THE AUCKLAND GAS COMPANY'S BILL.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7363, 16 July 1889, Page 6

THE AUCKLAND GAS COMPANY'S BILL.

[Bt Telegraph.! [EEOM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.] WELLINGTON. July 15. The adjourned meeting of Auckland and Canterbury members in connection with the Auckland Gas Bill was held at 10.30 this morning, Mr Moss being in the chair. Since last meeting Mr Goldie had received a letter from Mr Bell, solicitor for the Gas Company, informing him that he could not attend at that hour as he was engaged at Court, but if the meeting was postponed till 7.30 in the evening he would take care to be present with Messrs Chapman and Parsons. After this letter was read, it was at once proposed to adjourn. Before doing so, Sir G. Grey again appeared on the scene, and objected to the whole thing as being irregular and he believed a breach of privilege. After speaking some time on the subject and expressing opinions already telegraphed to you, it was decided to negative the motion for adjournment so as to allow Mr Moss to inform those present of the results of the interview betn een him and the Speaker in reference to obtaining permission to use the room. After he had done so, the meeting adjourned till 7.30. On resuming in the evening, Mr Bell solicitor for the Gas Bill, objected to the. meeting, as being; entirely irregular, his arguments being similar to those raised by Sir George Grey in the morning. The Chairman, however, ruled that the meet- ! ing was expressly called to hear information, and it was thereforo not in order to discuss the propriety of their action. Those who did not wish to hear what was to be said could express their dissent by not staying. Mr K. Thompson and Mr Bruce then left the room. Those who remained were Messrs Kelly, Hobbs, Lawry, Swanson, Cadman, T. Thompson, Taiwhanga, Goldie, Withy, J. B. Whyte, Moss (chairman), Taylor, Humphreys and McGregor. There were also present Messrs Bell and Chapman, solicitors for the Ga3 Company, and Mr Parsons and Mr Cotter, the Auckland city solicitor. Mi Cotter stated the objections which weie made against the Bill. He said there was no occasion for such a Bill, as if it was desired to start electric works the shareholders could do so by forming a new company under the Joint Stock Companies Act without any Bill at all. There would only be need for a BUI if the corporation refused them the right to put up poles in the streets. The Gas Company under the present Bill proposed to establish electric works, but they proposed to do so in such a manner as to throw the whole of the risk on the ratepayers, none being incurred by the Company. The Bill also proposed to disturb the old arrangement for the division of profits and for dealing with accumulated funds, in an objectionable manner. There was a sum of £ 45,000 derived from premiums on sale of shares which it was proposed to divide by giving to the shareholders one new share for every two now held. The maximum dividend under the new Bill was nominally 12 per cent, but this would really increase it to to 18 per cent. Then it was proposed to set apart 3 per cent, for a reserve fund, making 21 per cent., and for every 10d reduction in the price of gas they were to be entitled to 2 per cent, extra dividends. They also proposed to wipe off a liability of 30s per share on 13,000 shares, virtually distributing the sum of .£IB,OOO. Various other ' parts were referred to in detail. Mr Bell replied, holding that Mr Cotter's objections were such as would be better argued before a Committee prepared to take evidence. He disputed several statements of his learned friend, especially that in which Mr Cotter contended that exceptional advantage was given to the Gas Company in dealing with gas and other fittings as compared with other trades. The meeting" was very much interested in the arguments adduced on both sides, but having assembled merely to gather information, no resolution of any kind was passed. Every member to whom I have spoken on the subject admits that the proceeding was an irregular one, but they plead in justification that it was the only way they had, without being lobbied individually, of hearing what was to be said for or against the BUI. One member says if the same care had been taken with the Point Resolution affair the country would have saved a large sum of money. There is some probability that the matter may be brought up in the House.