• Read
  first
• Mackay
  1923
• Welcome
  1924
• S Arthur
  1927
• Harrisson
  1928
• Kirby
  1946

Welcome Swamp Reclamation: 
Report of the Royal Commission 1924

Go to Royal Commission report
Go to Introduction and Strickland's role
Go to Blackwood in the 1920s

In April 1923, Strickland had advertised for interest in a particular lot of blackwood logs sitting on rail trucks at East Marrawah. The September 1st call (above) was open-ended, both in time and in total volume. Strickland wanted to clear all the remaining blackwood on Welcome Swamp. Tenderers could suggest where and how they would get the timber, and where and how they would process it. For Strickland as reclamation works manager, the most important consideration after price was that the blackwood got removed from an area in the Swamp before the draining and scrubbing crews got there.

Prospective tenderers asked Strickland for more time to inspect the Swamp, and he extended the tender closing to 17 September. Four tenders were received by that date. The stories behind two of them (Bishop's and that of four Smithton sawmillers) are a little complicated; you can get an outline in the Royal Commission report, and you can trace the background in the contemporary newspaper accounts downloadable here. This webpage deals with a really complicated story: the Bertram-Etchell-Innes triangle and its connection with Strickland.

Cast of main characters, and prelude

• Henry Bertram, formerly an auctioneer on King Island. He had been friendly on the Island with Strickland. At Strickland's suggestion, Bertram came to Circular Head in June, 1923 to look for work. He got a job managing Strickland's farm at Allen Creek, where he lived in the farmhouse rent-free.
• William Etchell, sawmiller and logging contractor from Allen Creek. He had operated a sawmill at Christmas Hills, but sold it in 1923 to work as a contractor for Strickland on Welcome Swamp.
• Leslie Gilham, paymaster and inspector at the reclamation works, and Strickland's right-hand man.
• Edward Hobbs, M.H.A. for Darwin (1916-1933) and an Ulverstone sawmiller. Hobbs was Minister for Lands and Works at the time of the controversial blackwood tenders.
• Philip Howard, clerk at the reclamation works, employed by the Public Works Department. Among other jobs, he assisted Gilham in measuring the logs salvaged during reclamation.
• William Innes, sawmiller and logging contractor from Scotchtown.
• G.C. Rudge, chairman of the Closer Settlement and Returned Soldiers' Closer Settlement Boards, and Strickland's direct employer.

Sometime before tenders were called on 1 September, Etchell approached Bertram and suggested they work together in getting blackwood staves from Welcome Swamp. Bertram told Etchell that Strickland would finance him (Bertram) if he did so. When the call above was advertised, Bertram and Etchell jointly offered 4s. 6d. per 100 super feet of blackwood in the log. When the call was extended to 17 September, Bertram and Etchell submitted a new tender, this time offering 5s. per 100 super feet, with conditions.

Innes prepares his tender

Innes at first considered tendering by himself for the Welcome Swamp blackwood, but decided the job was too big for him. When the call was extended, Innes reconsidered.

On Sunday, September 16, the day before the new deadline for tenders, Innes visited Bertram at the house on Strickland's Allen Creek property. Innes suggested that Bertram join him in a tender. Bertram told Innes that he had already put in a tender with Etchell. Bertram wouldn't say how much they were offering, but he told Innes about the conditions he and Etchell had included in their tender.

Innes advised Bertram that he would be offering at least 5s. per 100 super feet. Realising that Innes' tender might beat the Bertram-Etchell tender, Bertram then agreed to join Innes in a new, last-minute tender, but as a silent partner, and only if Innes' tender were successful. He told Innes, as he had told Etchell, that Strickland would be his backer.

Bertram wrote out some notes for Innes about the tender requirements and the conditions in the Bertram-Etchell tender. Innes took the notes and used them to draft a tender offering 5s. 3d. per 100 super feet, and including the conditions asked by Bertram and Etchell. The draft was in Innes' name only and did not mention Bertram. Innes took the draft tender to Strickland's home ('Belfast' on the Scotchtown Road). There he asked Strickland to type out the tender for him, as his writing was poor. Strickland refused, but allowed his son Laurie to write it out.

Comedy at East Marrawah

Monday, September 17 dawned, the last day for submission of tenders. Innes' son delivered to Bertram the tender written out for Innes the previous day by Strickland's son. With the Innes tender and his own in his pocket, Bertram joined Strickland on the Marrawah Tram ride from Smithton to East Marrawah. It is uncertain whether they discussed blackwood tenders.

At East Marrawah, Bertram posted the Innes tender at the local post office, not wanting to appear to be associated with it, and handed in his own tender at the works office. Later in the morning he asked Howard, the clerk at the works office, if a new tender in a big envelope had been received that day. Howard said no. Bertram said he knew that a tender from Innes had been posted at East Marrawah, so Howard telephoned the post office. The postmaster looked in the wrong place, and told Howard there were no further tender documents for Strickland. Howard relayed this information to Bertram. Bertram walked the half-mile to the post office, found the Innes tender in the box outside the office and delivered it to Howard.

Gilham opened the tender documents in the presence of Strickland and Howard. He saw the mistaken 'Montagu Swamp' on Bishop's tender, asked 'What does he think he is tendering for?' and (according to Howard) tossed the tender contemptuously aside, even though the price offered (6s. per 100 super feet) was the highest in the submitted tenders (see the Royal Commission report). Strickland agreed with Gilham that Bishop's tender should be disallowed.

Winner and losers

Strickland wrote to the four tenderers on 18 September, advising that their tenders had been received. He passed all tenders to the Closer Settlement Board with a recommendation that the Innes tender be accepted. Board chairman Rudge passed on the tenders and the recommendation to Minister Hobbs. Hobbs accepted the recommendation on 21 September, adding a condition that the blackwood was to be milled in Tasmania.

But it wasn't that simple. The Bertram-Etchell and Innes tenders contained extra conditions that would reduce the Government's return on the timber, and the Minister's requirement that the blackwood be milled in Tasmania would reduce the tenderers' returns. The case could have been made for a call for new tenders, given the new conditions. However, Strickland had already poisoned the chances of the Marrawah Timber Company, from the sawmillers' consortium. A private letter from Strickland to the Chairman of the Closer Settlement Board dated 13 September 1923 (before the new 17 September deadline) was quoted at the Royal Commission. In it, Strickland wrote Should Mr McVilly [Marrawah Timber Company manager] be the successful tenderer make no mistake he will try and get the present contract through at a reduced rate. We feel sure he has nothing like the million and a quarter feet he offered as an inducement to put the [Reclamation] tram in, and should he be the successful tenderer it would pay better to make up the million and a quarter feet out of the bush.

Strickland was also critical of Bishop, the highest tenderer. Bishop protested to the Minister when it became known that Innes' lower tender had been accepted. The Minister wired Strickland on 18 October for advice. Strickland replied that he would not think of accepting Bishop's tender in any case, apparently because Strickland had heard that Bishop did not pay his employees or suppliers promptly. Strickland also told the Minister that Bishop had not objected when advised that his tender was out of order. Bishop denied that he had been told this by Strickland. Strickland later admitted to the Royal Commission that he had not mentioned the 'Montagu Swamp' mistake to Bishop.

Formalising the win

Strickland notified Innes by telegram that his tender was successful, and asked him to come to Strickland's home that evening. There Strickland told Innes that the Minister was requiring all blackwood from the contract to be milled in Tasmania. If Innes agreed with this condition, he should go to East Marrawah and sign a document with Gilham as witness. Innes told Strickland that he was partners with Bertram, and that Bertram had said he would be financed by Strickland. Strickland said if Bertram was in with Innes, he would still finance him.

Innes went to the works office, picked up the agreement from Gilham and said he would think about it. He showed it to Bertram. Innes later signed the agreement in Strickland's presence and posted it to Gilham. The agreement contained three remarkable conditions: the Government would extend the Reclamation Tram to the south end of Welcome Swamp; Innes could cut into staves any millable blackwood which he thought was too difficult to haul to the Tram; and Innes had preferential rights to the hardwood on the Welcome Swamp area, estimated at up to 37,000,000 super feet, and would pay only the forestry royalty on the hardwood plus 1s. per 100 super feet for haulage to the Marrawah Tram. The last condition, according to testimony by Minister Hobbs at the Royal Commission, had not been part of the Innes tender. It had apparently been added by Strickland. Hobbs said he did not think it unfair that Innes had been granted hardwood rights after his blackwood tender had been accepted.

Bertram informed Etchell that Innes was the successful tenderer. Etchell said he half expected it. Bertram then told Etchell he would try to get in with Innes. Bertram told the Commission that he did not consider this a lie.

Strickland offers help

Bertram and Innes had a deed of partnership drawn up by a solicitor, and were officially in business. They could have gained some ready capital for setting up a sawmill on Welcome Swamp if they had been able to sell whole logs to a mainland buyer, as Strickland had done with the April 1923 parcel. However, given the Minister's condition that blackwood logs had to be milled in Tasmania, they were short of start-up cash. On 5 October, Strickland signed an agreement with Bertram and Innes to loan the partnership up to £3000 of his own money at 7% interest. He later met the Minister, E. Hobbs, in Launceston and told him he was financing Bertram and Innes. Hobbs thought it was 'a little indiscreet' for Strickland to do so, but did not act on Strickland's revelation. Strickland said Hobbs told him 'That is your Waterloo', or words to that effect.

Bertram and Innes needed a sawmill, so Strickland went shopping for one. He learned that William Pilbeam's sawmill at South Riana had failed. Pilbeam had the right to find a buyer, but his bank would handle the sale. Pilbeam wanted £2200. Strickland contacted Pilbeam and offered either £1600 or £2000 (witnesses' accounts differ). Strickland told Bertram he thought the mill could be obtained cheaply. On October 5, Strickland and Innes travelled to South Riana to inspect the mill. They offered £1200 to the bank which held the property. The offer was accepted. Strickland and Innes handed over £200 cash and a bill for £1000 endorsed by Strickland.

Bertram and Innes also bought Etchell's winding gear and bullocks for £525, of which £500 was paid by Innes. Strickland had guaranteed the two men at the bank for up to £1500 for such purchases.

Was Strickland more deeply involved?

The Royal Commission granted Etchell protection so he could testify without fear of prosecution arising from his evidence. His claims were astounding. Etchell said that while he was working for Strickland, pulling logs on the reclamation works, Strickland had said he would buy all the blackwood on the swamp if he could find a man he could trust. Strickland then introduced Etchell to Bertram, and the three men met several times to discuss the details of a tender to be submitted by Bertram and Etchell. If the tender succeeded, Bertram would be Strickland's secret manager, earning £5 a week and travelling expenses just for keeping the books. The profits would be divided between Etchell and Strickland.

According to Etchell, Bertram later said he wanted a third of the profits. Strickland objected at first, then agreed during a meeting of the three men at Bertram's Allen Creek house, a few days before the second tender deadline. Etchell wanted to tender 6s. per 100 super feet, but Strickland said 5s. would be enough, and that was the offer in the second Bertram-Etchell tender.

A day or two after tenders had closed, Bertram told Etchell that there was a problem. Etchell saw Strickland. I said to him: 'What is the joke?' He replied: 'He [Innes] came in at the death-knock. I am pleased that Bertram and not the sawmillers have got it. Bertram may have a chance to get in with Innes.'

Strickland said that Etchell's evidence was a string of deliberate lies. He blamed the lies on spite. Strickland had cancelled Etchell's blackwood salvage contract on the reclamation works because of poor performance. The logs Etchell had cut, but not yet pulled from the bush, amounted to ca 70,000 super feet. Strickland recommended to the Minister that they be included in the Innes contract.

It's hard to totally discount Etchell's evidence, because Bertram refused to swear during his Commission appearance that he, Strickland and Etchell never discussed the Bertram-Etchell tender before tenders closed. He also refused to swear that he never discussed with Strickland a possible partnership with Innes.

The mill site problem

Innes was directed by Strickland to erect his sawmill on a site near the Reclamation Tram. He started to do so, and also erected workman's cottages and a blacksmith shop at an estimated cost of £3800. At the end of January 1924, Innes hired the former manager of Pilbeam's mill, C.H. Lowe, to be mill manager at Welcome Swamp.

Unfortunately, the mill site was in dispute. It was originally rented to the Marrawah Timber Company in conjunction with their Welcome Swamp blackwood operations. Strickland said that the land had returned to the Government when the reclamation works began, and that there had been negotiations with the company regarding compensation. He also believed that the company had for years not been paying the annual rental on the land.

The Marrawah Timber Company disagreed. They understood that the mill site rental was included in their timber lease fee of £14, and that the site was still theirs. Strickland told Innes to ignore the company.

The on-and-off Innes contract

Innes had never signed a formal contract following his successful tender. He had only signed the agreement drafted by Gilham between Innes and the Minister, and had been told that a proper legal document would later be drawn up for him to sign. In the meantime, he was free to get on with his work. He continued erecting his sawmill. He cut ca 100,000 super feet of blackwood in the log and hauled it to the Reclamation Tram, and cut another 12,000 super feet ready for haulage.

Innes asked in writing for a copy of the agreement he had signed. He never got one. Instead, Strickland sent Innes a letter dated 12 February 1924, saying the Closer Settlement Board had been told by the Minister that the Innes contract was to be held in abeyance until the Royal Commission had reported. Innes had heard news of the Commission from Gilham, who had received a wire from the Board on 12 February. On 25 February, Innes asked Gilham to wire the Board, to find out whether he could continue working. The Board wired back the same day, saying that Innes should stop all work.

After the Royal Commission handed in its report, the new Minister for Lands, James Belton M.H.A., received advice from Crown Law officers and from outside counsel that the Government did not have to honour any tender arrangements in which Strickland had an interest. On 17 April 1924, the Crown Solicitor wrote to Innes and advised that the Government did not recognise his contract.

The aftermath

Innes and Bertram were understandably unhappy. Bertram and his lawyers sought interviews with Ministers in July 1924, and threatened to issue a writ for damages. On 17 July the Attorney-General said that Bertram and Innes did not have a case for compensation, and that the Government would fight any legal action. Innes' lawyer sent a writ-in-equity to the Attorney-General in late September, with the intention of asking a court to order the Government to honour Innes' contract. The Government again said it would fight the case. Innes later modified his approach. In January 1925 his lawyer said Innes would be taking the Minister for Works to court for breach of contract, and would seek financial compensation for loss of potential income. Innes said he would have cut 6,000,000 super feet of blackwood and would have made a profit of 10s. per 100, or £30,000.

The case was heard in Hobart before a judge and jury in March 1925. The Government hired a King's Counsel from Melbourne to defend the Minister. The plaintiff's case was argued by two lawyers, one of whom was A.J. Douglas, who had represented Strickland before the Royal Commission. After hearing witnesses' evidence for two and a half days, Mr Justice Crisp brought proceedings to a sudden halt. He pointed out that before any agreement had been signed, Innes had joined financially with the man who was supposed to oversee his work and to report any contract breach to the Minister. In his opinion, Innes had not come into court with clean hands. He dismissed the jury and discharged the bill with costs against the plaintiff.

back to top of page