Ward Inquiry

Drags On

Nothing New In Recent Evidence

THE inquiry, by an Australian Royal Commissioner, into the alleged con nections of Territories Minister, E.

J. Ward, with what has been called the New Guinea Timber Lease Case, dragged wearily on through 45 sitting days, and the evidence by witnesses came to an end on April 7. The Commission will resume on April 28, when counsel will address the Commissioner.

It is estimated that the four trials and this present inquiry will cost the country £60,000.

It is apparent that there will be no re port by the Commissioner to the Austra lian Government until June. Nothing will be done in relation to the Territories port folio until the report is in.

That, in turn, means that Papua-New Guinea will have been virtually without Ministerial direction and control for 18 months. Mr. Ward —at his own request —was relieved of his portfolio in January, 1949; but, actually, he has been so deeply concerned with the Timber Case since December, 1947, that the Australian Terri tories appear to have had little of his attention. The Army Minister (Mr.

Chambers) has acted as Territoiies Min ister since January.

There was little in the evidence given before the Commission in late March and early April to excite attention. The Corn months. Mr. Ward —at his own request the evidence submitted; but all the later evidence appeared to have been brought forward by the interests defending Mr.

Ward; and, generally, it all has been in favour of Mr. Ward.

During the four Crown prosecutions which resulted in the gaoling of Mr. Jock Garden, and the acquittal of Messrs.

Garden, Harcourt Garden and Parer on charges of conspiracy, Mr. Jock Garden (Mr. Ward’s chief accuser) was repre sented by Mr. S. Isaacs, a barrister who subjected certain witnesses to a gruelling cross-examination, and who thus gave prominence to some very serious charges against Mr. Ward. But, early in the pre sent inquiry, Mr. Isaacs disappeared and Garden returned to gaol. The only person at the inquiry who showed hostility in cross-examination of the numerous wit nesses who gave evidence favourable to Ward, and of Ward himself, was Jock Garden’s son, Harcourt Garden.

Ward was defended by a very able bar rister, in Mr. Miller, KC.

MR. WARD gave a complete denial of all the charges brought against him; and, although he was on the witness-stand for two or three days, his evidence appeared consistent and un shaken. A long line of witnesses, includ ing the Prime Minister, bore testimony to Mr. Ward’s good reputation and to the unsuspicious character of his bank ac counts. Mr. Ward, under examination, gave an explanation of all the circum stances which, according to earlier evi dence, might have suggested that he knew something of the attempts (that went on around him for three years) to obtain a timber lease for Ray Parer and the syndi cate. He declared that he knew nothing of the Garden-Parer-Farrell plan to get the timber licenses and that, as scon as he recognised what was afoot, he placed the whoie matter in the hands of the law authorities.

A “Sun” newspaper reporter caused a slight stir, towards the end, by saying that during the earliest criminal prosecu tion he had been privately told by Mr.

Isaacs that, if the Gardens and Parer

were charged jointly with conspiracy, “We will say that Ward was in it.” Mr. Ward’s defenders said that this was evidence that Mr. Isaacs had done some improper pianmng. The reporter, asked why he had delayed 15 months before making his disclosure, said that he had been unwill ing to betray a confidence, but the barris ter s words “had burned themselves into his (memory.” Mr. Isaacs has referred tn «r matter to the Law Council of NSW We are not permitted to comment upon this extraordinary case until Mr. Justice Ligertwood has submitted his report to the Prime Minister. . Ifc is expected that this Royal Commis sion inquiry will be followed by an appeal by Jock Garden against his conviction for forgery, on the ground that new evidence (that of Farrell) at the inquiry had tended to prove Garden’s innocence of the crime (forgery) of which he was convicted.