|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)De h-Aoine, 11adh Deire Fómhair, 1935.Friday, 11th October, 1935.The Committee sat at 3 p.m.
DEPUTY W. NORTON in the Chair. 4981. Chairman.—In connection with the attendance of Mr. Heiser before the Committee, we had a letter from a firm of solicitors, described as Messrs. Arram, Fairfield & Co., 40/42 Cannon Street, Bank, London, E.C. 4, dated 2nd October, 1935, portion of which read:— We are instructed to say that our client, Mr. Maurice Heiser, is ready and willing to attend the sittings of the Committee of Enquiry at all reasonable times, providing, of course, that he will be accorded personal protection, and that, of course, his reasonable travelling and hotel expenses will be met. Mr. Heiser is prepared to give to the Enquiry all assistance that can be reasonably expected of him, as he wishes to help its members to obtain a true and just report of the matters in question. At the same time the Clerk to the Committee communicated with Mr. Heiser intimating that if he desired to give evidence before the Select Committee, the Committee would be prepared to hear him on Wednesday, 9th October, at 11 a.m. The Clerk added:— In the event of your attending, you will be allowed first-class travelling expenses together with subsistence allowance at the rate usually allowed for attendance of witnesses, for each night you will be necessarily detained in Dublin. It looked from that letter of the solicitors, dated 2nd October, that Mr. Heiser was anxious to attend and give evidence before the Committee, but, on 8th October, a letter was received from Mr. Heiser by the Clerk of the Committee in which Mr. Heiser said:— With reference to your letter of October 2nd, I would respectfully inform you that I have no desire to give evidence before the Select Committee, although, as I have stated on a previous occasion, I would be willing to come to Dublin if it were shown that my presence were absolutely essential. The reasons for my attitude are as follows:— 1. I have already wasted six years of my time and have been put to great expense in endeavouring to establish an industry in the Free State. 2. With great respect to the Committee of Enquiry, I regret that I am too busy to spare the time to go to Dublin to give evidence in what is, after all, a political affair in which I am not concerned. 3. I feel that, having in the past fulfilled everything required by the Government, my giving evidence before the Committee can not make any more certain that I will be granted the leases which I am still willing to accept and work. If you would consider it sufficient for me to give evidence by deposition I should be glad to do so on receiving notice in sufficient time. The Committee decided that they did not require on their own to see Mr. Heiser, but they felt that they ought to give him an opportunity of submitting evidence if he so desired. Do I take it, therefore, that the matter is ended so far as the Committee is concerned? Agreed. Chairman.—On the last occasion we had Mr. Norman— 4982. Deputy Costello.—Before you take up the evidence again, there are one or two documents that have been put in by Deputy Briscoe, I think, on the files of these proceedings. One also was put in by Mr. Summerfield—a letter of 9th July of this year—addressed by Messrs. McGrath and Co., solicitors, to Senator Comyn, and one in similar terms to Mr. Briscoe. On the last occasion Mr. Briscoe put in the original of the letter he had got from Messrs. McGrath and stated that the matter had been in the hands of his solicitor, Mr. Cox. He also intimated that any replies that have been made to those letters were made by his solicitors. I certainly feel that some importance is attached to that letter of 9th July, and I should like to know whether or not, in fact, Mr. Briscoe, Mr. Comyn or Mr. Cox, solicitor, ever replied to those letters. It is a matter which affects my mind very considerably, because in the letter there is a reference to this rough prospectus. Chairman.—Would it be the letter of 12th July? Deputy Costello.—Yes. I am speaking from recollections, but it is the letter put in by Mr. Summerfield from Messrs. McGrath and Co., referring to the rough prospectus, which he said was in the hands of Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn. Chairman.—I think you will have to recall Deputy Briscoe in order to clear up that matter, or, if necessary, his solicitor. Deputy Costello.—I am quite satisfied if I find out whether or not a reply was given, because my recollection of Mr. Summerfield’s evidence was that Messrs. McGrath and Co. told him they had received no reply to that letter. If Deputy Briscoe is to be recalled on that point, I should like also to put to him one question on the letter which, I think, was put on the file of these proceedings by Deputy Briscoe the last day from Mr. Heiser. It is the letter in which Mr. Heiser wrote to Deputy Briscoe saying—so far as I recollect from one casual look over it— that he was prepared to give evidence to show that this gold mine was not as valuable as Mr. McGilligan and his friends— I think that was the phrase used—were making it out to be. Chairman.—That letter which was put in on the last occasion was from a firm of solicitors on behalf of Mr. Heiser. Deputy Briscoe, without replying officially, have you got the information which Deputy Costello requires at this stage? Deputy Briscoe.—Yes. Chairman.—If it is suitable to the Committee Deputy Briscoe can be recalled now, but I do not want a fresh cross-examination of Deputy Briscoe to be opened up. Deputy Costello.—I merely want to find out if in fact that letter was answered and also if the letter from Mr. Heiser’s solicitor was answered. It is a matter seriously affecting my mind in reference to Deputy Briscoe, and I think it only fair that he should get this opportunity. Deputy Robert Briscoe recalled and examined.4983. Deputy Costello.—Do you know the letter that was put in here in evidence, or the copy of it, from Messrs. McGrath and Co., by Mr. Summerfield? You, on the last occasion, put in the original of that letter which you got?— The letter put in by Mr. Summerfied is a copy of a letter dated, I think, either the 8th or 12th July. I am not quite sure. The position is that it seems that two letters were written to Senator Comyn and myself by Messrs. McGrath. There was seemingly a letter written on 8th and a second letter on 12th July, of which I have handed in a copy. 4984. The letter I am speaking about— and I do not want to go outside that—is the letter referring to the rough prospectus of the company?—That appears to be the letter of 8th July. 4985. Do I understand from your evidence that you yourself had not given any reply to that letter?—To neither of those letters. 4986. Do you know if Senator Comyn has replied?—He has given no reply to any of those letters. 4987. Did your solicitor give any reply? —He did. You have a letter from Mr. Cox to me on your files in which he refers to his letter of 12th July answering these letters and his conversation with Messrs. McGrath. 4988. I am not interested in that. Mr. Summerfield, in my recollection, said that Messrs. McGrath got no reply to those letters?—They got no reply from us but they did from our solicitors. 4989. I want a copy of the letter sent by your solicitor in reply to those letters by Messrs. McGrath and Co.?—Perhaps you would ask me the other question while I am looking for that, because it may take some time? 4990. Deputy Costello.—I would prefer to get that letter before I ask any further questions?—On that point, I see in the report of my evidence that in calling out these letters I stated (page 338) in answer to a question: “Then there are Mr. Cox’s letters to us, his clients. I will leave them out, I presume.” Mr. Geoghegan said “Yes; they seem to be privileged.” At that stage I had Mr. Cox’s letters and, evidently, as a result of that, I must have left them out. I can get them for you. 4991. You know the letter I want—the letter from Mr. Cox to Mr. McGrath in answer to these inquiries?—The letter I have is Mr. Cox’s letter to us. 4992. In fairness to you, I shall tell you what my point is. My recollection of your evidence about the prospectus for the quarter million company is that the first time you saw that prospectus or any copy of it was in the Dáil restaurant some time before the end of July?—No, on the 27th June. That was the date Mr. Harrison arrived. 4993. I want to know what you said in answer to that point about the prospectus?—I never answered it. 4994. Or what your solicitor said in answer to it on your instructions?—He never referred to it. I can produce Mr. Cox’s letter to us. Mr. Cox sought an interview with Mr. McGrath and the two solicitors met. No communication in reference to the contents of Mr. McGrath’s letter passed at all. Mr. Cox sent a letter to Mr. McGrath pointing out that the Risberget people had not complied with their contract. He avoided any reference to what was in Mr. McGrath’s letter. Mr. McGrath’s letter back was that he had been instructed by his clients that they had four men working. 4995. In the reply your solicitor gave, he did not make any specific repudiation in reference to this prospectus?—I have not seen the actual letter from Mr. Cox to Mr. McGrath but, in so far as I can judge from his correspondence with me, no reference whatsoever was made to that matter. 4996. Did you reply to the letter you put in on the last occasion from some firm of solicitors?—No. I said then, “to which I have made no reply.” 4997. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—You gave no instructions to Mr. Cox in relation to that letter?—No. I left it entirely to himself. It seemed to me that Mr. Costello, in examining Mr. Summerfield, was under the impression that Mr. Harrison’s arrival here was at the end of July. I have looked through a copy of my evidence and I can see nothing in it which would give Mr. Costello that impression. Mr. Harrison’s arrival was on the 27th June. I have since confirmed the date by referring to the date on which I hired the aeroplane to bring him down from Belfast. 4998. Deputy Costello.—What I want to know is, if your evidence and Senator Comyn’s evidence is correct, that you had repudiated this quarter million company before the 27th June, why you or your solicitor did not give a strong repudiation in respect of this prospectus, about which you had been written merely to draw your attention to the fact that there were possibly some small alterations to be made?—Mr. Harrison saw Mr. Cox on the 27th June, the evening of his arrival. Mr. Cox advised me not to be present at the conference between himself and Mr. Harrison. Mr. Harrison got into touch with D. and T. Fitzgerald, solicitors, and Messrs. D. and T. Fitzgerald had a ’phone conversation with Mr. Cox. They both agreed that, so far as discussing the matter at all was concerned, it would be advisable to leave it in abeyance until the conclusion of the deliberations of this Committee. Consequently we had no discussion in connection with the transaction except in so far as we had repudiated the transaction when we heard of it. 4999. I do not understand how your solicitor had communication with Messrs. D. and T. Fitzgerald seeing that they have written that they had nothing to do with this proposed company?— They said they had nothing to do in connection with getting their name on the prospectus but I do not think they will deny that they had a ’phone conversation with Mr. Cox, because Mr. Cox advised him (Mr. Harrison) to consult his own local solicitors. I can get the letter for you if you want it. 5000. I should be glad to get the letter from Mr. Cox to you?—I shall get it. The witness withdrew. Mr. Grattan H. C. Norman, further examined.5001. Deputy Dowdall.—I was asking Mr. Norman some questions last day when Deputy Coburn rudely and disastrously interrupted me. You say, Mr. Norman, that Mr. McGilligan wrote you about the 9th July?—Yes. 5002. Have you got that letter?—I think I have. 5003. Is that the only communication you had?—Yes. 5004. Will you kindly read it?—I am afraid I would not be able to read it. It was written in a hurry and I could only get the gist of the thing. I hand in the letter. 5005. Deputy Costello.—I suppose you heard the suggestion here by Deputy Briscoe that he originally employed you in connection with this transaction out of charity?—Yes. I resent that. 5006. Is there any truth in that suggestion?—No. The fact is that when I first came in personal contact with Mr. Briscoe we had a definite plan in view. I was more or less prosperous. We had the mill working in Glendalough and we were in a position to give employment. We had the plant working. The only trouble was that the price of lead had dropped and Mr. Briscoe was to get us a grant to keep us going until such time as the price of lead would go up. We were right in estimating that the price of lead would go up, because it was then only £11 per ton and it is to-day £19 per ton. We were nearly able to make the plant pay in the by-products of the white sand. Mr. Briscoe was approached in May, 1932, by my father to apply for a grant on our behalf to work the mill. I have a letter here from Mr. Briscoe showing that he only applied to the Department concerned on the 2nd August. We were held up until December, when, eventually, the Department concerned wrote to my father and told him they were not going to have anything to do with the concern. I called to see Mr. Briscoe, as I said in my evidence already, to tell him that we were finishing with Glendalough and not going to hang on any longer and to have a discussion with him. When I called on Mr. Briscoe he seemed to have something to tell me, and he brought me along into the restaurant and the proposal as to the gold mine came up and developed from that. I might add that, from that time onwards, my own personal finances went down the hill to a very low level. I was in the position of being able to employ men in Glendalough, but when I was finished with Deputy Briscoe and Senator Comyn, I had to look for employment myself. I can testify that I worked very hard during the last two years to come back to the level where I commenced. 5007. I take it that the net result is that there is no truth in the suggestion? —Absolutely no truth. 5008. Did you hear the suggestion deposed to here by Deputy Briscoe that you yourself, during a certain period, received wages at the rate of £2 10s. per week?— I heard that. I read in the newspapers where Mr. Briscoe stated that in evidence. The only time I received any definite payment from both Mr. Briscoe and Senator Comyn was when I was at Woodenbridge, where my expenses in the hotel were paid, plus a sum of 15/-. I understood that that was merely to be provided as expenses, as I was to be third partner in this thing. I would not have accepted it as remuneration to prospect from anybody. I would not undertake the work at such a low rate. It was merely expenses and I myself was prepared to work under very poor conditions so as to keep the expenses small until such time as the thing would develop properly. 5009. Had you ever working with you a man named Keogh?—I had Keogh working in the latter period, from November 28th until January. 5010. How was he paid—by you or by your co-partners?—He was paid in a rather haphazard manner. The original arrangement was that we were to extract gold to provide our expenses. Until such time as sufficient gold was recovered for sale our expenses were to be paid. There was no definite figure, but Mr. Briscoe asked me how much money would we need. I brought it down to the smallest amount that I thought would barely suffice, and I thought of £2 10s. for the two. I was living with some relations of mine in Wicklow. 5011. The arrangement was £2 10s. between the two of you?—Yes. 5012. Did you see an account of the transaction published in the newspapers shortly after this matter was raised in the Dáil in the names of Senator Comyn and Mr. Briscoe, in which this statement was made: “We sank a shaft to determine the depth of the auriferous gravel, and made surveys so as to determine the total quantity available”?—Yes, and I laughed at it. 5013. Who made the shaft? Was it Senator Comyn or Mr. Briscoe or was it under their orders?—That shaft was made in the earlier period, from 29th March, 1933, to 23rd June, 1933. There were three shafts sunk under my supervision, and two workmen were employed for three weeks. They were paid 25/- per week. 5014. I order to save time I want to put up a comprehensive question to you. Have you read the evidence of Deputy McGilligan in connection with the relationship which existed between yourself and your partners during that period?— I have not read the detailed evidence. I only got the newspaper account. 5015. So far as you saw it is it substantially correct?—Yes, it is. 5016. A letter was put in the last day, I think, by Deputy Briscoe—from your father to Deputy Briscoe—complaining about the conditions under which you were working. Have you seen that letter, or do you know of it?—No but my father told me of it. 5017. Were the complaints made correct or incorrect?—I think they were more or less correct. 5018. Deputy Good.—In your evidence you told us about a draft agreement?— Yes. 5019. The last day you heard that the draft agreement was sent forward by Messrs. O’Connor?—Yes. 5020. Have you seen that agreement? —Not since it came forward. 5021. Deputy Good.—Is it the same as the one referred to by you, or is it the one that was referred to? Deputy Dowdall.—Is Deputy Good referring to the draft agreement about £250 each, because it is not in existence according to Messrs. O’Connor. Deputy Costello.—Yes, it is on the file. Chairman.—That is the draft agreement which was put in by the solicitors. It is headed: “Draft Terms of Agreement. Townlands: Ballintemple, Coolgarrow and Clonwilliam. Comyn, Briscoe and Norman partners in equal shares. Agreed value of concession, £750. Work to be proceeded with by means of the sluice or any other arrangement which the parties or a majority may from time to time determine. Any partner wishing to sell his interest or any part thereof shall sell to the other partners jointly on the basis of the agreed value as above set out, the partners or one of them to have the option of refusing said purchase. In case one refuses the other may purchase for himself. Norman to continue working until a majority of the partners otherwise decide. His wages at £2 5s. 0d. a week to be paid only out of the metal obtained. The other partners not to be liable to him for any wages. All future outlay to be borne by the partners equally. In case Norman or any other partner is unable to bear his share of the outlay, the other partners may advance it by way of purchase of an equivalent amount of his share at the above named agreed value. Any partner in respect of whose share an advance is made may repurchase within six months of the advance by repayment of the amount advanced. Any advance made to Norman for subsistence to be taken as a purchase pro tanto of his share subject to repayment within six months of advance as above mentioned. These advances to be made by the other partners jointly and not otherwise. In case the capital invested exceeds £750, each party shall have the right to subscribe an equal share.” 5022. It is not signed. It is on Seanad Eireann notepaper. (To Witness)—Take that document in your hand and see if it is the agreement. There is no date on it? —Yes. It is all right. 5023. Deputy Good.—Is it in Senator Comyn’s handwriting?—Yes, he made it out in the Law Library. Approximately the date would be November 23rd or 24th. 5024. Deputy Dowdall.—1933?—Yes. 5025. Deputy Good.—That agreement was never completed?—No. The verbal arrangement made by Senator Comyn at the time of writing the agreement was that I was to make a copy of it and send that copy to Mr. Briscoe or give it to him. We were to work upon these terms. It was never finished up to the time that I eventually sold my interest. It was working on the basis of this agreement that I originally applied to Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe to sell portion of my share as detailed in the agreement. 5026. Why was that agreement never completed?—That I cannot say. Probably because I applied before Mr. Briscoe had met Senator Comyn to discuss the matter. I had applied to sell portion of my share before they actually met to discuss the matter and concluded it. 5027. You say that you were working under that agreement verbally?—Yes. 5028. How long were you working in accordance with that agreement?— Roughly three or four weeks, perhaps five weeks. 5029. You have heard that Mr. Dunn, a mining engineer from London, was over at Glendalough?—At Glendalough? 5030. Probably at Woodenbridge. Did you see him at all?—No, I was so busy I had no time to be there. 5031. You never met him?—No. 5032. Chairman.—This is the letter from Deputy McGilligan to Mr. Norman: “58, Lansdowne Road, 9-7 ’35. Dear Mr. Norman, On arrival at Leinster House to-day I found your letter awaiting me there. I note that it is dated 1st July, and appears to have a post mark of the same date. It is possible that it lay at Leinster House since, say, about 2nd July. But it certainly did not come to my hands until to-day. I write this to explain my apparent delay in replying. I have read with great interest what you say as to all the various happenings. I am also much interested to know that you are available for the Committee. Would you as a better guide for yourself as to your evidence for that body jot down in an order of time any further details as to the work done in Wicklow and your association with B. & C.? It would also be of importance that you would write to your solicitors and ask if they did in fact return to Messrs. B. & C. (a) your correspondence re the lease, and (b) draft agreement with you as your share. You may be expected to know what in fact happened these documents, and if B. & C. got them. A note from Messrs. M. J. O’Connor & Sons to that effect will be of considerable value. You might also ask your solicitors if they will send you copies of all letters that passed between them and B. & C. at that time. Sincerely and in haste, P. McGilligan.” 5033. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—In answer to your letter was that sent? Deputy McGilligan says: “I have received your letter.” What letter had he received?—My father called to see him one day. He said Mr. McGilligan would be interested to know how I was associated with the thing, and I wrote to Mr. McGilligan roughly as to how I was associated with it. That is the reply. 5034. I gathered from you that you had not written Mr. McGilligan?—Did I say that I had not written? 5035. You did, as far as my recollection goes?—That was my first direct communication to Mr. McGilligan, in fact the only direct communication. 5036. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance(to the Chairman). Would you mind having the evidence read in reference to that point? Chairman.—Is that a reply by the witness on the last occasion? Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Yes. Chairman.—If you refer to question No. 4971 on page 384 of the minutes of evidence it is there. 5037. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—This is it: “Did you, directly or indirectly, get in touch with anybody about this inquiry before it took place? After the statement by Mr. McGilligan in the Dáil, were you in touch with Mr. McGilligan directly or indirectly, by letter or otherwise?—Personally, I took no action at all”?—My father asked me to give Mr. McGilligan details—and that is all—as to how I was associated with it. 5038. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—The question put to you was: “Did you, directly or indirectly, by letter or otherwise get in touch with Mr. McGilligan?” and your answer was: “Personally, I took no action at all.” Deputy Costello.—And he then produced the letter that the Chairman has just read. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—That is the first information we got that this statement is not true. Deputy Costello.—Not at all. Read on. “4972. Were you in touch with him?—Mr. McGilligan wrote to me. He was in touch with my father, and he wrote to me on one occasion wanting to know if I would be available. 4973. Deputy Good.—When was that?—I may have the letter with me. The date is the 9-7’35. 4974. Deputy Dowdall.—You saw Mr. McGilligan?—I did not see him. He wrote a letter to me after my father had been talking to him.” Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Go back. This letter which he has produced is a letter he got from Mr. McGilligan. The production of that letter now shows that a letter had been written to Mr. McGilligan which question 4971 says was not written. Deputy Costello.—Question 4973 produces the letter. Chairman.—On the last occasion when answering question 4973, which was a matter of seconds after question 4971, he produced the letter from his pocket. He actually took the communication from the envelope. Deputy Dowdall, who was questioning the witness, did not ask him to read the letter. That is my recollection. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I am not concerned with that letter, but with the letter which originated Mr. McGilligan’s letter. The question was: “Did you, directly or indirectly, get in touch with anybody about this inquiry before it took place? After the statements by Mr. McGilligan in the Dáil, were you in touch with Mr. McGilligan, directly or indirectly, by letter or otherwise?” and the answer was: “Personally, I took no action at all.” The present evidence is that he took action by writing to Mr. McGilligan, and this is the first disclosure we have of that. Deputy Costello.—It was apparent from the answer which the Chairman referred to, answer 4973, that he had written a letter? Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—No. That discloses that Mr. McGilligan had written a letter to him. Deputy Costello.—That letter discloses the fact that it was an answer to a letter by Mr. Norman. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—I want the letter written by Mr. Norman to Mr. McGilligan which originated that letter. Chairman.—If you are making that request, Mr. McGilligan will be asked to produce that letter. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—It is Mr. Norman’s letter I want. 5039. Chairman.—Mr. Norman’s letter to Mr. McGilligan? Witness.—I have not got that and I have not got a copy of it. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—This is the whole thing at issue. Before Mr. McGilligan’s letter was produced, Mr. McGilligan was under the impression that he originated this correspondence. He did not. Chairman.—You are making the request now for the production of the letter which Mr. Norman is stated to have written to Mr. McGilligan, and to which Mr. McGilligan’s letter is a reply. Mr. McGilligan will obviously have that letter. 5040-46. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Mr. Norman has not got a copy of it? Witness.—No. 5047. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.—Then I will ask for the production of that letter. Chairman.—We will make a note for Mr. McGilligan to be asked to supply that letter.* 5048. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney.—I would like to come back for a moment to the document which Deputy Good referred to. That document is in Senator Comyn’s handwriting? Witness.—Yes. 5049. How were the terms embodied in that document arrived at?—They were only verbally arranged. You mean the terms about the £750? 5050. Yes, and the other terms?—They were discussed on several occasions beforehand. 5051. By whom?—By Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe. 5052. And you?—Yes. 5053. Were these agreed terms between you and Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe which Senator Comyn put in writing?—Yes. 5054. That was after several conversations?—Yes. 5055. Deputy Traynor.—Did you find out the date on which you were driving the motor car for Deputy Briscoe during an election?—I have not got the date, and I do not know how I will find it out. 5056. I think it will be important if the date could be found?—If you want that question answered, I drove a motor car for Deputy Briscoe— 5057. I want the date of the election. An election does not happen every day or every month?—I am afraid I have not found out. 5058. Deputy Moore.—Did you bother about inquiring what elections they were? —I did not bother my head. 5059. It has been stated in evidence that it was during an election?—There was an election or some such thing going on. 5060. Deputy Coburn.—Political meetings was what he stated?—Political meetings was what I stated. 5061. Deputy Moore.—Since you formed this association with Deputy Briscoe in connection with mines?—Yes. 5062. Are you sure that is a correct statement?—Yes. 5063. You swear to it?—Yes, I swear to it. 5064. If you were told that there was no election whatever in the City of Dublin since 1933?—There might not have been an election, but there might have been political meetings and activities. 5065. Chairman.—Can you say whether the elections were for the Dublin Corporation which might have been around that period?—What date were the Dublin Corporation elections held on? Deputy Traynor.—About June, 1933. 5066. Chairman.—His evidence was round about that period? Witness.—That would cover it. 5067. Deputy Traynor.—In the course of an answer to Deputy Moore you stated that you would not withdraw any little bit of evidence. Do you still adhere to that?—I do. 5068. You adhere to that statement in spite of the fact that a letter sent to this Committee by a fairly eminent solicitor states that that statement made by you was made recklessly and not caring whether it was true or false?—I stated it was a rather funny action by the solicitor. If you write to a solicitor and do not get a reply for two months, get a vague reply first, and then get no further reply as promised for two months, I think it is a rather bad action on the part of a solicitor. It is rather funny. That was the only reference I made which they took up. 5069. You would not like to withdraw that in common decency to the solicitor? —There is nothing to withdraw. I just stated that it was a funny thing, and so it was funny, and rather bad business, I imagine. 5070. Deputy Coburn.—I think you stated in your evidence that you worked for a considerable time previous to the lease being taken out?—Worked at Woodenbridge. 5071. Prospecting?—Yes. All the time worked was before the lease was granted. 5072. Can you give any idea of the period what elapsed before the joint application was made for a lease?—Before the application for the lease there was no work carried out. I might have made probably one panning. That probably would be before I met Senator Comyn or Deputy Briscoe, just for curiosity sake. There was no definite plan to work upon before the lease was applied for. 5073. After the application was made in the names of Senator Comyn, Deputy Briscoe and yourself, I take it a considerable time elapsed before the lease was granted under the Mines and Minerals Act?—Yes. 5074. That would be about six or nine months?—About that. The lease was not granted until November, 1934. 5075. I think you said in your direct evidence that before you prospected at all you had in mind that you would be doing an illegal act?—Yes. 5076. Owing to the Mines and Minerals Act being in operation?—Yes. 5077. You were fully aware during that period that you were more or less acting illegally?—Yes. 5078. Was it from knowledge of the fact that you had as co-partners two members of the Oireachtas?—Yes. 5079. That gave you a sort of courage to proceed?—It did. I mean that the local people, when they knew my partners were a Senator and a T.D., would try to help me, whereas if my partner had been my father, as in the case of the Glendalough enterprise, I would have had a lot of obstacles similar to what I had in Glendalough—people trying to cause all sorts of obstacles. 5080. Would I be right in assuming that if it were your father and yourself and some other man constituted the trio, you would not be very happy in prospecting without having the actual lease?—I would not like anyone to see me prospecting, anyhow. 5081. During that period you were to be paid certain wages?—In the initial period I was to be paid my expenses. 5082. And as you stated, the expenses were paid in a very haphazard way, and eventually you were to make your wages out of the gold raised, melted, and made merchantable?—Yes. 5083. That gold was to be sent to Senator Comyn?—Yes, the sale was to be conducted through Senator Comyn. 5084. You put a value of 25/- on the amount of gold found?—Yes, roughly. Senator Comyn got that weighed, and the results of the weighing were ridiculous. 5085. If we assume that instead of 25/-worth of gold it turned out to be £25,000 worth, Senator Comyn could dispose of that without making any return to the Department?—Yes, I suppose so. 5086. It could happen that it could be £25,000 worth?—Yes. 5087. And Senator Comyn, according to your evidence, could dispose of that?— Yes. 5088. You were to make your wages out of the amount of gold raised?—Yes. 5089. It did not matter if it realised millions; it was all the same so far as the Government were concerned—they would not have any knowledge of it?—Yes. The witness withdrew. 5090. Chairman.—A letter has now been put in by Deputy Briscoe from Messrs. Arthur Cox & Company, solicitors, dated 23rd July, 1935. I think it is intended to be the letter referred to by Deputy Briscoe in reply to a letter from Messrs. McGrath, solicitors, to him. I will read the letter. It is addressed to Deputy Briscoe. Deputy Costello.—The letter I was looking for is a letter from Messrs. Arthur Cox & Co. to Messrs. McGrath & Co. That is a letter to Deputy Briscoe himself for which he might claim privilege. Deputy Briscoe.—I would not have that letter. Deputy Costello.—I know you would not, but Mr. Cox would have a copy, and by asking him for a copy you can get it here. Deputy Briscoe.—In order to facilitate Deputy Costello I may say that I do not claim privilege. Deputy Costello.—You are not facilitating me in any way. Deputy Briscoe.—It is the answer to the queries put by you. Chairman.—If you let this letter be read, possibly it will explain that no letter was written by Messrs. Cox to Messrs. McGrath. You can raise the point when I am finished. Deputy Costello.—I do not wish to prevent that letter from being read. I merely interrupted because I do not think Deputy Briscoe realised that he was giving a privileged communication. It was in ease of him that I raised the point. I think also that Senator Comyn will agree that without the consent of Mr. Cox the letter should not be read. Deputy Briscoe.—In connection with that letter I think I have already Mr. Cox’s consent to hand it in. Deputy Costello.—That is a matter for yourself. Deputy Briscoe.—I have no objection to its being read. I waive any privilege. Chairman.—Then I will read the letter. Deputy Costello.—I am not making any point. I am merely referring to the fact that Deputy Briscoe could claim privilege for that, and that the solicitor had an interest in reference to that privilege. As far as I am concerned, it can be read. 5091. Chairman.—Deputy Briscoe put it in, and I take it he has made his own arrangements to absolve himself in regard to any privilege in the matter. This is the letter:— “Personal. “42 and 43, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, C.2, July 23rd, 1935. R Briscoe, Esq., T.D., Leinster House, Dublin. Dear Mr. Briscoe, I had an interview yesterday with Mr. McGrath. I told him that on my examination of the contract there would seem to be a number of matters which are very far from clear. These were:— (1) It had been represented to you and Senator Comyn that there was a sum of £80,000 available, and that there was to be no public flotation. (2) Mr. Heiser had not carried out clause 6 and had not employed men to work upon the site. Subject to these primary points I also pointed out:— (3) The ambiguity in the agreement which in the first three clauses speaks of a lease to Risberget, Ltd., and in the succeeding clause speaks of ‘I.’ (4) I pointed out that £12,000 in shares in an £80,000 company was very different to £12,000 in shares in a £250,000 company. I said that these were matters which obviously had to be discussed, but that I did not see what could be done very much until the inquiry had come to some decision. I pointed out that everything was vague and unsatisfactory. Mr. McGrath, of course, did not admit any of these. He said (a) that you could never have thought that the full £80,000 was available in cash; (b) that the reference to the company having a capital of £80,000 meant only the paid-up capital; (e) that the agreement clearly meant that the leases were to be to Risberget Co.; and (d) he maintained that Mr. Heiser had instructed him that there were actually men engaged working on the site. The interview ended with our both saying that we would talk to our respective clients. Of course this is only a very brief statement as to what was said. Yours sincerely, A. Cox.” Deputy Costello.—That letter appears to me to prove clearly that at that stage, the 23rd July, this £250,000 company and the prospectus were being discussed as a live proposition—the very thing I suspected. Chairman.—Well, do you want to make any statement? Deputy Costello.—No, but I draw my own conclusions. Deputy D. Breen sworn and examined.5092. Chairman.—You wrote a letter to the Committee, Mr. Breen, asking for an opportunity of giving evidence to the Committee? Witness.—That is right. 5093. Would you now give us any evidence you think will help the Committee?—Both Mr. Comyn and Mr. Briscoe have explained how I came into this business, and I fully agree with their statements. I remember the 12th March when the agreement between Mr. Heiser and Messrs. Comyn and Briscoe was signed. Mr. Summerfield was present and he did not object, in my presence, to the signing. I also remember an evening in May when I was informed that Messrs. Smyth and Summerfield were to meet us in the Dáil Restaurant. I attended, and I heard Mr. Summerfield press on Mr. Briscoe to accept the Heiser-Harrison agreement. I heard him remark to Mr. Briscoe: “Your 12,000 share and 2¼ per cent. royalty are all right, and if you agree, we will arrange to let your crowd have some of the £10,000 cash and a part of the 50,000 shares.” Mr. Briscoe refused to even talk about the matter, remarking: “I am not interested.” About this time Mr. Comyn came along, and Mr. Summerfield’s first words to him were: “Why don’t you settle with Heiser?” Mr. Comyn replied by asking him: “What are your interests in Risberget?” and Mr. Summerfield replied: “I am a shareholder in Risberget. I got shares because of my interest in Crusade Prospectors.” Mr. Comyn looked upset, and told Mr. Summerfield: “Young man, you should see your solicitor.” Mr. Summerfield looked towards Mr. Smyth, and Mr. Smyth said: “You're all right.” Mr. Comyn stood up and remarked: “I won't have any more to do with you until you have seen a solicitor.” That ended the conversation. Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Smyth stood up to leave, and Mr. Summerfield said in an angry tone; “You're not finished with us; you will hear more about this.” I met Mr. Summerfield on this business on either the 11th or 12th of March, and I understood from him that he came there to represent Messrs. McGrath & Duggan. That is all I have to say. Chairman.—Does any member of the Committee wish to ask any questions? 5094. Deputy Dowdall.—There is just one question I should like to ask you, Mr. Breen. On the last day when Mr. Summerfield was here he gave evidence with regard to the statement made by Mr. Comyn and Mr. Briscoe to the effect that he (Mr. Summerfield) had used the words: “You will hear more about this.” According to their evidence Mr. Summerfield was supposed to have stated something like that. Mr. Summerfield, so far as my recollection goes, denied that definitely on the day he was here, and you now say that he did make that statement?—Yes, in my presence. 5095. Chairman.—You mentioned, Mr. Breen, that Mr. Summerfield was urging Mr. Briscoe to accept the Heiser-Harrison proposal. Was that the proposal to float the £250,000 company?—That is right. 5096. And that was in May?—Yes, in May. I am sure it was in May. It was some time after Heiser coming across with that prospectus. Thank you, Mr. Breen. Well, that finishes the examination of the witnesses. Perhaps the Committee might care to have a private sitting now to determine its subsequent activities. The Committee then went into private session. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
