AUSTRALIAN MUTUAL PROVIDENT SOCIETY.

Evening Star, Issue 8810, 27 April 1892, Page 4

AUSTRALIAN MUTUAL PROVIDENT SOCIETY.

A meeting of policy-holders in the above society was held in the large room of the Chamber of Commerce last evening, and was attended by several ladies and about sixty gentlemen. Mr J. W. Brindley, who presided, stated that as the election of two gentlemen to the Board of Directors was coming on, it had been considered advisable that a meeting of policy-holders should beoalled to|disonsß this and other matters affecting tho society. It would devolve upon the meeting to give an expression of opinion as to which of the directors should be supported. They had the address of Mr B. Short before them, and knew that he was strongly in favor of the platform set forth in the resolutions. Mr Frederick Lee had also published an address showing that he was opposed to the extension of business to Loudon, and he (the chairman) was told that Mr F. E. Joseph was in favor of published resolutions.

Tho Hon. W. D. Stewart moved the first resolution—“ This meeting consider the operations of the society should be confined to Australia and New Zealand, but that in London the society should have an agent for the purpose of receiving premiums, paying claims, and attending generally to any requirements in connection with the policies of members who may be resident in the United Kingdom.” He had been connected with the society for a considerable time, and took some interest in its welfare, and wonld say that the experience he had had of other companies extending their operations to London bad not been fortunate. This society hitherto had been marvellously successful, but, if it went into competition with o&er graat companies that had been established for centuries, he had no hesitation in sayieg that, in his humble judgment, the result would not be advantigeous. The proposal to make the change suggested to him an epitaph placed on the grave of a man who had doctored himself: “ I was well; I wished to be better; and here I am.” Mr H. S. Fish, M.H.R., seconded the motion, which was also supported by Messrs Edmund Smith, Cailan, aud M, Cohen,

The motion was carried by a large majority, only two hands being held up against it.

The Chairman moved—"This meeting consider each colony should have elected boards of directors instead of nominated boards, the elections to be on same lines as those for the directors for the head office, except that members in each colony vote only for directors for the colony in which they reside; also, that it is desirable as regards New Zealand, owing to its geographical configuration, to have one director resident in Auckland, one in Christchurch, and one in Dunedin, and a small board in Wellington, Instead of the present system of all tho board being resident in Wellington.” Mr Fish seconded.

Mr Jago thought that the local directors could not consult together if chosen aa suggested, excepting at considerable expense. The Hon. Mr Stewart suggested that the motion should be confined to an expression of opinion that the boards should be elective, This suggestion was accepted, and the motion was withdrawn in favor of the following, which was unanimously adopted—- “ That in lieu of the present nominated boards each colony should have aa elective board, to be chosen only by the policyholdeis resident in that colony.”

The Chairman moved—” That this meeting consider members should be granted loans on policies at the lowett rats of interest accepted by the society,” Mr Grierson, as a banker, remarked that if they reduced the rate of interest on loans the profits of the society would not be so large. The impecunious members of the society who wanted to borrow on their policies very often surrendered them, and he did not see why the society should not get 7 per ’cent, interest on (h;ir loans o policy holders.

The Chairman said that money was lent on the inferior and uncertain security of mortgages at less than on Ihe policies, and this seemed hardly fair to policy-holders. Poverty was not a crime, and all should have a fair chance of keeping their policies, Mr H. S. Fish strongly supported the motion, on the ground that there being absolute security the policyholder should be able to borrow on terms as good as those offered to strarg^ra, Messrs H. Grant-Lloyd, G. L. Danniaton, and Edmund Smith also supported the motion, which was carried all but unanimously ; only one gentleman voting against it. Mr Cohen proposed that a small vigilance committee be appointed to watch over the interests of local policy-holders and call them together when necessary. The at tempted action of the previous Board in connection with pensions, and the present attempt to revive the London agency question, showed the necessity for a vigilance committee being appointed who would gather the beat information relative to what was going on at headquarters and advise local policy-holders accordingly. D; Belcher seconded. Policy-holders were entirely in the dark as to the merits of candidates, and such a committee would enlighten the former on very necessary points. Mr Fish strongly opposed the resolution. Tbo so-called committee would only be a clique, with results most disastrous to the interests of the society. The move was a most pernicious one. The resolution was negatived.

Mr Fisk next moved that the candidature of Meaers B. Short and Lee should be recommended to the policy-holders ; but strong exception was taken to this course on the ground that there were other good men in the field equally sound on the London branch question, and quite as desirous as either ot the gentleman named of effecting the reforms suggested in the resolutions that had been adopted. It was mentioned that Mr Meeks, who was deputy-chairman of the Board, had cabled over during the last week that he was opposed to reopening the London agency question; that Mr King was one of the most active opponents of the pension scheme; and that Mr Joseph had pronounced strongly for elective boards in all the colonies. Eventually the name of Mr Short was submitted and received unanimous endorsation, and on a vote that of Mr R. J. King was coupled with him.