The Press. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1886.

Press, Volume XLIII, Issue 6372, 20 February 1886, Page 2

The Press. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1886.

The very forcible letters which Mr. Geobqe Fisiieb, M.H.8., has been publishing in certain Northern papers, portions of which we recently-repro-duced, have been the means of calling public attention again to the proceedings of the! Cental, Board of the Government Insurance Association in a way which we hope result in some Parliamentary action next cession. ■> Mr, Fishee's first letter was published in the Neva Zealand i Herald, but waa reproduced in the Wellington Opening Press, o£ the 13th instant. This 'brought forth an editorial comment of a hostile character in the Evening Post, which was answered by another letter in the Evening Press, of the 15fh instant, from Mr. Fisheb. He deals very fully in these letters with the Deiveb appointment, and ' also with the pur* chases of, premises. We have no doubt that Mr. Fisheb is a very disagreeable man to be opposed to. He is capable of getting very angry and aind' he is master of a very incisiVe I* styleV He has bis faults, biit he is at least fearless and independent. We think that he has done a great .public service in jwriting as, he has done ; about the Government Insurance Association matters, and we hope that he will bring,them before Parliament, nd insist upon some action being taken. We do not at all concur with those who.resent Ms. Pisheb's action on ! the gropui that" he is injuring his clients—the insurers with the Association—by making the disclosures which he has made, or that he is guilty of a breach of faith towards his brother Directors. It is true that Directors of Joint Stock Companies do not usually bring their disputes at the Board table before the public. But then, this Association is a public in-: stitution in which all taxpayers are interested. The Board are a public body, of whose proceedings we have a right to know something. How ver, , we might remark, in passing, that shareholders in Joint Stock Com* panics would often be saved from very heavy if\ theY were allowed to know more about the proceedings of their Directors than they generally do know, v A: little publicity might often prevent Directors from doing foolish things. : ; ;

. These letters do not throw much more light upon the Dbiyeb appointment than we nave now. Sir J ulitjs VoGEI justified it; on the ground that the business in Otago and Southland combined was only one-fifth of that done in Canterbury. Mr. FisHßßsays it was a little less than a fourth. This question is not important. But he points out that the business in "Wei-. lington was a little over a fourth, while that done in Auckland is only a little less than one-tenth of the business done in Canterbury. So that Auckland and Wellington have as much right to Mr. Dbiyeb at £1000 a year as Otago. So also " reasoning on the line of the VogelianBmer argument," the manager who is doing such a grand business in Canterbury should be paid a good deal more than Mr Di;iyeb. But as this gentlemanonly gets £300 a year and commission, as compared with Mr. Dbites's £1000 a year and the same commission, . naturally enough the Board, for decency's sake, have had to rave this gentleman's salary, and Mr. Fisheb cays that some other officers have become unsettled and discontented, and their salaries will need to be ; increased. Mr. Dbivbb's large salary, therefore, is not the only mode in "which his. appointment has occasioned, or will occasion, exnenee to the policy-holders and diminution of their Bonuses. We follow Mr. Fisheb's example in Baying nothing against Mr Dbiveb personally save that he Has bad no experience whatever of Life Assurance business. This appointment ie wholly unjustifiable, and is a great act of injustice, not only to the policy-holders, but to many officers of the Association who are thus deprived of the chance of promotion in the service which they might have Bad had one of their number been appointed to Mr. Dbitob's position, ,

Mr. Fisheb also deals fully with the question of the purchase of sites. Hβ of afl,;by reference to thY ..Act of ifccOTporation, and by ,the opinion of the Board's own solicitors, that the Board's power of purchasing land and buildings, or of purchasing land and erecting buildings, is required to be exercised only for the purpose of acquiring premises for the transaction of the Board's business. Yet what have the Board

done. They have purchased land and bnildings to this extent: — Dnnedin ... ... ... £35,500 Auckland ... ... ... 19.000 Wellington 18,000 Chratchurch ... ...11,326 Total ... ... .. .488,725 Tbe Dnnedin property was purchased upon the recommendation of Mr. Stout, and the purchase money was" paid by the Association to or through the firm of Sieywbight and Stottt. These buildings are now to be pulled down to make room for grand newbuildings. TheChristchurch property is leased back to the Tendors for twenty-five years at a rental of i4j per cent, on the purchase money —all except a narrow strip of land upon which there is not room for a building of respectable dimensions. The Auckland buildings are to be pulled down, and new ones put in their p'aee. In "Wellington, according to Mr. FiSHEB, a bargain was obtained by the Association, as the property is worth £7000 more than was given for it. But even here the buildings are to be pulled down to make room for new ones. Altogether the Board contemplate an outlay of £90,000 on buildings,: not including the additional purchase of land and cost of buildings in Chretchurch which they did contemplate, but the purchase and erection of which they have been deterred from undertaking by the recent agitation. So that an outlay of close upon £175,000 upon premises is now wholly, or in part, undertaken by the Board. No doubt eeveral of these purchases were either concluded by the Government, or so far concluded as to be practically binding on the Board before the Board came into existence. But that does not affect the policyholders , position. They complain of extravagant outlay on speculative purchases made" either by the Government, or owing tcu. Government influence on the Board. Doubtless, also, the Board may get a satisfactory return on some of their purchases. If so, all the better. But, that does not alter the fact that the Government and the Board have far exceeded their powers in making these purchases, as they were expreisly forbidden to speculate in real property. We take out facts from Mr. Fishbb's. uncontradicted statements. If Mr. j Fisheb is not telling the truth, the Board should, in the interests of the Association, take steps to contradict him. With his quarrel the Evening Post as to w,hat share of responsibility he should take for the Board's misdeeds we have no concern. If he consented to everything,, it would not.alter our opinion. His disclosures as to the proceedings of the Board have only whetted the public appetite for more. We must have an exhaustive inquiry into the conduct of the Board. If we cannot have the Board abolished and Ministerial responsibility to Parliament for theinsurance business restored, we must have the Board's constitution completely altered, so as to bring the finance of the Association again under Parliamentary control, with all the wholesome publicity attendant upon Parliamentary proceedings.