Mr. Ward Under Sharp Fire

Political Repercussions of New Guinea Timber Case

WHAT has become known as the “Garden Case,” ended on May 21, after a trial lasting 17 days.

John Smith (“jock”j Garden was found guilty of forgery and sentenced by Judge Stacy to three years’ hard labour, i a charge of consoiracy against Garden, his son, Harcourt, Ray Parer and Edward Farrell will be heard at Sydney Quarter Sessions on a date to be announced.) Garden was originally brought to trial on three charges:— (1; Having forged a letter issuable by the Department of External Territories at Sydney, on November 20, 1945. (2; Having fraudulently, and in breach of his duty, falsified a letter issuable by the Department of External Territories at Sydney, on November 20, 1945. (3) Having forged a letter dated Nov ember 10, 1947, deliverable to the Depart ment of External Territories and ad dressed to the Minister of External Ter ritories, Commonwealth Bank Building, Martin Place, and signed H. G. Forshaw.

Mid-way through the trial Judge Stagy directed the jury to acquit Garden on the first two charges. The trial on the third charge then nroceeded.

During the trial. Garden admitted signing Forshaw’s name to a re-typed letter purporting to come from Forshaw (logging-manager for Hancock and Gore, Queensland timber merchants and mil lers) but he said that he believed that he had, through Farrell, Forshaw’s ap proval of this. Garden said, in evidence, that Hancock and Gore paid £50,000 to a syndicate of four (Garden, Harcourt Gar den, Ray Parer and Edward Farrell) for the right to cut timber in the Bulolo Valley of New Guinea. Garden alleged this his son Harcourt Garden, was a dummy for Ward and that Ward had received £5,000 as his share, which Gar den had delivered to W. M. Urquhart (a friend of Ward’s) in notes done up in a parcel.

IN summing up, Judge Stacy reminded the jury that this was a case of “the King against Garden”; and that it was not “Ward against Garden.”

He said that it had been proved that Garden had signed Forshaw’s name to the letter in question. It was the duty of the jury to decide whether Garden had a reasonable belief that he had the authority to sign.

“On the question of fact,” said Judge Stacy, “if the whole of Mr. Ward’s evi dence is false and you (the jury) believe that he was concerned in the matter ‘up to his neck, how would that affect the issue?

“How would that give reasonable be lief in the mind of Garden that he had authority to put Forshaw’s name on a letter? It wo'uld only mean that there were two conspirators, instead of one.”

Judge Stacy said that the history of the case had started away back in 1944, and the gigantic fraud had not been shown ud until 1947. One could not but wonder how it could last so long. There were rumours at an earlier stage (he apparently referred to an article in the “PIM” in 1945) but the jury was not concerned with those. The deal that the syndicate made with Hancock and Gore depended, to a certain extent, on Gar den’s close association with Mr. Ward— everyone knew that Garden was a close associate of Ward. It showed the danger of Ministers dealing with matters through people outside their Depart ments.

Garden did not belong to the Depart ment of External Territories but had ac cess to it day after day. He was, in fact, a liaison officers in another department.

“Whether Garden did any work at that particular time I don’t know, but he spent a good deal of his time having morning and afternoon tea in the Ex ternal Territories Department adminis tered by Mr. Ward, of whose electoral council I think he was president, and whose department staff Garden was using to write letters,”

AN application by Ray Parer for a timber licence was put into the De partment of External Territories in September 1945—nearly a year after the £12,500 had been paid by Hancock and Gore to the syndicate. This application was refused.

In September 1946, Hancock and Gore wrote to the Minister saying that they had secured Parer’s rights in New Guinea. This letter had not been handled in the ordinary way. It was not in the Department to-day. Garden had written a reply and the question arose as to how he got Hancock and Gore’s letter Mr.' Ward left for England on June 3, 1947. Before he left he dictated a letter to Garden which was signed by a secre tary (Balmer) who “thought there was no harm in signing it” as Mr. Ward dic tated it.

His Honor said that it was a very dangerous and foolish thing to do.

He said that, in considering this letter, which had begun “Dear Jock,” the jury had to consider what was the object of Mr. Ward’s telling his close associate something by letter when he could have had a conversation with him with ease.

Could they do anything but conclude that Garden had told Ward he was being pestered and that he had asked Ward to give him something before he went away?

In dealing with Forshaw’s letter of November 10, 1947 (which formed the basis of the forgery charge against Garden, because Garden altered it) Judge Stacy said that Ward, Forshaw and Garden were present at a conference on November 8, 1947. The letter had been sent after this; and Forshaw said that the Minister had directed him to send it to Garden. Mr. Ward had de nied that. Forshaw had written in that letter, however, “as directed by you (the Minister) I am sending the letter to Mr.

Garden.” Would Forshaw have put that in a letter if he had not been told to send it to Garden?

Garden received the letter and appar ently sent it, unopened, to Canberra, and it was returned to him. Garden then said he read the letter, did not approve of it, and wrote out a fresh third page (which carried the signature). Garden had it typed and then discussed the letter with the Minister, who, according to Garden, said it would have to be signed by Forshaw.

His Honor went on: “Do you think any sensible man is going to agree to the sub stitution of another page in his letter and allow someone else to sign his name to it? One would suppose that he would want to know exactly what is in it.”

JUDGE STACY suggested that Urqu hart’s connnection with Ward was a “little bit unusual,” in that his visits to Ward were made in a car nrovided bv the Government. He was interviewing Mr. Ward’s constituents; the bulk of his work for Ward was not concerned wfih the Department of External Territories at all, although a little of it might be concerned with the Transport Depart ment. (Urquhart was a clerk in the NSW Tourist Bureau. During the time Ward was Minister for Labour and National Service he was appointed to that Depart

merit’s branch at Newtown. He was on a salary of between £5OO and £6OO per year.

During the case for the defence, Mr.

Isaacs (for Garden) alleged that during that time £29,000 had gone through Urquhart’s cheque account. Urquhart said that he was betting heavily at that time. In 1946, on Mr. Ward’s recommen dation he was appointed managing director of Sydney Pincombe, Ltd. (a typewriter firm). Shortly afterwards, on behalf of the firm, he had sent, through Mr. Ward, an application for an import licence for Swedish typewriters. This import licence had subsequently been granted.

JUDGE STACY directed the jury to what had been done by Mr. Ward when the matter of the timber con cession was directly brought to his notice by Mr. Forshaw in December, 1947. He at once sent for Garden and asked, “What right had you to sign this?”

Assuming Mr. Ward had accepted the £5,000 bribe, was that the likely action he would take?

“To support the evidence of Mr. Ward, that Garden had no authority to sign on his behalf, the jury needed to go no further than the account of the inter view between Detective-Inspector Wilks and Garden. Garden said then “I had no authority,”

The jury would remember that Garden in the witness-box referring to those answers said he meant the licence, not

the authority, and suggested the answers did not quite mean what was suggested.

Royal Commission Suggested

A LEADING article in the “Sydney Morning Herald” of May 22, said, in part:— Although the verdict has been given and sentence passed in the Garden trial, questions of the greatest possible public moment remain to be cleared up. The transactions brought to light in this trial and their implications extend far beyond the Hancock and Gore affair.

Only a special inquiry by a Royal Com mission can get to the root of these unsavoury matters. It has been estab lished that Garden and his associates “were simply robbing Hancock and Gore of £50,000.” What is more, although their scheme was launched in 1944, it was not shown up until December last. That a “gigantic fraud” could thus be carried on for three years by a man, not a mem ber of the Civil Service, who enjoyed a privileged position and the personal friendship of the Minister, makes a searching investigation into the conduct of the Department of External Terri

tories imperative.

Mr. Ward has still to dispose satisfac torily of the grave accusations levelled against him. His evidence conflicted not only with Garden’s, but also with that of Mr. Forshaw. Nor would it be enough for Mr. Ward to show that he was not implicated in the conspiracy. The public will also demand to know a great deal more about other matters brought to light during the trial, but which were not pursued since they were not directly relevant to the charges against Garden.

Foremost among these is his relation ship with Mr. Urquhart, whose rapid rise in fortune was due to the efforts of the Minis'ter. Did Mr. Ward exert himself thus out of disinterested regard for Mr.

Urquhart and the firm of Sydney Pin combe or v/as there a quid pro quo? Only a Royal Commission with the widest pos sible terms of reference can clear up these questions, and the Prime Minister will be failing in his plain duty if he is not prompt to establish it. Meanwhile, it seems incredible that Mr. Ward should continue to hold office as a Minister of the Crown, or that Mr. Chifley should tolerate his doing so.

Mr. Ward s Suspension Sought

THERE was a similar demand from newspapers and public men all over Australia.

The joint executive of the Liberal and Country Parties demanded the suspen sion from office of the Minister for Ex ternal Territories pending the hearing of the court case involving Garden, Har court Garden, Ray Parer and Edward Farrell.

Because of this impending litigation the Opposition did not seek a debate in the House on Mr. Ward’s position, but the question was raised independently by private Liberal Party members.

During a Debate on Supply, on June 3, Mr. Cameron (Lib.) said that it was a time-honoured procedure in Democratic countries that as soon as a Minister’s administration is called into question that Minister withdraws from any de partment activity until his reputation and administration have been cleared.

Mr. Cameron reminded Mr. Chiflev that his predecessor, Mr. Curtin, had sus oended Mr. Ward in 1943 in what has become known as the “Brisbane Line case,”

The Prime Minister, however, refused to act. He said that he was completely satisfied with Mr. Ward’s honesty and that he was “not prepared to take the word of a convicted criminal, or the in nuendoes of any larrikin lawyer.”

This caused another storm.

Protest by Isaacs

MR. SIMON ISAACS, who had ap peared for J. S. Garden, said that he intended to refer Mr. Chiflev’s “larrikin-lawyer” comment to the Bar Council. He said that the remarks were made under Parliamentary privilege, and were contemptible.

Dr. S. G. Ross, with his wife and daughter, arrived in Sydney at the end of May, having travelled via Vancouver from Fanning Island, where he was medical officer for two years. Dr. Ross has contributed, to the Australian Medi cal Journal, some valuable scientific articles based on his observations in Fanning Island.

Mrs. J. Backhouse has returned to Rabaul after spending several months visiting her family and friends in Bris bane.

The French Union has agreed to a resolution moved by M. Bichon, New Caledonian representative, allotting 300.000,000 French francs (70,000,000 Pacific francs) to New Caledonia as a re lief fund for those who suffered in the cyclones and floods of January and March. The only opposition came from a Communist deputy who wanted the matter referred to a committee. It is expected that the National Assembly will sanction this grant, which already has the approval of the Council of the Re public. Caledonian representatives in Paris, Messrs. Lafleur and Gervolino, are actively supporting the measure.