had not carried out the undertaking he had with us. I was not quite clear where we were as regards the legal interpretation of our document —whether it was completely finished on the 13th or not. We had also the bond to consider. We wanted to see where we were in regard to that. Since I was here the other day I have had a legal document. It is a lawyer’s opinion on the whole thing and it is a voluminous document. I do not know the contents of the whole of it, but it does say that, before we took any action in connection with the subject matter of the inquiry, it would be proper to bring the matter to the notice of the Committee because, otherwise, it might be held to be contempt of the Dáil. That is the view held by this legal gentleman. It is quite a long legal document and it deals with every section of the agreement we made. 4480. The Chairman was anxious that this 41 per cent. gold mine should be in the hands of nationals. Do you think that the Irish people would invest their money in it?—At present, I think they would as a result of this inquiry, because the opinion is that there must be something in Wicklow otherwise there would not be so many trying to double-cross Briscoe and Comyn.

4481. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—It has been suggested that, broadly speaking, you had to be sued in respect of all the things you owed or contracted to pay. In two cases solicitor’s letters had to be written to you —one in relation to the boring and one in connection with Mr. Norman. Did I gather from you that your impression of your arrangement with the Boring Company was that they should bore and tube and be in a position to deliver to you samples of all the levels of that quarry? —That is so. That is clear from their own quotation.

4482. In fact, the methods of boring carried out did not enable you to get that information?—No.

4483. Therefore, am I to take it that the delay in paying the boring account was a delay in respect of a disputed account? —It was more than that. On telephone conversations, they told us they were prepared to meet us. They want us to let them do other borings and they were prepared to give us credit in respect of these borings. my attitude was that, in view of the fact that we would never have any knowledge of their failure to carry out their contract but for what had happened, I did not want to have anything more to do with them. My attitude was that I did not want to pay them. It was due to Senator Comyn’s pressure on me that they were paid. I think he paid them and I paid him my share afterwards.

4484. The delay was not due to lack of funds or to unwillingness to pay legitimate debts, but was because you contended that the contract entered into had not been carried out?—In this particular case, yes.

4485. In relation to the £25 which Mr. Norman eventually agreed to take for his rights and interests in this matter, we have been told that solicitor’s letters had to be written to get that money out of you?—Yes.

4486. Will you explain the circumstances in that regard?—The circumstances were that he was anxious to start himself in another business, and was anxious to get money. I had given a sort of promise or agreement that I would pay him £25. Senator Comyn refused and said that if there was anything in it let him get somebody else to buy him out and let that person come in and pay his third share of whatever would have to be spent. He said: “I do not agree,” and left it at that. I did not send the £25 to him, as Senator Comyn was not at all satisfied he was entitled to anything and we had only the application in. I was moved by the feeling that I should try to assist the young fellow. I knew he had put something into it and I thought that the £25 would not kill us. He then sent the letter along. There are other circumstances which I do not want to bring up here.

4487. Domestic circumstances?—Yes.

4488. The only other point is that you or some of your associates at some time wrote a letter to young Norman suggesting that you were now throwing up this venture and asking him what he would take to get out under these circumstances. Is there any truth in that suggestion?—Absolutely none.

4489. I leave out the question of writing. Could that have been done by spoken word?—Absolutely no.

4490. I leave yourself out. Is there, to your knowledge, any possibility that either you or any of your associates could have done that either verbally or in writing?—Not to my knowledge.

4491. Deputy Moore.—Deputy Costello asked you as to the date on which Mr. Summerfield was interested, so far as you knew, and you said 1932?—I should have said 1929, 1930 and 1931, when these previous people made application for mining rights to the last Government.

4492. It may have been as far back as 1928 or 1929?—Yes.

4493. Deputy Coburn.—You said in answer to Deputy Costello that you spent a considerable time prospecting in Wicklow previous to your being granted the take-note?—Yes.

4494. When further questioned by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney as to the amount of money you spent, I think you put a certain amount upon the services rendered by yourself?—No. I put a certain value upon the out-of-pocket expenses.

4495. You said you worked down there?—I never charged anything for what I did down there.

4496. You did work?—Yes.

4497. And you made a return?—Yes.

4498. You set a certain value on that work, including out of pocket expenses? —No, I did not set a value on the work.

4499. You went down there with a hammer?—Yes.

4500. And a pick and shovel. Would you mind telling the Committee the type of hammer you had?—I do not think the Deputy would recognise a miner’s hammer if he saw it.

4501. Do not trouble about what the Deputy would recognise. The Deputy knows a good deal about hard work and you cannot add to his knowledge in that respect. What type of hammer had you? —There are various types of hammer, including a miner’s hammer.

4502. Was it a heavy hammer or a light hammer, to what use did you put the hammer and what were the results of such usage?—A miner’s hammer is different from an ordinary hammer for hammering nails. It is long and pointed and it is like an upholsterer’s hammer except that it is square at the bottom and you knock off crags with one side and pieces of ore and split them with the other side if you want to break them.

4503. You said you had a pick and shovel?—I never used the word “shovel.”

Deputy Coburn.—We will say pick. If you know anything about your work you know that you can do very little with a pick if you have not a shovel.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Might I again suggest that Deputy Coburn be sworn?

Deputy Coburn.—I am asking the question, because of the fact that Deputy Briscoe made a certain return, in which he gave me, at least, the impression that he set certain value on services rendered in that locality. On being questioned by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney the ordinary man in the street would take it that all the work was done after the take-note was granted, but, on his own evidence, most of it was done before the lease was issued at all; and therefore it was a wrong return to send to the Department, which would give the impression that all these expenses were incurred subsequent to the granting of the lease. I am asking the question about the pick and hammer with a view to finding out what work the Deputy did. I claim the indulgence of the members of the Committee in this. When questioned closely by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney as to your failure in carrying out one of the conditions governing the issue of the prospecting lease, namely, the employment of four able-bodied men, you immediately—if I can memorise your evidence—said Senator Comyn and yourself went down there. Norman was there and some other man named Tom Keogh. He was called Pat before that, but I think the correct name is Tom. You gave the impression that there were four able-bodied men, and that you were able to do the work of the four before that.

Chairman.—You are summarising Deputy Briscoe’s evidence. I would prefer if you kept to the original intention to ask questions.

Deputy Coburn.—Deputy Briscoe has elaborated most of his answers to questions put by Deputy Costello.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—He is a witness.

4504. Deputy Coburn.—What type of work did you do with the pick?—I did not on any occasion suggest that I was putting a value on my physical labour. I have answered that question twice, but Deputy Coburn does not seem to want to accept the answer.

4505. Chairman.—I think Deputy Coburn is referring to the fact that in the return you put in covering the period to the granting of the lease, it was stated that 80 days had been spent on prospecting work?—Subsequent to the granting of the lease.

4506. And that the sum involved was £100?—Quite so.

Deputy Coburn.—Deputy Briscoe knows my question very well.

Deputy Traynor.—Might I suggest, in view of the line Deputy Coburn is adopting, that he should refer to the Minutes of evidence, in which every one of these questions is numbered. I think that particular question is No. 3716.

Deputy Coburn.—I have a fairly good memory. Possibly Deputy Traynor’s memory is not so keen. Possibly he was not paying as much attention to the evidence.

Deputy Traynor.—The only sugestion I am making is that you should give the question explicitly from the notes. What you are doing at present is suggesting evidence that the witness claims he did not give. It will expedite matters if reference to a particular point in the evidence is made from the notes.

Deputy Coburn.—Are you aware of the fact that Deputy Briscoe did make statements without reference to the notes?

Chairman.—Deputy Briscoe is a witness.

4507. Deputy Coburn.—What were you doing with the pick?—I have used a pick in other places besides down there.

4508. Down where?—I have used a pick in other places besides down in Wicklow.

4509. I am trying to get information as to the amount of work you did while down there in the week-ends. Did you wear an ordinary suit of clothes, such as you are wearing now, or did you put on a suit of dungarees?—No.

4510. As a man of commonsense, do you think a man, unless he is fitted for such work, could get through an amount of work equal to the value that you set on it when you made the return to the Department?—I have stated—and I do not think I should be asked to repeat it—that I put no value on my physical labour.

4511. You agree that you did not employ four able-bodied men?—I agree.

4512. You went down at week-ends and worked there?—Week-ends also.

4513. To prospect for gold?—And other minerals.

4514. And you did not even employ—as a professional golfer would—a caddie, to carry the hammer and pick?—Indeed I did. I do not know what analogy this is supposed to have. I travelled in motor cars long distances and got out and walked across fields and crossed rivers. Occasionally I came to rock either in the river or above the river on the rising mountain, and I would use the pick by knocking a bit off it or getting a big junk of it. If it was outcrop on the surface and I wanted a small piece I could knock off a piece according to the grain or vein in the rock.

4515. You did that yourself?—No. I said that Norman was prospecting for a bit in the same way. Senator Comyn is particularly able in that way. We had other people down, and occasionally local people, to whom we might give a few hours’ work.

4516. The underlying motives in regard to the whole question of prospecting for gold was the formation of a company that was to give employment. That was the great motive behind the minds of Senator Comyn and yourself?—Yes.

4517. You have not given it?—I have given some.

4518. I suggest that if you went down at week-ends and took the hammer with the narrow head, and the pick, you did the work yourself and employed nobody? —I have not said that.

4519. You spent no money, but still you made a return and set a certain value on the work done during the week-ends?—Can I have no protection from this? The Deputy is persistently misrepresenting statements that I made. I deny absolutely that I, at any time ever set a value on my physical services. If the Deputy does not want to understand—or possibly if he cannot understand—I wish he would cease from persisting in making such statements.

4520. I do not want to fall out with you. We are fairly good friends. I want to put it to you this way: Is it not a fact, on the evidence of Senator Comyn, that when you went there in the first instance you had 40 or 50 labourers around you, the natural assumption of these men being that there was going to be work in the mine or in prospecting for gold? We know what was said and I am only asking questions?—When Senator Comyn spoke to the miners it was not in relation to gold.

4521. Did the 40 or 50 men assemble in some secret way, or was an S.O.S. sent out?—They all live around the place. They are unemployed miners, who had been working in the copper, ochre or sulphur mines, comparatively recently, and naturally they were interested.

4522. And you never gave one day’s work?—That is not true.

4523. On the 80 occasions you went down you never employed one of them? —Not on this occasion.

4524. I understood you to say that you met Mr. Heiser some time about March?—Yes.

4525. And I understood you to say that in the main you agree with the evidence of Senator Comyn, where he said he was absolutely against the formation of a public company?—Yes.

4526. Am I correct there?—Yes.

4527. When did you first communicate to Deputy Dan Breen that you were interested in a gold mine?—I think Dan Breen had knowledge of my interest in the gold mine from the very beginning.

4528. Previous to meeting Heiser?— Oh, Yes, long before that.

4529. And the formation of the £80,000 company?—Yes.

4530. Will you explain how you can reconcile your antipathy to the formation of a public company with your action in asking Mr. Breen to interest himself and his friends in raising money?—You can raise money for a private company as well. You do not interest your friends in the raising of money for a public Company. You interest your friends in raising money for private companies, and you interest the public in raising money for public companies.

4531. After all, you were very suspicious of Mr. Heiser?—I was at a certain period.

4532. You gave it as your opinion on April 25th in a letter to the Department that the reason you were against the formation of a public company was that the work you were about to engage in was of a highly speculative nature. That was when you asked Mr. Breen and through him Mr. D’Arcy to raise money? —Yes.

4533. So that that thought was uppermost in your mind?—The whole purpose of meeting Mr. D’Arcy was that he was to get an expert to examine the situation and to be satisfied, whether or not there was anything there worth examining.

4534. You heard Mr. D’Arcy’s evidence that he was only interested in the thing from the point of view of safeguarding Mr. Breen’s interests?—He did not say that. He said that subsequent to Mr. Heiser’s arrival his interest became only that of solicitor and client.

4535. The fact remains, according to Mr. D’Arcy, that his interest in the thing was mainly on behalf of Mr. Breen. Naturally, he was anxious as a solicitor faithfully to discharge his duty and to safeguard the interests of his client. You will agree that he did the right thing?— I do not agree with your view at all.

4536. What?—I do not agree with what you are saying.

4537. That is the essence of Mr. D’Arcy’s evidence?—That is your interpretation of it.

4538. And your interpretation was that Mr. D’Arcy—to use your words—was to get the services of an eminent engineer before he would consent to allow any money belonging to his client to be invested in a private or in a public company?—Just the same as Mr. Dunn said he was doing for his principals.

4539. According to Mr. D’Arcy’s evidence the impression was that he was acting on his own?—I think Senator Comyn made that clear. It was Mr. D’Arcy’s friends approached most of us with a view to getting some one to interest themselves in the matter. It was borne out in Mr. D’Arcy’s evidence that he was prepared to go and that he actually did go to see if he could get information, possibly from an expert, who would come here and examine the proposition, and that if the examination proved satisfactory he was then in touch with others. It was for services Dan Breen got an interest with us.

4540. It was conditional on Dan Breen doing certain things that you, in a very generous way, offered him half your share?—I did not offer it. He asked for it and I agreed to give it.

4541. At any rate, it was a generous offer?—It was not an offer. Dan Breen asked me, and I may say that he did it very ingeniously. He approached Senator Comyn and myself separately. He asked for 50 per cent. and I agreed to give it. subsequently, I discovered that the other gentleman had given less.

Chairman.—On the last day, it will be remembered, we agreed to conclude this examination by 6 o’clock. I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is now that hour.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I think that we ought to finish with this gentleman.

Chairman.—That was the agreement, anyway. I take it that there are no further questions to be asked Deputy Briscoe. That concludes Deputy Briscoe’s evidence. The committee will meet to-morow at 11 a.m. for the purpose of taking Mr. Norman and Mr. Summerfield. Can we get some arrangement as to how long we will sit to-morrow and when our subsequent meetings will take place. Deputy Costello is anxious to get some understanding on this matter. Can we finish with those two witnesses by 1 o’clock to-morrow?

Deputy Costello.—I think so.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Yes; I think we could.

Chairman.—Well, what other witnesses should we call?

Deputy Moore.—I think we should discuss that matter in private.

Deputy Costello.—Why?

Deputy Moore.—For very good reasons.

Deputy Costello.—Mention one. I am quite prepared to agree with Deputy Moore if he will even give me one good reason why.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Well, he might desire not to bring a name into public notice in a matter which, on consideration, he might not desire to pursue.

Deputy Costello.—Oh, I do not mind at all.

Deputy Moore.—For instance, if Deputy Costello proposes a certain witness and suggests that that witness be heard, I do not think it would be desirable to have it reported in the newspapers if it was decided afterwards not to call the witness, and I do not know why Deputy Costello should think it desirable.

Deputy Costello.—I am not opposing your proposal at all Deputy. It is only that I want to know.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—When do you propose we should consider what witnesses we should summon?

Deputy Moore.—I think now.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I quite agree, and I presume the Committee resolves itself into private session now for the consideration of that matter.

The Committee went into private session.