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 Céadaoin, 2adh Deire Fómhair, 1935.

Wednesday, 2nd October, 1935.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

4542. Chairman.—I have a letter here from the Secretary, Department of Industry and Commerce, addressed to the Committee, in which he says:

“I send you herewith 11 copies of Departmental minutes and certain other documents which might be regarded as relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry referred to your Committee. They are enclosed in jackets marked —‘Confidential: Supplementary Papers’ and are taken from Departmental files T.I.M. 195/22A, T.I.M. 195/223 and 195/139. These documents fall within the category referred to in paragraph 2 of my minute of 10th July and are sent to you subject to the reservation already made in respect of documents in that category.

“I also send you copies of other documents from the same Departmental files. They are in jackets marked ‘Supplementary Papers: Public’ and are not subject to the reservation referred to above.”

Those documents are here. The public documents can be circulated to the members of the Committee, and the confidential documents treated in accordance with previous arrangements. I take it that is generally accepted.

Mr. F. M. Summerfield sworn and examined.

4543. Chairman.—Your name has been mentioned in the course of this inquiry, and an impression seems to have been conveyed that you are a member of the Risberget Company. Is that so?

Witness.—Mr. Chairman, I have come here purposely to give you all the help I can, but, before I start on such evidence as I have got, might I ask whether all the proceedings of this Committee are privileged?

Chairman.—Yes.

Witness.—In that event, I want to preface my remarks with a very strong protest against the wild and reckless way in which Senator Comyn referred to me in the course of his evidence. I occupy a fairly prominent position in the city. I am a member of various religious, business, sporting and social bodies, and the men who have known me for 25 years have thought enough of me to make me president, captain, or chairman, as the case may be, of those bodies. Here is a man who only met me twice, and he uses such wild and reckless language that he has no hesitation in trying to defame my character before the public in the widespread manner in which publicity is given to the proceedings here. I find it hard to keep cool. I have nothing to hide in this matter. I am only too anxious to give you any help I can, but I think it is outrageous that a man in the public position of Senator Comyn should think so little of his language as to refer to any man, and particularly myself, in the way he did. He cannot be excused through his lame and belated apology. It is not an apology. As printed, it is merely a tame expression of sorrow. He cannot do those things and get away with it. If the proceedings were not privileged, I would take other action. This is the only action I can take, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity. I felt that I was entitled to defend my good name and my honour, and I have done it. I am glad to feel that I have the respect and confidence of people whose opinion I value far more highly than Senator Comyn’s. If I may, I think, perhaps, it would be of more help to you if I gave a little summary of my connection with this business.

4544. Just answer that question I put to you first. Are you a member of Risberget?—I have shares, but I am not a director or anything like that. Heiser was introduced to me in the year 1930. Shortly afterwards I gave him a cheque for £100, the use of my office, men and cars. This went on for a couple of years, during which time we made various applications to the then Government for leases. We had frequent interviews with various officials, and very lengthy correspondence. Despairing of getting leases because there was then no Mines and Minerals Act, Heiser went to America at the end of 1930, and was there until January of the present year, when he returned to London and Dublin. He returned here full of enthusiasm that now, at last, we could get leases, and that he had all the financial backing necessary, but having discovered that Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe were in possession of a lease, and because of the delays in getting those we applied for ourselves, he—Heiser—suggested that he should make contact with Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe, and endeavour to get a sub-lease of their lease. I was dead against that, but yielding to his pressure, I went with him and saw Mr. Briscoe, and there was a preliminary discussion on the matter. With regard to the agreement that was subsequently entered into, this was accomplished before I knew anything about it; so much so that the day after Heiser had entered into it I went with him to the Dáil, and there met Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe, and told them in very emphatic language my opinion of the terms of that agreement. During the conversation the question of a bond for £500 was mentioned, and Mr. Briscoe said that he would take my personal bond for that amount, but I flatly refused to give it. I personally never accepted any responsibility for that agreement, with the terms of which I so definitely disagreed. During the ensuing weeks, Heiser got more and more anxious, because he felt that until Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe furnished him with a letter from Mr. Lemass agreeing to the sub-lease, it was of no real use to him, and in that view I agreed. There was a second interview at the Dáil, at which Messrs. Comyn, Briscoe, Smyth and myself were present, and we were joined by Dan Breen and Seán Hayes. At that meeting I again gave my views on the agreement, but at no time did I say to Mr. Comyn the things that he alleges I said, to the effect that he would hear more about it; in other words, I made no threats. Senator Comyn paraphrased some of my remarks at those interviews. and tried to get me to agree that those altered sentences were what I had said. Needless to say, I refused to accept any responsibility except for the things I said in my own words. So much was I against having anything to do with this lease of Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe, that I, with Mr. Smyth, Mr. Nunan and Mr. Heiser. formed a little company to cover our own applications for other leases, and my own belief is that Heiser made the agreement he did with Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe not because he wanted that particular lease, but because he felt that, unless he could quickly get some lease, his financial colleagues would get tired of the repeated delays and lose interest in the entire proposition. During this year I met Mr. Harrison, and also a Mr. Matthews, in each case at the suggestion of Mr. Heiser, and I certainly understood that these two gentlemen were some of the financial associates of his that he so often spoke about. During the evidence you have had already from Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe my name has been used in connection with a statement that no leases could be got except through Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe. I wish to state clearly on oath that I did not make that statement, but Heiser came into my office so often declaring that it had been made, and was hampering him with his associates, that I on two occasions drove him and other people up to Lord Edward Street to hear first hand from Government officials that such preferential treatment would not happen. I merely state the plain fact when I say that at all times I ridiculed the idea that the Government would show favouritism in this way. It is necessary to make it clear, too. that I had nothing to do with the initiation of these proceedings. or the setting up of this Committee, nor have I had at any time up to the present moment anything to do with a single person connected with this inquiry. That is a rough summary of my position in the matter. and I am only too glad to answer questions from either side, because I have no sides in this matter at all.

4545. Chairman.—Can you say, Mr. Summerfield, whether in the contemplated flotation of this company to be known as Wicklow Gold Fields Ltd., there was a proposal to hand over either to Heiser personally or to the Risberget Company a cash and share consideration for whatever interest they were deemed to have held in this mining deposit in Wicklow?—If I give you my word, as I am on oath, that I knew nothing about that suggestion until I saw it in the evidence, I think you will accept it. I had nothing to do with the Wicklow Gold Fields proposition. Heiser did come to me with a very rough draft, and I personally tore that proposed draft to bits. I did not take it seriously at the time. And I understood from him that it was merely a very rough draft and not for publication in any way. I had nothing to do with its provisions and knew nothing about the £10,000 referred to.

4546. You are acquainted with the agreement entered into between Senator Comyn, Deputy Briscoe, and Mr. Heiser? —Yes. But my feeling was that it was never serious because it was conditional upon the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to be operative, and that was never got.

4547. We can deal with that in a moment. If he signed the agreement Mr. Heiser would have signed on behalf of himself and the Risberget Company?— On behalf of the Risberget Company, but I was only a shareholder.

4548. I am referring to Mr. Heiser in his particular capacity. In what capacity did Mr. Heiser sign that agreement?—On behalf of Risberget Company.

4549. And if acting, officially, on behalf of the Risberget Company his signature indicated that he was prepared to raise this £80,000?—Yes.

4550. And if acting officially Risberget Company would be required to raise that money?—Yes.

4551. Subsequently it was stated Mr. Heiser went to London, and there established contact with Mr. Harrison, a solicitor. The next thing we hear is that he arrived in Dublin with Mr. Harrison, or that he arrived in Dublin when Mr. Harrison was here, and he is reputed to have stated that he was engaged in the flotation of company for £250,000. If that proposal matured, according to the proof prospectus that we have seen, Mr. Heiser, again acting on behalf of the Risberget Company, was to secure, as a purchase consideration of whatever rights he had, a sum of £10,000 in cash, and a very substantial allocation of £52,000 in shares. Were you. aware that Mr. Heiser. the reputed Managing Director of the Risberget Company, was so acting?—I was not.

4552. Did you hope to gain anything from the subsequent negotiations of Mr. Heiser?—My attitude was somewhat the same as a man who invested a couple of hundred pounds in sweep tickets. I did not take it very seriously. Mr. Heiser made many statements and I think he was authenticated. He showed me about £8,000 in gold.

4553. Not mined in Wicklow?—No. American ten dollar pieces. He carried them about with him for weeks. It was fine opportunity for a hold-up. I never doubted Mr. Heiser and I do not doubt him now. If we had got our lease I would take some active part to see that Mr. Heiser carried out the various promises he made to me. But until we got the lease I would take no active part.

4554. You were not only not a party to the agreement entered into about the lease, but you opposed it?—I did, strongly.

4555. And if it was alleged that you were one of the people who were to put up the £80,000 it would be incorrect?— Yes, except in so far as I was a shareholder in Risberget, but otherwise not. I opposed this from the very outset.

4556. Any liability that devolved upon you in respect to the agreement was only in so far as you were committed as a shareholder in the company?—Yes, definitely.

4557. Did you propose at any time to raise any supplementary cash, other than what you held as a shareholder, for the purpose of financing this company?— No. I have had voluminous correspondence with Mr. Heiser in which he stated he would find the money and I met Sir Harry Brittain and other people prominent with Mr. Heiser and they certainly did not repudiate the statement that they were taking up this matter. I had an interview with Mr. Dick-Larkam, with Mr. Melkman, Mr. Maurice Arram, Mr. H. Campbell Lee and Sir Harry Brittain.

4558. Was he a Director?—He did not deny he was one of the Directors.

4559. Who were the other Directors?— Mr. Dick-Larkam, Mr. Heiser, Mr. Melkman and Mr. Maurice Arram, LL.B.

4560. It was suggested by Deputy Briscoe in evidence that when he was negotiating with Mr. Heiser for an exploitation of the mining deposits he held with Senator Comyn, he had reason to believe that a fair amount of the capital of £80,000, to be raised for the exploiting of the mine, might, in fact, be raised in Ireland because of the fact that you were interested and Mr. Smyth and perhaps Mr. McGrath and Mr. Duggan were interested?—I want first of all to say in reply to that, that Messrs. McGrath and Duggan had no interest in it since 1930. They held some little interest in it up to that but then they definitely went out. With regard to the rest of the statement I say that if Mr. Heiser had got gold, and had proved that gold was there in quantities, no man in this room will doubt that the money would be forthcoming. That was my attitude all through. My attitude was; get the lease, give Mr. Heiser an opportunity of proving himself to be the mining engineer that he says he is, and there is no doubt about the financing of the project.

4561. So that, so far as you are concerned, Mr. Heiser signed this agreement as managing director of the company of which you are a shareholder, and your interest was limited to whatever sum you held as a shareholder. You were not a pioneer in the sense of one exploiting this concession in any way?—Yes. The night after I heard the agreement was an accomplished fact, Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe met Mr. Heiser and myself, in the refreshment rooms here, and not only did I denounce the terms of the agreement, but I said it would never be agreed to by any business man, and I characterised Mr. Heiser as an ass for having entered into it. That was the attitude I took up. I said that after the agreement was signed and that is my attitude still.

4562. If Mr. Heiser was taking steps to secure this £80,000, and let us assume he was moving in that direction, what was your attitude about the agreement?—I never regarded the agreement as worth the paper it was written upon. It had not been signed by Mr. Lemass.

4563. You were sceptical about getting the concession?—Yes.

4564. Why?—Because I was hoping the Minister would never transfer a lease of that kind and that we would get our own lease.

4565. But if Mr. Heiser succeeded in raising the £80,000, presumably it would be raised for the Risberget Company, and if the mine was as valuable as Mr. Dunn reported, the capital would yield 41½ per cent. per annum?—In connection with that matter, I telephoned to Risberget Company yesterday, and here is a letter I received this morning from Mr. Heiser.

4566. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Where from?— From the headquarters of the Risberget Company, London. It reads as follows:—

October 1, 1935:

I hope that this letter may act as a reply to your telephone message of this morning. We have read the evidence as given by Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe in the Select Committee and, owing to the many untrue statements which they gave, we feel it our duty to acquaint you with the following information, in view of your taking the stand tomorrow.

Apart from the minor mis-statements we have read, there are some of such significance that they must be refuted. It is obviously absurd that £17,000,000 of gold could be in Mr. Comyn’s and Mr. Briscoe’s lease. At this figure the gravel would be worth £17 a cubic yard. and we would point out that Mr. Heiser’s estimate was 6d. per cubic yard, and Professor Dunn did not report at all on this lease. Further, we wish to mention that the public company agreed to by Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe was to have a paid-up capital of not less than £80,000 with a total capital of £200,000, which company was to include all the properties for which Mr. Heiser had applied, including Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe’s, and the rights to the use of the saving process. There was, incidentally, never any suggestion of a private company. The draft prospectus which was produced recently at the inquiry was prepared by the close co-operation of Mr. Heiser and Mr. Harrison, and it is consequently foolish for anyone to suggest that they were not on speaking terms.

Mr. Harrison and other gentlemen are making arrangements in connection with our gold leases in Northern Ireland, and it is impossible for us to divulge confidential information at this stage. We can assure you, however, that, although these leases comprise an area of over 700 square miles, the rent, labour conditions and royalty are less than those of the lease of Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe.

4567. Deputy Moore.—Is that letter signed by Mr. Heiser?—Yes, it is signed with his usual signature—“Maurice.”

4568. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—You are satisfied that it is his signature—Oh, yes.

4569. Chairman.—When Mr. Heiser was taking steps to acquire this £80,000, is it your evidence that you had no interest in his activities?—Yes; until we had something tangible, I felt that we were simply wasting our time.

4570. Apparently, instead of raising the £80,000 Mr. Heiser proceeded to go very much further. and he next appears in connection with the project to raise capital to the extent of £250,000?—So I see in the draft mentioned.

4571. Is it your evidence that you knew nothing whatever about his activities in that connection?—Definitely, yes.

4572. In this project for raising £250,000, Heiser and the Risberget company were to get a substantial amount in cash and also in share allocation?—Yes.

4573. Did Mr. Heiser tell you he had any interest in this matter or that the Risberget Company were likely to come into substantial funds if this materialised?—No. Here is a copy of my letter to Risberget Company, dated 29th June and a copy of their reply in connection with the matter that you question me about now. I wrote to the Secretary of Risberget on the 29th of June:

“Your letter of the 27th instant only arrived here this morning, and I understand that Mr. Harrison was in Dublin for some days, but has now gone back. Like Mr. Owen, he made no attempt to get in touch with either Mr. Smyth or myself while he was here.

“Mr. Nunan advised me this morning that the Government Department had informed him that we shall get the Donegal lease first, and we are pressing hard to get this.

“By the way, I do not understand your reference to a new printed Prospectus, The Wicklow Goldfields Limited, and I must ask you to make sure that we shall be given an opportunity to see all documents in which our names are used (or that of Irish Prospectors, Limited) before they are printed or issued.

“This political ‘row’ over the Wicklow Goldmining leases has naturally delayed the issue of our own leases but I feel that we shall get them now before long.”

That is my letter to the Secretary of Risberget and here is his reply, dated July 5th:

“Dear Mr. Summerfield,

“Your letter of June 29th seems to indicate that there is still hope of getting a lease at an early date. I do not speak only for myself when I say that I am glad. The turn of events in Ireland during the past few weeks has given us a good deal of consternation here. We have given much time and money to this proposition, and it would be a tragedy if our wholehearted efforts should be baulked by political misunderstandings.

“I know we can trust you to use your influence in correcting misunderstandings and reassuring those who seem to distrust our intentions. So much depends on obtaining a lease and starting operations, I feel that once we are producing gold our troubles will be practically over.”

“Wicklow Goldfields, Limited, is solely concerned with the lease of Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe. Neither your name nor that of Irish Prospectors, Limited, will appear on the Prospectus, and of course you may rest assured that your names will not appear in print unless approved by you.

“I think Mr. Heiser may leave for Ireland to-morrow (Saturday). I myself hope to go over in the near future, and am looking forward to seeing you in Dublin.”

4574. Chairman.—Were you present when this agreement was signed by Mr. Heiser, Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe?—Frankly, I do not think I was; I cannot recall it. I do not think it is pertinent. I made my objection that I was helpless; it was an accomplished fact.

4575. I want to ascertain whether your understanding of that arrangement involved the flotation of a private or a public company. Was there at any time any advertence to the fact that Senator Comyn had an objection to a public company and wanted a private company floated?—I would not be very emphatic on that. In the course of the discussions so much was said about private companies and public companies, about £80,000 and other things, that a lot could be construed out of the conversations. They were certainly debated, both private companies and public companies, and I would not care to give an emphatic declaration on that.

4576. Did Senator Comyn at any time indicate his objection to the flotation of a public company?—He did, in so far as looking for money from Irish investors was concerned. But that was my attitude too. We were at one on that, whatever we might differ on in regard to other things. Neither of us would favour a move which would be in effect share pushing.

4577. But share pushing in a project of this kind, which according to Mr. Dunn, would yield 41½ per cent., would be quite a creditable activity?—In that connection you have Mr. Heiser’s letter in which he ridicules that Mr. Dunn stands over that. You have the letter in which he says that the statement that it would yield £17,000,000 was a myth, because in that case it would be worth £17 a cubic yard.

4578. But in the course of his report as set out in that prospectus, he said that on a capital investment of £250,000 this was capable of yielding a profit of 41½ per cent., after paying all incidentals, overheads. depreciation and other things?—I accept no responsibility for. that statement. I do not know anything about that.

4579. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—You have no personal knowledge which would lead you to believe that statement is true?—None. Frankly, speaking for Smyth and myself, we were waiting for Heiser to have an opportunity to prove himself. Whilst we did not doubt him, and whilst we believe he is a man of the utmost respectability as a mining engineer and quite strong financially, we have had no opportunity up to now to prove the accuracy of his opinions on this gold mining situation.

4580. Do you believe now that he is a reputable, sound, commercial business man whose word you would take?—Not a commercial business man. I believe him to be an excellent mining engineer and a man who talks rather loosely.

4581. Do you now believe that Mr. Heiser is straight?—That is a very hard question to answer. I do not doubt it, but that is another thing to saying I believe he is.

Deputy Geoghegan.—It is a difficult question for the witness to answer and personally I think Mr. Flinn ought not to press it.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I will not, but I will put it in another form later.

4582. Chairman.—May I take it that Mr. Heiser’s activities in connection with the raising of £80,000 and his subsequent activities about the £250,000 company were activities in which you were not keenly interested and in respect of them Heiser was acting on his own?—Yes, as far as I am concerned. I would have been keenly interested and would have taken a keen interest if there was a lease. I would have come in if I saw anything definite, anything in relation to which I would have a voice in the control. There was nothing in this whole matter that seemed to saddle me with any reason for going into it heavily. As regards the £80,000, I met Mr. Harrison, whose reputable standing has been vouched for by various witnesses, and he said that, granted the lease, he would underwrite the money. I had to accept that statement. I had no reason to doubt the money would be forthcoming if the requisite lease was there.

4583. Deputy Coburn.—Which lease? —A lease.

4584. Not the lease held by those people?—No, a lease.

4585. Chairman.—If Heiser had managed to float the Goldfields Limited, Risberget would have managed to inherit a substantial sum of money. In that case you would have been differently concerned in the matter?—If I felt that a flotation were not such as I could stand over I would have gone out of it.

4586. Had you doubts about the flotation?—It was news to me until early in July.

4587. Did it interest you?—No, I could not say it did, because there was nothing to base it on.

4588. In what respect was there nothing to base it on?—There was no lease.

4589. Assuming the lease could have been got, were you satisfied otherwise that the company had a bright future?— Not to that degree. I would not say that right now because I do not know. I got those specks of gold myself, but I cannot say of my own knowledge that gold is there to the extent that would warrant a flotation.

4590. Deputy Moore.—Have you ever been called to a shareholders’ meeting of Risberget?—No. I have met several of its members in London and they all seem to be in a fair way of business.

4591. You do not know what Sir Harry Brittain’s interest is?—No, except that we discussed this thing. Heiser brought me along as a person in Dublin endeavouring to get leases and Sir Harry Brittain showed a casual interest—the interest a man would show at breakfast time—in the thing and he did not disassociate himself from the project.

4592. Is he a big business man?—Except that he is a very wealthy man and the host of Royalty. That is all I know of him, whether that is in his favour or not.

4593. He is not a director of the company?—No, and I do not know what his financial interest is.

4594. Deputy Geoghegan.—You are yourself in business in Ireland in a considerable way. Those are mercantile projects. Most of your business is manufacturing and the mercantile business?—Yes.

4595. In regard to it you have a fair amount of personal knowledge as to the processes and the possibilities of the matter being a success. Are you concerned in any country in any mining adventure?—I know nothing about it.

4596. Have you any technical knowledge as a mining engineer?—Not the slightest.

4597. You have, of course, heard at various times of gold in Wicklow. There seems to be considerable historical evidence that gold was mined in paying quantities at one time in Wicklow?—Yes.

4598. Do I gather from your evidence that your knowledge of Mr. Heiser was only derived from introductory letters of some sort or introductory statements that you regarded as trustworthy?—Yes, and I took steps in 1930 to write to the head of the Publicity Department in Australia House, London. That was the very first contact I made with him. I got a satisfactory reply and subsequently I met various people in London who seem to be all right.

4599. I do not know what your experience was or whether your experience would lead you to think that there are many gentlemen connected with gold mining and tin and silver mining ventures all over the world who may be all right in their way but in regard to whom the ordinary investor is very cautious. You were anxious apparently to see something in the nature of a beginning made in the development of the Wicklow mine and the exploration of its possibilities?— Yes.

4600. And whatever the true qualifications of Mr. Heiser may be, did you see any very great objection from what you knew to taking advantage of his technical knowledge, such as it was, and of his monetary resources, such as they were, to put down plant in Wicklow?—Not at all.

4601. You did see from the point of view of good feeling and good taste and from your business standing an objection to making an appeal to investors in Ireland to give him money with which to make explorations?—There was this difference, he was guaranteeing the money from his own inner knowledge, which nobody else could share. A man knows a thing or he does not.

4602. You were prepared to see that subjected to the test of Heiser and any gentlemen associated with him putting their hands in their pockets?—Quite.

4603. But you did not hanker after an advertisement to the Irish public illustrated with certificates from this one, that one and the other one as to what it would pay?—No, I would not be a party to it at all.

4604. Deputy Dowdall.—In your preliminary statement you seemed to resent some attack or reflections cast on you by Senator Comyn. Senator Comyn, as a matter of fact, did not make an attack in his preliminary statement, in his evidence, until he was cross-examined, and it was under pressure of cross-examination that he simply mentioned the name. I do not think, if Senator Comyn had been left to himself he would have said anything at all about the names. In his preliminary evidence at all events he did not say it. Did you say that it was in 1931 that Mr. Heiser went away to America?—No, it was in 1930.

4605. He did not return until this year?—Yes, but I had voluminous correspondence with him all the time. There was nothing to come back about. He was mining in California.

4606. You say you had no connection with or responsibility for this inquiry in any way?—Yes, and I repeat that now; I had no responsibility for it.

4607. You had no communication either direct or indirect, personally or by letter, or through another party, with Deputy McGilligan?—You may take that as quite true, and I am only too glad to have the opportunity of saying it, because it has been rumoured all round the country that I initiated these proceedings. I can now repeat on solemn oath that I had nothing to do with initiating the inquiry.

4608. There was a statement made in the evidence of Deputy Briscoe or Senator Comyn that you said at one of those interviews in the Dáil restaurant; “All right, you will hear more about it.” Did you say that?—No, I did not, and I think Senator Comyn has taken a wrong construction about it. I did not say it. I do not say that the Senator said that out of malice, but he has got a quite wrong interpretation of the thing. I did not walk into the trap, and I knew that he was a man who would take advantage of a thing like that if I were to say it. I was on my guard against that sort of thing.

4609. Deputy Costello.—You know, of course, that Deputy Briscoe has stated that you were present when the agreement of the 12th March was signed?—I saw that, but I doubt it; but I would not make much point of that. If I disagreed with the agreement and Mr. Heiser agreed, my disagreement would be only an expression, for I could not stop it.

4610. I did not understand your statement here this morning, that on some subsequent occasion you disagreed with the agreement that had been made?—I thought I made it clear that the first I knew of the agreement was after it had been entered into; and when Mr. Heiser told me the terms of the agreement I went for him bald-headed. He asked me then to come along and to next Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe in the Dáil. I did so on the following night.

4611. Then if that is so you could not have been present when the agreement was signed?—I could not.

4612. If you disagreed with it when the agreement was signed you would then have expressed your disagreement?—I expressed my disagreement with it when I heard of it, and at the second interview when Mr. Smyth was present I expressed my disagreement.

4613. Deputy Briscoe also stated that you came to him and vouched for the character and resources of Mr. Heiser?— Well, there again it comes to a definition of the words. I do not know that I would vouch for him in that sense. Mr. Heiser had to be vouched for to me.

4614. Here is Deputy Briscoe’s evidence: “Mr. Summerfield told us he knew Mr. Heiser, and had long correspondence with him in connection with prospecting for gold in Wicklow, and he vouched for Mr. Heiser as being an honourable person whose words we could accept as regards the statements he was making about his finances”?—That is a very strong way to express it. I admitted I said I had known Mr. Heiser, but it is another thing to vouch for his honour and the truth of his statements.

4615. But that is what Deputy Briscoe said you did say?—Well, it is a pretty extravagant summing up of what I did say.

4616. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?—I do specifically.

4617. Then Deputy Briscoe went on, after making that statement as to what happened: “He further added that Mr. Duggan and Mr. McGrath were interested and that he actually represented these men. That is to say, Mr. Summerfield did. We then discussed the details of the agreement. Mr. Summerfield was present himself at the signing of the agreement.” Do you agree with that?—Well, that is all wrong, and it is a pity that the names of Mr. Duggan and Mr. McGrath were used in that way. Their names did not come up because they originally had a very small financial holding, but I certainly did not say I represented them because there was no occasion for doing so.

4618. In answer to a question you said you were merely a shareholder in Risberget?—That is so.

4619. What authority had Mr. Heiser to enter into an agreement on behalf of the Risberget Company?—Well he was assuming authority as Managing Director.

4620. Was he Managing Director of Risberget?—Yes.

4621. You say that this agreement was entered into by Mr. Heiser on behalf of the Risberget Company. That involved the Risberget Company in finding £80,000?—Well obviously if they were to carry out the terms of the agreement they would have to find the money or fall down on it.

4622. I understand that the evidence of Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn was to the effect that Mr. Heiser said he had the money available from Sir Harry Brittain, a Greek magnate and a financier?—Well so little was that true that at the first interview it was stated that no matter what money was subscribed they would get their £12,000 in shares.

4623. So it was quite clear that at the time they entered into that agreement Mr. Heiser did not have the £80,000?— He did not say in my presence, at all events, that he had, but he said he could get it.

4624. He gave you no impression that he could put his hands on the money? —No, and we took it that the Greek magnate, Sir Harry Brittain, and the other financiers would put up the money.

4625. Was the Greek magnate a member of the company?—No, he was one of those financial men who go in for these things.

4626. Sir Harry Brittain was not a member?—He was a member of Crusade Prospectors Limited.

4627. He was not a member of Risberget?—I do not know.

4628. These men who were putting up the £80,000, were not shareholders in Risberget?—Those who were to find the money were not members of Risberget.

4629. There was some suggestion that Crusade Prospectors Limited and Risberget were one and the same?—Well I have a letter here dated 18th September, 1930, in which I am advised that Crusade Prospectors Limited is merged in Risberget.

4630. So that in fact it is the same company?—It is certainly. They were merged on the 18th September, 1930.

4631. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Is the suggestion that Crusade Prospectors Limited was merged in Risberget or that the Risberget Company was merged in Crusade Prospectors?—I got it that Crusade Prospectors Limited was acquired by Risberget. On the 18th September 1930, they wrote to me saying that the Risberget Company have acquired certain business of Crusade Prospectors.

4631a. Was it the Crusade Prospectors Company that was submerged in the other?

4632. Deputy Costello.—Risberget survive anyway?—They did, and that was notified to the then Government.

4633. Was your attention directed to the evidence of Senator Comyn to the effect that Mr. Heiser asked him on some occasion subsequent to the making of the agreement of the 12th March, 1935, to alter that agreement to the name of Crusade Prospectors Limited? —I saw it in evidence and I rather resented the insinuation that that evidence conveyed.

4634. Senator Comyn suggested that there was something sinister in that request?—Yes and something worse than sinister. He stated that to the best of his belief Mr. Smyth whose name had been mentioned had no knowledge of it. The inference was that I had. I wish to take this opportunity of saying that I knew nothing of it.

4635. Senator Comyn also said that he advised you to consult a solicitor in the matter?—That is not so. He mentioned about a solicitor. This arose at the first interview in the Dáil when he asked me what my interest in the thing was and I told him that I had shares in Crusade Prospectors Ltd. He seemed to fasten on that then and he advised me in a fatherly way to have a solicitor to look after my interests. I told him that I was generally able to look after my own affairs without any solicitor.

4636. I asked Senator Comyn when he was giving evidence here: “What is the implication?” and his reply was: “Mr. Heiser at Woodenbridge asked us to alter the agreement so as to make it appear that he was acting not for Risberget but for Crusade Prospectors whom I understood were a group of people in Dublin. The effect of that would have been to take the benefit of the contract from the London people or whoever they were and to give it to another group. I said at the time that I did not think Heiser understood what he was doing, and I also said I did not think Mr. Summerfield knew of what Mr. Heiser had done. I wanted to give everybody fair play.” That was the statement made by Senator Comyn. What have you to say to it?— Well, that is definite—I did not know anything about it until I read of it in the evidence

4637. At all events if Crusade Prospectors had been merged in Risberget there could be no sinister meaning attached to adopting the name of Crusade Prospectors Limited?—There could not as far as I know.

4638. In Mr. Heiser’s letter that you read here this morning, I am only speaking from memory, am I right in saying that in that letter there was never a suggestion of a private company?—Mr. Heiser said that but I know that private and public companies were discussed freely.

4639. The expression “company” was used in the agreement?—Yes, and I always assumed that if you were looking for £80,000 that it was going to be a public company underwritten in London and not got from Irish subscribers.

4640. Your belief was that you would get the money in London and not from Irish subscribers?—I recollect going up to Lord Edward Street with Mr. Heiser to have him explain his proposed method of financing these things.

4641. Was that discussed on the basis of a public company?—Yes.

4642. Did you come across Mr. Dunn at all in connection with these transactions?—Yes, Mr. Dunn was in my office and he said the statement was made that there was no use in negotiating with us, that we would not get the lease, and I said that was ridiculous.

4643. Did you know on whose behalf Mr. Dunn was here?—On behalf of the money group in London.

4644. That is the people who were to put up the £80,000?—Yes.

4645. When did you come in touch with Mr. Harrison?—I think it was in May or June. I think we met here in the Gresham Hotel one morning at breakfast.

4646. According to the evidence, he was here on the 24th or 25th May?—Yes.

4647. Do you know on whose behalf he was acting?—The big financial interest and he gave assurances that it was all right, that the money would be all right.

4648. Can you recollect what day of the week was it, Sunday or Monday?—It was a week-day because after meeting him I continued on to my office.

4649. Could it have been Saturday morning?—I cannot say.

4650. It might have been Monday?—It could be any day of the week.

4651. Did you know at that time that he had been discussing this matter with Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe?— No, I do not think I had any knowledge of that.

4652. Did he tell you he had been discussing it with them?—No; but what he seemed to be very anxious about was— and he again did not speak very flatteringly of Heiser’s business acumen—was that he was here to discuss the financing of a something which was not tangible, that the agreement did not convey anything until it was made worth while by the Minister’s approval, and he spoke quite strongly about Heiser’s lack of business foresight in going as far as he did without something really concrete to go on.

4653. Did he give you the impression, or did he say, that he had been repudiated by Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe?—No, I do not recall anything like that.

4654. Did he send for you to meet him in the Gresham Hotel?—I do not think so; I have no recollection of anything like that at all. There was a lot of intrigue going on and a lot of meetings going on that I had nothing to do with. Heiser was out at Deputy Briscoe’s house and with Senator Comyn in the Vice-Chairman’s room in the Seanad. I knew of these things afterwards and I heard them talked about, but I was not a party to these things.

4655. You perhaps know that the evidence given here is that neither Senator Comyn nor Deputy Briscoe knew of Harrison until they got a definite message from the hall-porter in the Gresham Hotel to come down and see him?—I understood from Heiser that it was at his instigation Harrison came over to look into things on the spot. It was always conveyed to me that Harrison was Heiser’s financial nominee.

4656. That he was the man raising this £80,000?—Quite; and there is something pertinent here which has to go in before I finish, dated July 8th, from Harrison.

4657. What is it?—It is a letter written on July 8th by Messrs. McGrath and Son, Solicitors, Kildare Street, to Messrs. Briscoe and Comyn individually:

Dear Sir,

Mr. Heiser called to see us this morning and subsequently left with us a copy of a letter dated 5th inst., from

Messrs. Harrison and Sugden, solicitors, of Australia House, Strand, London, W.C.2., a copy of which we herewith enclose you. We think this letter is self-explanatory.

In view of the terms of this letter we would feel obliged if you would now proceed with the application for the leases in pursuance of Clause 2 of the contract of 12th March, 1935.

If there is any further information which you require, both ourselves and Mr. Heiser will be glad to assist you in any way possible. We would ask you to acknowledge receipt.

We are sending a carbon copy of this letter to Mr. Comyn, K.C.

The letter they enclosed was from Harrison to Heiser, dated 5th July:—

WICKLOW GOLDFIELDS.

PROPOSED PUBLIC ISSUE.

Dear Sir,

We have now had an opportunity of very carefully considering the reports of Mr. Dunn and Professor Holman in connection with this proposition with a view to your making a public issue in England, and also if you like at the same time in Ireland, for the development of these alluvial gold mining areas.

As matters stand at present, leases for only three townlands, areas of approximately 900 acres have been granted by the Free State Government to Messrs Comyn and Briscoe, but we understand that application has been made by them on your behalf for six other townlands adjoining the three townlands already covered by the lease.

From the reports of Mr. Dunn and Professor Holman, who are two eminent mining engineers, it is quite clear that their reports cover from a sedimentary point of view, the existence of alluvial gold, not only over the three townlands of approximately 900 acres, but over the much greater acreage included in the other six townlands, and it is imperative that you should see the Free State Government at once and, we take it, along with Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe, for the purpose of getting the Free State Government to grant these further leases for these six townlands, as it is quite impossible for us to expect our clients as underwriters in London, to consider dealing with an issue, for the acreage involved is limited at the present moment to approximately 900 acres, when, in fact, the Consulting Engineer’s reports cover a much greater acreage, amounting to approximately 2,800 acres.

We feel sure that notwithstanding the present Commission which has been set up to inquire into the granting of gold mining leases in Wicklow, the Free State Government will not allow themselves to be influenced in dealing with these additional leases which are so urgently required if a public issue is to be made and these areas developed without delay.

Yours faithfully,

Harrison and Sugden.

M. E. Heiser, Esq.,

39a Maddox Street,

Hanover Square, W.1.

4658. Deputy Geoghegan.—Would you mention the date of that again?—The letter from Harrison to Heiser was 5th July, and he handed it into McGrath’s of Dublin on July 8th. They wrote to Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe, and having had no reply on 12th July, they wrote again:—

Dear Sir,

You have not acknowledged receipt of our letter of the 8th instant, as requested. We would therefore feel obliged if you would now please write and state whether you have made application for the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the grant of the sub-lease, as provided for in Clause 1 of the contract of 12th March, 1935, and if so, whether such consent has yet been obtained.

We would also feel obliged if you would kindly inform us what steps (if any) you have taken for the completion of the lease of the six townlands in pursuance of Clause 2 of the said contract.

We understand you obtained a copy of a rough draft of a prospectus of Wicklow Goldfields, Limited, and we are instructed to inform you that the draft in question is inaccurate and contains many errors. It was not issued for publication or use, and no value can be placed on its wording in its present form. We mention this just for your own information.

We are sending Mr. Comyn a carbon copy of this letter.

I called into McGrath’s on my way to this meeting this morning to see the originals and to make sure that they are authentic, and the fact is that they have had no reply yet.

4659. Chairman.—How did you come into possession of these documents?—They were given to me by Heiser.

4660. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Have you read all that is in that file?—I have.

4661. Deputy Geoghegan.—I should have asked when did Heiser first come to Ireland, so far as you know?—It was about March, 1930. He was introduced to me by Mr. Joseph Donaghy, of Derry, in the Gresham Hotel.

4662. Did you at any time hear from Heiser who it was first interested him in Ireland?—No, but he seemed to take it from the historical references to which you yourself referred, and he had published a little booklet actually, “Gold Mining in Ireland.” It was printed and had a lovely green map of Ireland on the cover and all that sort of thing.

4663. Heiser had?—Yes, in August, 1930.

4664. Was that for private circulation or was it on sale at bookstalls and so on?—I could not answer that, but he gave me a copy. I have it in my desk in my office in Baggot Street but I do not know how it was distributed. I can give you the copy.

4665. I would be glad if you made it available?—I can send it over to the Chairman of the Commission, if I may.

4666. Deputy Costello.—You heard, of course, the statements made here that both Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe repudiated Harrison from the beginning? —I heard those statements.

4667. Do you think that was a correct statement?—I am anxious not to testify to anything I do not know. I do not know that I should express opinions. I am here to clear up my own position in the matter and I do not want to take sides.

4668. It is not a question of taking sides. I want to know from your knowledge of this entire transaction, and particularly from this letter of July 12th from McGrath & Sons to Deputy Briscoe, did you think that this proposal for a public company, a public issue of shares in this gold mine, had been dropped, say, on July 9th?—I do not think so. I think I am fairly safe in saying that they knew all about Harrison and his proposals.

4669. Deputy Briscoe said here in his evidence that the first time he saw this prospectus—I am speaking from recollection and I am open to correction if I am wrong—was somewhere towards the end of July-July 23rd or 24th? In this letter of July 12th which you have just read it is stated: “We understand that you obtained a copy of the rough draft of the prospectus”? —And at the time these letters were written they had actually a copy, so far as Heiser told me.

4670. Of this prospectus?—Yes.

4671. So that as far as you know this proposal to float a public company known as Wicklow Goldfields, Limited, was continuing on from the end of May when you saw Harrison until well on in July? —So it would appear now but it came as a surprise to me until I got that.

4672. Deputy Briscoe also said in his evidence that you at the interview in which you are alleged to have said “You will hear more about the matter” pressed Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn to agree to proposal that Heiser had made with Harrison?—I did no pressing in this matter. I would not have any responsibility for it from beginning to end.

4673. Your suggestion was that while Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe had repudiated this public company of a quarter million pound shares which Harrison on behalf of his people was proposing to float, you pressed them to go on with that transaction?—I have already read the correspondence from me to the Secretary of Risberget Limited, and his reply in which he told me that our names were not to be used at all in connection with it.

4674. The definite statement was made and I want your answer to it. The statement, as I took it down from Deputy Briscoe, was “Summerfield tried to press us to agree to a proposal that Heiser had made with Harrison and asked was it a case of our wanting a divide of their shares”?—I never suggested anything of the kind. That is a sheer fabrication.

4675. And that, on that occasion, he said we would hear more about it?— That again is an invention.

4676. It is not true?—It is certainly not true.

4677. He said “He also made complaints on other occasions about me without foundation”?—I made them?

4678. That is what Deputy Briscoe said yesterday?—I cannot understand it.

4679. Did you make such complaints?— Certainly not.

4680. In your opening statement, you referred to your interview with officials in Lord Edward Street about certain complaints that had been made that leases could not be got except through Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe?—I brought up the parties who were worried by those statements.

4681. Who was present when you made that complaint to the officials in Lord Edward Street?—E. J. Smyth, Heiser and Dunn were present on one occasion and Heiser and some other party whom I cannot recall now on another. There were three or four on each occasion. Heiser was present at each and Dunn was certainly there at one of the interviews and so was Smyth.

4682. Deputy Moore.—You yourself did not make any complaint of that kind?—No, and I have no hesitation in saying that I repudiate the suggestion.

4683. Deputy Costello.—I want to know if this would be a correct account of the interview that took place on the 2nd May, 1935, with Mr. Clarke:—“Messer. Smith, Heiser, Summerfield and Dunn were present at the interview. Mr. Summerfield opened the conversation saying that they were gravely perturbed by certain remarks by Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe made to Mr. Dunn and Mr. Heiser the previous evening. These remarks, according to Mr. Summerfield, were to the effect that Mr. Heiser and his associates were wasting time and money in buying maps and preparing applications for leases of four areas and 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.” Is that a correct account?—It is but it emphasises the point I have made. I did not make the statements; I introduced the people to whom the statements were made, but it is a true record of that meeting.

4684. It certainly says they were gravely perturbed by certain remarks made by the Senator and Deputy to Mr. Dunn and Mr. Heiser?—I got these statements from Mr. Dunn and Mr. Heiser.

4685. They were present at the interview?—Yes.

4686. Did they confirm your statements as to the complaints?—Yes. The statements were repudiated and it was for the purpose of getting them repudiated I took them there.

4687. The suggestions were repudiated by the officials?—They were—definitely.

4688. Was there another occasion on which you made this complaint?—Yes. Somebody was worried by these stories which I never believed.

4689. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Heiser made statements about this matter?—Yes, and said it was hampering them. Mr. Dunn was looking after big interests in London and he said it would be a waste of time to be staying here any longer if that was the situation.

4690. Deputy Moore.—Was it on your invitation Mr. Heiser came over to Dublin last spring?—I could not answer that definitely. Here is, perhaps, the best evidence—a letter from the Hotel Piccadilly, New York, from Mr. Heiser, dated February 20th, 1935:—

“Yours of January 7th at hand and note contents, for which I thank you. I am on the way to London for the purpose of bringing our minor plans to a successful conclusion. I should be in London by the time you receive this, and shortly after I shall be on my way to Dublin to discuss all matters pertaining to our gold plan in Ireland. I have made tentative arrangements here in New York, subject to the approval of our other directors in London, wherein we can raise all the necessary funds required for our hydraulic and dredging operations in Ireland. I have some rather important letters with me and also feel sure that the time is now ripe for our negotiations. In the meantime, I wish that you would do all the necessary things in your power so that we may acquire all the land that we previously applied for.”

He was in London almost about the same time as the letter reached me.

4691. Subsequent to that, when you heard that Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn had got this lease, did you write to Mr. Heiser to come over?—I do not think I wrote. I was never worried over what they were doing as we had our own application in. I never treated their lease as anything we should worry about. I thought that we should look after our own application and let them go ahead with theirs.

4692. I think you wrote “There have been developments over here”?—I should like to see the original statement. The phraseology was not mine. We get accustomed to using certain phrases and the phrase quoted as being mine is one I do not recognise.

4693. But it is possible it was used?— It is quite possible. I do not know that there is much in it

4694. It is quite possible that Mr. Heiser may have come in response to such a letter from you?—Mr. Heiser came back to London because the Mines Act was in force and it was possible to get a lease. He never came back from America on the hypothetical question as to whether he would get Senator Comyn’s lease or not.

4695. The question of what brought him here on that particular date has been raised here many times. Do you absolutely deny that there was a letter from you?—I would not deny it but I cannot recall it. I am anxious to state only what I can definitely recall.

4696. Deputy Dowdall.—Did I understand you to say that the first time you met Mr. Harrison was at the Gresham Hotel?—Yes.

4697. How did you come to meet Mr. Harrison?—I was asked by Mr. Heiser to meet him.

4698. Deputy Traynor.—Am I correct in assuming that you stated that you had your own application in for concessions with the Department?—Yes, as a group. Irish Prospectors, Limited, have got quite a number in.

4699. You have applications for concessions in in respect of gold mining?— Definitely.

4700. Is the object to provide work for individuals or is it to float companies?—It is not to float companies. If there is gold there, we are anxious to find it and exploit it. We should hope to provide work and, of course, to make some money.

4701. The object would not definitely be to push shares?—I should strongly resent such a suggestion if you made it. I am careful of the use of my name.

4702. I am careful of what I am asking you?—Certainly, that is not the object.

4703. You stated in your evidence that you scouted the suggestion that the Minister or the Government would give preferential treatment to any individual. Is that your view?—Yes. I should be very sorry to think they would.

4704. You believe that?—Yes.

4705. You do not believe that this particular concession was given to people because of their political position?— Frankly, I do not. So far as I know, it was the only application in at that particular time.

4706. You do not think that it was given because of their political associations?—I should be very sorry to think that.

4707. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—You have no reason to think it?—I have no reason to think it.

4708. Deputy Dowdall.—You stated that your group had applications in for other leases. Have you any idea of when you made the application?—We were in correspondence from February or March onwards.

4709. Of this year?—Yes. Our original applications fell down because they were not renewed at the time the Mines and Minerals Act was passed. Here is a comprehensive application dated 21st June, 1930. It is very detailed.

4710. Deputy Coburn.—You stated that you, yourself, had an application in for a lease?—Not personally, but as a group.

4711. You said you had not much interest in the lease held by Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe?—Not personally. I never paid a great deal of attention to it.

4712. I presume you have read the evidence of Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe?—Very closely.

4713. Having read that evidence, did you get the impression that Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe were of the opinion that you were secretly, or otherwise, endeavouring to put it across them in some way?—I think that that was insinuated. That is one of the reasons I am here—to resent these insinuations.

4714. I think that Senator Comyn referred to that type of person as a “hammer-headed shark”?—I have had a letter addressed to me in those terms, showing that the public also took it up. I am referred to as “F. M. Summerfield, H.H.S.” The inside of the letter is by no means flattering to the man who coined the phrase.

4715. Have you read any of the questions put by me in that connection?—I should like you to refer to any particular question with which you are concerned.

4716. I put it to Senator Comyn that, so far as I was personlly concerned, I had a suspicion that they were, more or less, acting the part of the dog-in-the-manger—that, having got the lease, they would not work it and would not let anybody else work it. Would I be right in that suspicion?—I feel that had Mr. Heiser not come along at that time it might have been very awkward for them to comply with the conditions of the sub-lease before it fell through.

4717. You know that the second condition governing the granting of the sublease was that the Minister’s consent was to be given?—Yes.

4718. Would you agree with my contention that, when Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe were given the take-note or prospecting lease, it was only a matter of form having the sub-lease granted as well. In the usual order of things, the sub-lease would be granted?—Yes.

4719. Subject to the Minister’s consent? —Yes.

4720. It would be a million to one that the consent would be given under the circumstances?—I think it would have to follow.

4721. You will agree that Senator Comyn, being the man he is, and Deputy Briscoe, occupying the position he does, they would see to it that there would be no hitch so far as the giving of the consent was concerned?—I suppose they would have opportunities which I would not have.

4722. Would you agree that that is the opinion of the man in the street?—I do not think I should be asked to give the opinion of the man in the street.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—The man in the street should be in the box.

4723. Deputy Coburn.—I presume you read Senator Comyn’s evidence with regard to the flotation of a public company?—Yes.

4724. Would I be right in stating that, on at least a dozen occasions, he emphasised that under no circumstances would he have had anything to do with the formation of a public company?—Yes, that was stated.

4725. Very emphatically?—Yes.

4726. I gathered from your evidence today that there was no question as to whether the company should be public or private in the negotiations which took place?—To the best of my recollection, no.

4727. As you stated in one of the letters, the shares could be taken up in London or in Ireland?—Yes.

4728. My memory is not so bad as it is represented to be. Those are the words of the letter you read?—Yes.

4729. Therefore, it is only right to assume that Senator Comyn was not stating a fact in his direct evidence in so far as his objection to the formation of public companies was concerned?—He did mention, as I stated earlier, that he would be averse to anything which would mislead the Irish investing public.

4730. But he would not be averse to anything that would mislead the British public?—I think he inferred that, too.

4731. That would be the natural consequence of the formation of a public company and the taking up of shares in Great Britain. If all had gone well, this public company would have been formed?—Yes, that was my impression.

4732. All the money would be subscribed and there would be very little care taken as to whether that money would be raised in Great Britain or Ireland?—Yes, I said to Mr. Heiser that if gold was got in commercially exploitable quantities the necessary money would be obtained here without any trouble. Until we heard of this projected big issue in July, my impression was that sufficient money would be got here if gold was present in paying quantities.

4733. Deputy Dowdall.—You read the evidence very carefully?—I do not think I missed much of it.

Deputy Dowdall.—I think that Deputy Costello or Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney quoted a letter written by Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe last December in which they said that they did not want a public company. Am I right in that, Deputy Costello?

Deputy Costello.—I do not think so. That was Senator Comyn’s evidence but there was no letter.

Deputy Dowdall.—I thought it was mentioned in a letter.

Deputy Costello.—It was not a letter I quoted. It was some sort of Press statement that a company was proposed to be floated. Senator Comyn’s comment on that was, I think, that he said he would not have anything to do with a public company.

4734. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—You say you disagreed with the terms of the agreement? —Yes.

4735. You also stated that you told Mr. Heiser that he was a hopeless ass in business?—So I did.

4736. How do you correlate these two statements?—They happened at the same time.

4737. What was in the agreement that made you tell Mr. Heiser that he was a hopeless ass in business?—I thought he had agreed to terms that were outrageous.

4738. Will you tell me the terms?— The terms in the agreement were for 12,000 shares and a rather prohibitive royalty on top of the royalty which the Government was to get. I began to wonder what return could be hoped for out of the thing.

4739. It was not the fact of agreement eventually by the Minister to the sublease? I mean that the value of the whole agreement to Mr. Heiser, and the possibility of development, was dependent eventually on the agreement of the Minister to the sub-lease?—Yes. I can answer the question in another way. If the terms extracted were, we will say, not so extravagant, I would not have any hostility to Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe. It was the terms of the agreement I objected to.

4740. The really essential thing which would have created value in the agreement was the sub-lease?—Yes.

4741. Without that it was of no value to anyone?—Yes. That is what I say.

4742. Do you know the total shareholding of Risberget?—I do not think it had any capital in the measure of money in the treasury when the agreement was signed.

4743. What is the nominal amount of the capital of Risberget?—I have not the least idea.

4744. What is your own share?—I have 1,000 £ shares.

4745. Is that money subscribed?— Partly, and services rendered.

4746. How much money subscribed?— £100.

4747. Deputy Moore.—When you said Mr. McGrath and Mr. Duggan said they were through, did you mean with shares in Risberget?—Yes. In 1930 we three were anxious to have industrial development while the thing was hot. When I told them of flecks of gold being discovered, or when the matter was referred to in Mr. McGrath’s and Mr. Duggan’s presence at any time they laughed at the whole thing and treated it as a joke. When interest in it was revived this year they both, without hesitation, told me they were finished. I told Risberget and Heiser that they must not use the names of Mr. McGrath and Mr. Duggan in any way; that they were out of the thing.

4748. They are still shareholders in Risberget?—No.

4749. Have they disposed of them?—I took them over. It is this way, that I knew I could dismiss it as far as Mr. Duggan is concerned. If anything comes there is no need to obscure it. The three names in the original holding are now in mine.

Deputy Moore.—Was there ever any meeting of the company? You say you were never asked to one.

4750. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Is it a limited company?—Yes, it is registered.

Chairman.—I think that concludes the questions.

4751. Deputy Costello.—I would like to ask, arising out of Mr. Summerfield’s evidence, and particularly the letters he has put in, whether discovery was made by Deputy Briscoe of that correspondence which he had with Messrs. McGrath referring to the rough prospectus, indicating as I believe, that Deputy Briscoe knew about a public company being formed.

Chairman.—I cannot say if any documents with solicitors were put in yesterday.

Deputy Costello.—Certainly, there is identification that Deputy Briscoe gave all the documents he put in. I have no recollection of these documents being discovered.

Chairman.—The Clerk to the Committee tells me that he has 107 documents, and he would require to examine them in order to know what was put in. If you like we will have the documents examined and have a report at the next meeting.

Deputy Costello.—I think so. It seems to me rather serious.

Deputy Moore.—Is it that Deputy Briscoe is being asked to hand them in?

Deputy Costello.—No. He was asked to make discovery of all documents. It was made perfectly clear.

Deputy Moore.—I understood it was only documents he had.

Mr. Grattan H. C. Norman sworn and examined.

4752. Chairman.—It is stated that you are the person referred to in the course of the evidence given before the Committee?—Yes; that is right.

4753. You were associated with Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe in making application in the first instance about mining rights in certain townlands?—In nine townlands.

4754. Will you tell the Committee briefly how you came to be associated with the application?—I would like to clear up that point. I will take it in order. In May, 1932 my father and I were engaged in lead, zinc and other sulphide mining propositions in Glendalough. My father spent a considerable amount of money putting in plant and reconditioning the old plant in the mill in Glendalough. The mineral rights and the water rights are held by a prominent mining engineer, Mr. Wynne. A small private limited company that was formed has the most valuable mineral rights in Wicklow, more valuable from the commercial point of view than gold, These are lead, mineral sulphides, barytes and things like that. We had a five years’ lease of the mill from Mr. Wynne. We went ahead, prepared the mill, and had all the machinery and the stuff that was required put in. We then found that the price of lead and zinc had dropped below a commercial value. We were sure that after a year it would rise. It has risen. The price of lead at that time had dropped to £11 per ton. That was a little bit beyond the lowest point at which it could be mined at a profit. It has now gone up to £16 per ton. My father applied to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, through Mr. Briscoe, who was a friend of his—as he had met him in business and one thing or another—for a grant to help us to maintain the mill and improve the service at the mill.

4755. Deputy Coburn.—What year was that?—In May, 1932. It went on until December of that year. My father applied for a grant. No definite results were forthcoming. My father and I for a time had frequent interviews with Mr. Briscoe. He came down. He knew absolutely nothing about mining. He admitted that. We had tea with Mr. Wynne, the owner of the property, from whom we had a lease, and we discussed mining. That was the first time, to my knowledge, Mr. Briscoe knew there was such a thing as gold in Ireland. In discussing all the minerals in the district and in County Wicklow we found there and then how much money it would cost to keep the mill going at Glendalough until such time as the price of lead and zinc rose to make it a commercial proposition. We repeatedly went to Mr. Briscoe but got no results. I am not sure of the date, but eventually in December, 1932, my father got word from the Department that they would have nothing to do with the concern, that they could not help in any way. I called at Leinster House to see Mr. Briscoe.

4756. Deputy Good.—What date did you call to see Mr. Briscoe?—On the 20th March, 1933. I called to tell him about the whole thing; that we were going to abandon all attempts to work at Glendalough. That was my intention when I came here. I met Mr. Briscoe in the hall and he said to me in a very peculiar manner: “Come on, young Norman, you are the very fellow I want to see.” He brought me to the restaurant and we had lunch. He put the question to me: “Can you really get gold in Wicklow?” I said: “I can get gold in Wicklow. I know that personally. It is not only to be supposed that it was got years ago; or that it cannot be got to this day. I can get you some if you want it.” He said: “I would be very pleased if you would be able to find at least one small piece of gold in Wicklow.” We were discussing this when his friend Senator Comyn happened to pass by the table. Mr. Briscoe called Senator Comyn over and said: “Look here, Senator, are you in on this with us?” Senator Comyn said: “What is this?” Mr. Briscoe introduced me and said: “This young man is the man we want.” He said that he knew me for a long time, since I was a very small boy going to school, because he knew my father at that time. They said they would like me to go down and get some of the gold. I said: “I know definitely that the gold is there, because I got it myself. But there is no use in my going on the ground, because I cannot go into a man’s field and start digging a hole and upsetting the layout of his farm without some authority. We will have to apply for a lease.” There was no mention of a lease before that. I had experience of a mining lease at Glendalough which is a far bigger thing from the technical point of view than this, for the simple reason, that at the sulphide mine we were concerned with lead, zinc and other sulphides, which entailed more difficulties than ordinary plain alluvial gold mining. I said: “Before you can do anything the thing is to get a lease and the water rights.” The water rights were never applied for. Mining without water is like a battleship without fuel. I went down and it was agreed that the three were each equally interested in the thing, that I, personally, had no capital of my own; but that Senator Comyn and Mr. Briscoe were to provide the necessary funds and that I was to provide any technical knowledge required and to do the work—to find the stuff—and then after that we could consider what was the next step to take, and for my technical knowledge and my work, in the end, if there were ever any results afterwards, we were to be considered as three equal partners. Well, then we applied for the lease for nine townlands. In Mr. Briscoe’s evidence and in Senator Comyn’s evidence they seem to make it clear that they knew where the gold was and where the area was before I came on the scene at all. Senator Comyn could not even find the place—the location on the map. Mr. Briscoe told me to go up to the Department of Industry and Commerce in Lord Edward Street and get the application forms and we were to fill in so many maps—to ink them in. Mr. Briscoe sent me to get the maps and he said: “Ink-in the best areas you can and get in as much as you can.” Well, I did that, but I should like to draw attention now to the fact that the nine townlands were selected by me and no other. While this was going on, they asked me if I would go down to Woodenbridge. That was the nearest centre to the area. They were to pay me my cost of living in the hotel and they gave me 15/- per week extra as a sort of allowance for travelling around because the area concerned is quite considerable, and there was no allowance really made——

4757. Deputy Good.—Extra to what? You said that it was extra to something? —Extra to the cost of living.

4758. But extra on what?—Extra to the hotel expenses.

4759. Deputy Costello.—Do you mean 15/- plus hotel expenses?—Yes. There were no travelling expenses allowed for going to Dublin, which was rather frequent, as they always had new ideas and always wanted me up and down. Perhaps it has not anything to do with this case, but I may say that I wore out two motor cycles going up and down to Dublin.

4760. Chairman.—How many times did you come up and down to Dublin?—Well, if you were to ask me, Sir, to count how many molecules of air there are in this room, perhaps I would find it easier to answer.

4761. Would it be twice a week?—It was usually in the neighbourhood of three or four times a week. Of course, some weeks I did not make that many trips, but other weeks it would be more.

4762. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Over what period did you make these visits three or four times a week?—I will tell you the full period. It was from the 29th March to the 23rd June, 1933.

4763. From the 29th March, 1933?— Yes, that is right. Both dates were in the same year.

4764. Chairman.—And what other periods besides?—Well, I must make it clear that at that time, the 23rd June, I left Woodenbridge and returned to my father’s business in Dublin, because the whole thing seemed to drop down for the simple reason that—

4765. Chairman.—Just a second, please. Were your visits to Dublin undertaken between March and June, 1933?—Yes.

4766. That is the total period?—Oh, no. There are two distinct periods, I must make it clear, that I, personally, did active work on the area under consideration.

4767. Well, how frequently did you visit Dublin between March and June, 1933?—Well, I suppose if you like to tie me down to an exact figure——

4768. Oh, no. I only want an average figure?—At the very least, it would be twice or three times a week in that period. More often, Mr. Briscoe made use of me in other ways. For instance, on Sunday evenings, when I would be doing nothing, Mr. Briscoe might have a political meeting somewhere and would ask me to drive a car for him and act more or less as chauffeur.

4769. Deputy Good.—Do I understand that the period you are talking about now—between March and June—was while you were at Woodenbridge?—Yes.

4770. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—And during that period you wore out two motor bikes?— Yes.

4771. Chairman.—Two motor bikes were worn out in these three months?— Well, they were not new motor bikes, but they were worn out. Anyhow, the rough roads in the area under discussion would wear out any form of machinery in a very short time.

4772. Deputy Moore.—Surely, there is no rough road between Woodenbridge and Dublin?—No, I agree, but there is definitely a very rough road between Woodenbridge and Ballycoog, the area under discussion.

Deputy Coburn.—Might I suggest, Sir, that the witness be allowed to make his general statement and then we could cross-examine him afterwards?

Chairman.—Yes, that would be better.

Deputy Moore.—With your permission, Sir, I may say that I intend to ask any question I like without any permission from any member of the Committee, and I think that Deputy Coburn’s remark is entirely impertinent.

Deputy Coburn.—I was only suggesting that it would facilitate matters to allow the witness to finish his statement.

Chairman.—It seemed to me that the remark was only made with the purpose of getting a proper elucidation of a particular point.

Deputy Traynor.—May I point out, Sir, that Deputy Coburn was the first to interrupt this particular witness?

Deputy Coburn.—Well, it was only a small point and not a general cross-examination.

4773. Chairman.—The witness will now proceed. Will you kindly proceed, Mr. Norman?—Well, now, you will probably ask the reason why I left Woodenbridge in June, 1933. The reason is this. From about the middle of that period that I was down there, Mr. Briscoe was in touch with some French concern. I do not know, or I forget, their exact title— they traded under so many different names—but Monsieur Feugerol seemed to be the head of the concern. I think they were interested in some boring that was going on in connection with coal down at Arigna at the time. Mr. Briscoe was very friendly with this M. Feugerol and brought him down to Woodenbridge. M. Feugerol was going to provide us with plant to work the thing if he was satisfied it was all right. They brought over quite a number of people from France, their own particular experts, as they wanted to satisfy themselves, and they came down and were watching the panning. They were satisfied there was gold there and they were going to go on with the thing. It must be remembered that there was no lease at all obtained at this time. There was only an application that had been put in. The arrangement they made was that we three— Senator Comyn, Mr. Briscoe and myself —had three equal shares in the thing and that the way they would get in was that each of us would sell to them part of our shares; such as, a third part or a quarter part. The amount was never definitely fixed. There was also a provision that I should be kept on no matter what employees of their own were brought down; that I was to be kept more or less in an advisory capacity, just to be representative of the three partners concerned.

Mr. Briscoe arranged with these people that, until such time as the lease was granted, they would advance some money to keep the work more or less going down in Woodenbridge, to find the extremities of the deposit and so on. I believe they advanced to Mr. Briscoe 2,000 francs. At this time Senator Comyn got the idea into his head that this M. Feugerol was trying to raise money in France on the strength of Senator Comyn’s name— Senator Comyn being a well-known person—and he instructed Mr. Briscoe to tell the French people to go to a very warm place. So that finished that, and I was withdrawn from Woodenbridge and the thing was let go sort of stagnant—I will not say that it went dead, but sort of stagnant—and I returned to my father’s business. I want to point out, however, that all along Senator Comyn always passed the remark, “Remember, even if we do not get enough gold, this is a very valuable lease to have.” He was very hot on that point, if I may say so. After I returned to my father’s employment, I was continually being called by Mr. Briscoe and Senator Comyn to go to Woodenbridge and attend to matters in connection with the business of the concern, but I got no remuneration for this. You see, we sank small shafts down in the bed of the river and the farmers round about were complaining about these holes and wanted some compensation for trespass and damage to land and so forth. I was asked to go down several times to fix up matters like that, and I had to leave my work in town here and go and do that. On November 20th, 1933—that is the date approximately; I cannot say that it is quite correct, but it was towards the end of November anyhow—I wrote several letters to Mr. Briscoe and Senator Comyn asking them what they were going to do about the project. I thought the thing had hung along for a very long time and there seemed to be no stir. I did not hear whether they had got the lease, or anything, because I was not handling that business at all. I was not in touch. Mr. Briscoe and Senator Comyn proposed that I should make and design a cradle for washing gold and employ one man and myself, and our wages were to be paid out of the gold found. Comyn and Briscoe continually talked of selling parts of their shares and put a value of £250 on each of our three shares, totalling £750. Comyn also wrote out a proposal to this effect, a copy of which was sent to Briscoe. The original was in my possession until I later handed it to Mr. O’Connor, of Arklow, solicitor, to prove my case to obtain £25 from my two partners. I should like to point out that in Senator Comyn’s evidence he denies any knowledge of this draft proposal that was made out. That draft proposal was made out in the Law Library with Senator Comyn’s own hand and his own pen. He denied in evidence that he ever made it.

On the 28th November, 1933, I recommenced work with the cradle that was made, and one man. Our expenses were to be paid until we obtained enough gold to be offered for sale. The sale of gold was to be transacted through Senator Comyn. We found fairly good sized nuggets of gold the first few days under my supervision. Then Senator Comyn made us go to places, which would be the last where one could find gold. But we were obliged to do so as we were depending on him and Briscoe to provide the cash and to provide the necessities of life for the two of us. We were paid £2 10s. 0d. between the two of us for one week. Then we did not get anything for two weeks, till we got another £2 10s. 0d. Then the payments fell off to very little. At this point, January, 1934, I offered my partners the quarter part of my share on the basis of £250 per share, so that I could be in a position to work where there was gold and have a chance of earning our wages because we were continually being put off. On several occasions, we found gold and Briscoe and Comyn were delighted about it and got very enthusiastic about it, but then Senator Comyn would propose to work somewhere else. I have got the daily report book which I kept during that time. It is a very rough account but it will give you an instance of where I obtained gold myself and where, when I went by their instructions, I found nothing. I will read about the first panning that was ever made by me in the area.

I followed the south river to the tributary——

4774. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—What is the date of that?—The 29th of March, 1933.

“I followed the south river to the tributary and found a place where somebody was rooting. Took a pan full of surface stuff from river bed and panned out carefully. Concentrate consisted of about two c.c’s black metallic crystals with seven small garnets, one minute piece of gold which had to be taken out with mercury, and some tin. I did not succeed in finding bed rock to-day.”

I shall read another. I had gone to eleven different locations at this time. That was the first. This is in regard to the eleventh location:

“I went to Ballintemple and made a panning of the hard conglomerated pay dirt, which gave manganese, garnets, topaz, tin, iron and a tiny speck of gold. I made another panning lower down stream in a big hole which gave manganese, tin, iron, garnets and a piece of quartz with adherent gold. Lower down I made a panning at the butt of a ball and got garnets, tin, iron, topaz, manganese but no visible gold. I made a panning at a point where Mr. Briscoe suggested and got no concentrate.”

When you pan you get a lot of associated minerals before you get the gold. These associated minerals are iron, topaz, garnets, and things like that. You usually get them but not necessarily, of course. As I say, I made the panning at the point where Briscoe suggested, but I got no concentrate at all, and when the sand was washed there were no heavy particles in it at all. You will note my reference there to the first panning, where I followed the south river to a place where somebody was rooting or where our friend Mr. Heiser was rooting. I must explain that. It was stated to-day that when Mr. Heiser arrived in Ireland in March, 1930, he came from some rich gold mine. It is a wonder he did not stop there, but, however, the point is that Mr. Heiser— I cannot say this definitely of my own knowledge, because I only know of it as I have been told by the “locals” in the place—that Mr. Heiser was working for the Proby Estate. A good deal of the land is on the Proby Estate. He was engaged by the Proby Estate prior to that date, to investigate the ground. I would say that that was the first time he was in this country although probably he was not known in this country.

4775. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Prior to what date?—The date that Mr. Summerfield gave to-day, March the 29th. 1930.

4776. You say that he was here on a date prior to that?—I cannot definitely say what date it was, but it was probably six or eight months or perhaps a year before that. I know that definitely. I had got to the point where I had offered my partners a quarter of my share. I offered my partners the quarter part of my share for sale on a £250 basis so that I could be in a position to work where there was gold and have a chance of earning our wages. My partners then wrote to me and said they were letting the thing drop and wanted to know what nominal sum would I accept for my complete share. That was after I applied to them to buy part of my share. They wrote to me and told me that they were letting the thing drop and they wanted to know what nominal sum I would accept for my complete share.

I wrote back and quoted £40 on the consideration that they were letting the thing drop, and I considered £40 ample for the time I lost on the job. They replied offering £25, which I accepted as being better than nothing as I was fed up with their unbusinesslike methods. From the end of January, 1934, until about the 1st April, 1934, I continually applied to them for the £25 but did not get it. I then went to my solicitor and I eventually got the £25 minus costs on the 27th April, 1934, on the signing of the assignment of my rights. I must make it clear that they not only got the assignment but they got all the documents by some method. I could not say it was an above-board method. They have got all the documents I handed to my solicitor, Mr. O’Connor. I have a letter here written by solicitors in last July which seems very funny. I shall read it out. I applied to them for my documents when this thing came up and this is the reply:—

We are in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant relative to this matter and in reply: the papers in this matter have been put away and we shall have to make a search for same. We shall have this done at once and then write to you again.

That is from M. J. O’Connor and Co., Ferrybank, Arklow, and it is dated 16th July, 1935.

4777. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Mr. O’Connor was your solicitor?—Yes. I want to point out that the draft proposal mentioning the sum of £750, in equal shares of £250, which was written out by Senator Comyn—it was only a draft I will admit—was handed over with the other letters at this time and this letter refers to that. It also refers to the letter which Mr. Briscoe wrote to me saying that he was letting the thing drop and asking what nominal sum I would accept for my share. It seems that at the time when they wrote that letter to me they were in some sort of negotiation with these other people. I would like the Committee, if they can do anything, to try to obtain these documents which have mysteriously disappeared somehow or other.

4778. What was the date of the letter from your solicitors?—The 16th of July.

4779. What evidence have you that, at the time they wrote to you that they proposed to let the matter drop, they were negotiating with any other people?—I have no evidence only the facts disclosed at this Committee.

4780. Chairman.—Did you give your documents to your solicitor?—I did.

4781. Did you authorise him to give these documents to anybody else?—I did not.

4782. So the disappearance of the documents was a matter between yourself and your solicitor?—I suppose so.

4783. Have you any reason to believe that anybody other than the solicitor has the documents?—I have reason to believe, because Senator Comyn mentioned to Mr. Briscoe at that time that he was to see to get all the documents in the case. As I say some time elapsed from that until I did eventually get the £25. It was through my solicitor, and naturally I assume they made the same demand on the solicitor, which I was not particularly interested in at the time, because I was fed up with the whole thing.

4784. They could only have got the documents by application to your solicitor and on his consenting to give them the documents?—Yes. That is why I do not understand this matter. I think that more or less brings my evidence to a conclusion. I was completely finished with the thing when I got the £25. There are one or two little points I should like to clear up.

Chairman.—It is now 1.30 and we had arranged to adjourn at this juncture. We could not possibly finish Mr. Norman’s evidence to-day.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—We were very anxious to have the proceedings concluded at 1.30, but as I pointed out when that agreement was made, while the evidence might be short, the cross-examination might be long. I do not think it right that we should be prevented asking this witness any questions merely because we had agreed to adjourn at 1.30. I should be very glad if it could be done, but it cannot be done. Mr. Norman is entitled to give his evidence.

Deputy Costello.—I made arrangements for today on the assumption that we would finish this afternoon at 1.30 p.m.

Chairman.—And so did I.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Having regard to any arrangements made on that understanding, when is it proposed to finish the taking of the witness’s evidence?

Chairman.—If we could arrange to finish with the witness in half an hour, I am sure the members of the Committee would be prepared to sit on until 2 o’clock.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I am prepared to accept that, but I am not prepared to have the witness stopped.

Deputy Costello.—Last evening Deputy Coburn had not concluded his examination of the witness then giving evidence, and yet he discontinued his examination when the hour for the adjournment arrived.

Chairman.—Is it agreed that we should continue until 2 o’clock? I take it we will finish with the witness then.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I cannot accept that, and I want to put this point to you.

Chairman.—If we are not going to finish with the witness at 2 o’clock there is no purpose in sitting for half an hour. We had better adjourn at 1.30 p.m. and fix a date for our next meeting. Personally, I do not mind if the witness is in the chair for a whole day on some other occasion.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—The point that I want to make is this, that we are in the position in which the witness says that he has other statements which he wants to make in addition to his original statement. In view of that, this certainly is not the point at which, logically, we could possibly stop him. The getting of the evidence is the important thing. What I would like to know is when we can meet again. You, Mr. Chairman, have said that you have an appointment for the afternoon.

Chairman.—The arrangement yesterday evening was that the Committee would finish at 1.30 p.m. today. On that assumption I felt free to make other arrangements for this afternoon. The appointment that I have for this evening would prevent me attending here, and I think there are some other members of the Committee in the same position as myself.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Would any appointments made on that understanding prevent them resuming. say, to-morrow morning?

Deputy Costello.—I have made other arrangements for to-morrow morning, but I am free to attend to-morrow afternoon. In view of the evidence which has been given by Mr. Norman, I think that we should sojourn for longer than a day or two in order to get the documents to which he has referred. I had intended to suggest at the end of the witness’s evidence that the Clerk of the Committee should write to the firm of solicitors that he mentioned, and ask them to supply us with those documents. If that course is agreed to, then it will be necessary for us to adjourn for more than a day or two. I think it would be necessary for us to adjourn until some day next week.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Are we entitled to ask the solicitors for them? I may say that I am entirely in favour of getting a hold of all the documents.

Deputy Costello.—There is no doubt whatever but that we are entitled to ask the solicitors to produce them.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—They are documents, I take it, that passed between Mr. Norman and his solicitors, and if Mr. Norman gives his consent, then I think we should get them.

Deputy Moore.—Is it not the case that Deputy Briscoe handed in a lot of documents?

Deputy Costello.—He specifically denied each and every one of these documents. I asked him about this letter written to Mr. Norman, saying that they were proposing to drop the whole matter, and both Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn denied that any such document was ever written. Mr. Norman says that it was written and that he handed it to his solicitors, Messrs. M. J. O’Connor and Co. We are entitled, as a court is entitled, to ask Messrs. M. J. O’Connor and Co., solicitors, for those documents if they have them.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I think that the question that you put to Deputy Briscoe was slightly different. It was whether a letter had been written which said “we are going to drop this, and what will you take for your share.”

Deputy Costello.—I do not know what is in the letter. All that I do know is that, according to Mr. McGilligan’s evidence, there was such a letter. I want to know is there such a letter.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Deputy Briscoe denied that such documents existed. At any rate, whatever documents do exist, we ought to have them if we are legally entitled to get them.

Deputy Moore.—Deputy Briscoe delivered some documents to this Committee relating to his arrangements with Mr. Norman which he had got from Messrs. M. J. O’Connor & Co., solicitors.

Deputy Costello.—I think they were only letters written to himself by Messrs. O’Connor & Co. I do not think he ever alleged he got any documents from Messrs. O’Connor & Co. except letters written to himself in the ordinary course of a business transaction. One, I think, was in reference to the settlement of a claim and the payment of £25.

Chairman.—That appears to be the only kind of document which Deputy Briscoe has put in namely, letters written by this firm of solicitors to himself.

Deputy Moore.—And his replies.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—There are no documents on the file, as far as I can see, which are documents that were given to his solicitors by Mr. Norman.

Chairman.—I do not think so.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—On the understanding that we apply to the solicitors to make a discovery of the documents, I am perfectly prepared to take the adjournment now.

4785. Chairman.—I take it it is agreed that the solicitors should be communicated with and asked to furnish the Committee with any documents given to them by Mr. Norman, Mr. Norman having indicated his consent to that course.

Witness.—Yes.

Agreed.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I think that, in addition, Mr. Norman himself should write to his solicitors saying that the requisition has been put forward with his consent.

Deputy Dowdall.—I suggest that we now adjourn until Tuesday next.

Deputy Moore.—The documents, even if they have no bearing on Mr. Norman’s evidence, would be useful as confirmation of what he says. I think that if it is convenient it would be better to hear Mr. Norman’s evidence now.

Chairman.—I take it that immediately following Mr. Norman’s statement some members of the Committee will desire to question him on a number of matters.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I think we should agree to get Mr. Norman’s original statement completed as far as possible before 2 o’clock. If he has completed his original statement before that hour we can then adjourn.

Chairman.—Is there agreement on that?

Deputy Moore.—Will Mr. Norman be recalled?

Chairman.—Yes. But there will be no questions put to Mr. Norman at the conclusion of his statement to-day.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—It may be just necessary to put some purely formal questions to him for the purpose of elucidation, and these will be put by you.

4786. Chairman.—We will try to avoid elucidation to-day. I think you may now proceed, Mr. Norman.

Witness.—I forget whether it was Mr. Briscoe or Senator Comyn who, according to the reports, said that when I went down there I had nothing only a vocabulary and that my technical skill was nil. I would like to point out why and how I came to be interested at all in mining. When I was rather young, at the age of 15, I left school. My father sent me to an engineering works in England where all sorts of this machinery is manufactured. Supplementary to that I should point out that my father in 1917 was interested in the mining of lead in this country. He was engaged in manufacturing metal toys out of lead. During the war the price of lead was very dear. He made investigations to see if lead could be obtained in Ireland. It was that that started his interest in lead. My father went down to Glendalough and got samples of lead, which he brought to Dublin. He fused the lead sulphate into metallic lead in an ordinary open fire. I was taken away from school and sent to an engineering works in England where all sorts of machinery connected with mining and other processes was manufactured. I left there in 1930 when I had sufficient experience both in the laboratory and in the practical departments of that concern. My father then sent me down to Glendalough on she scheme that I have already told you about: that is the lead and the zinc proposal. We had there a plant, we had ore in sight and we had a market. The only trouble was that the price of it had dropped below its value. That did not make it a paying concern commercially.

I further want to remark about the whole thing in general from the technical point of view. Most people, I think, will be interested to know, apart from this Committee, about the gold in Wicklow. Here is a small piece of gold to start with (produced). There is no myth about that. You can send that to any analyst in Timbuctoo or anywhere else you like and he will tell you what it is. The second thing is this, that from my experience I want to say a word about the reports made by people who call themselves mining engineers. I do not call myself a mining engineer. I call myself a person who has had practical experience both in the manufacture of machinery for ore dressing and in the operation of that machinery, as well as practical experience in the field discovering and extracting the metals from the various ores. I say this, that Mr. Dunn and Mr. Heiser are nothing only confidence men. That is a rash statement to make, but I will make that statement because I know from my own experience that the reports that were made by Dunn and Heiser cannot be true. They tried to form a company on a ground that has not yet been prospected. It has, I will admit, been surface prospected. There has been to my knowledge on this one particular area under discussion only one boring made. The prospecting or the mining engineer who could tell you accurately what ore is in sight after making only one bore is a miracle man. To prospect an alluvial deposit you have to get your geological cross-section on the land. You have to bore at frequent intervals, getting bed-rock every time, and then to take samples from every foot and make an accurately tabulated sheet. You have then to get a report on all these samples. There is one cross-section of one particular area. You may then have to go a half a mile or a mile—that depends on the extent of the valley—and to repeat the operation. You often get to places where the ore in the valley begins to fade. It is only when you get to the extreme point inside that you can say if the ore is particularly rich, and it is only when you can say that that you can form a company. You can only do that where the mine is sufficiently rich, where there is no doubt about it, and where there is no doubt that even the richer part will pay for the enterprise. Irish gold is very finely disseminated.

That small speck there (indicated) is not bigger than a shot out of a shotgun cartridge, and about fifty little specks of gold have been fused into one in order to make that. Each of these specks was obtained in one panful of gravel which means about a quarter of a cubic foot. As I say, that area under consideration must be bored, and each cross-section must be put on a map, a cross-section being made out of every interval of 100 yards, 50 yards, and so on. When you do that you can get from your readings the average value of gold per cubic yard. You can also measure the volume of alluvium that that average exists in. It is a simple mathematical calculation. You get so many thousand cubic yards of alluvium, and you know that the average yield is, say, two pennyweights per ton. You have only to divide one into the other and you know exactly how much gold is in any one place. That has never been done. People have been tinkering with this gold property for the last 200 years. I excuse one man and his associates; that is a Mr. Weaver, who in the year 1797 worked the mine and made it pay. He had a couple of other men with him, and it was due to the rebellion of 1798 that the thing was abandoned, and not for any other reason. They worked it in a small way. That is the only way, in my opinion, that the mine would ever be a self-supporting thing. The people of this country are only making it a laughing-stock throughout the world by thinking of forming a company. They have not found one bit of ore. They know that if you go down to such and such a place you will get a speck of gold, but in regard to such and such an area they do not know definitely how much gold it contains. I carried out surface prospecting, and I have read you a few examples. The stuff was on the surface, and the yield was about from 6d. to 1s. 6d. worth—and the 1s. 6d. was only in a very rich place—of gold per cubic yard. Somebody brought out about £17,000,000 of gold being a myth. It had to be, because I do not know where £17 worth of gold per cubic yard comes from. In reality, there is only 6d. to 1s. 6d. worth of gold per cubic yard. There were certain statements made by Mr. Briscoe regarding Mr. Heiser’s pannings. He said that some friend dug a hole in the ground, and that the first shovelful they put into the pan yielded six or seven bits of gold.

This gold was visible to the eye that was not practised in finding gold. When Senator Comyn and Mr. Briscoe came down at first, they did not know a flake of mica from gold. I showed them a very simple method—get a pin and stick in it, and if it is gold it is malleable. Gold is the only yellow metal that is malleable in its native form. Platinum is also malleable, but it is not yellow. They would come to me and say: “Is this gold?” and it would be a bit of copper pyrites. If you stick a pin in copper pyrites it will fly into dust. Gold will stick to the pin, and you can twist and turn it any way you wish. Pure gold is softer than lead. I would say that the panning which Mr. Heiser made was, as you will all think, a demonstration panning to try and convince other people that the deposit was rich. In the first panning they are said to have got six or seven pieces of gold. I will not say that that is definitely impossible, but I will say it is very probable that it is impossible to find such a thing in the Wicklow area. There is just one further remark which I wish to make before I finish. When we were sinking shaft No. 1, which is a small shaft right in the bed of the river, my father and mother were rather interested, and they came down. I suppose they thought I was in a rather dangerous position. We had to pump the water out, and the soil being wet from the percolation from the river, there was danger of the thing falling in. Mr. Briscoe, I think, stated that at that stage he held an insurance cover for myself and the other two men who were working there. I would say that to my knowledge there was no such insurance cover held at that period. There might have been from a day or two later, but at that period there was not, because an insurance inspector came down to inspect the conditions of working, and flatly refused to accept the cover. That is what Mr. Briscoe told me; I will not say anything else.

The Committee went into private session.