THE CONSOLIDATED TELEPHONE COMPANY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 7484, 25 February 1885, Page 2

THE CONSOLIDATED TELEPHONE COMPANY.

SIE J. VOGEL's BEPLY TO THE CHABG AGAINST HIM. AUCKLAND, Feb.', Sir J. Vogel forwards the following.e munication to the New Zealand, Hen concerning his connection with the Com dated Telephone Company.-—' "To the Editor. " Sir, : —I am in receipt of the second port of the Investigating Committee of Consolidated Telephone Company, an send you a copy of it, together t one of the first reports. It was ■» reference to the second report that a t gram appeared from the Press Asso tion, in which it was stated that the C pany intended to sue me for the ' enorri profits' I had made. The malice of telegram is evident, because nothing pears in the report about 'enormo profits. Taking the extreme prices quo but which the report inferentially adn I did not realise, as it states the sales t place over a long to h rates, the amounts could not be designa enormous. As a matter of fact, I have particulars with me. I am eertahx profits on the whole of my 3330 shares not exceed, or even amount to, £7OO. " The first report states I am, .allot 1500 shares, and the second that I allot myself 3330 shares. Both statements incorrect. I did not allot any shares myself. I indicated my wish to take 3 shares and the Board allotted them to i I was not, to the best of my belief, the Committee of Allotment. I may hi been, and probably was, at the Boi meeting, which confirmed the Committ* work. The shares were applied for nea six times over, and when it was deci< not to allot pro rata, it was, of coui necessary to make the allotment by ai trary decision. I had been engaged lengthened negociations for arranging ■ terms of Gower's sale, and but that 11 going on the Board, I would have tx entitled to and have claimed a large cc mission; and the Board recognising exertionspaidmethe compliment qfallowi me to name those friends amongst the ap] cants to whom T desired allotments'to made, to an amount including the share took myself, of 15,000. J do not tihu| fully availed myself of the P r if I did, what possible there be ? Is it not a common Directors to indicate those of their friei amongst applicants to whom they w allotments to be made? The gene complaint against companies is/"t] the Directors do not take a-, sn cient interest in them. I ; gave 1 best possible guarantee, of""my opin; of the Company's prospects,, and surely < of 15,000 shares, it was hot excessive ask that the applications of r J my friends the extent of less than 12,000 shares shoi be granted, besides 3000 shares to mysel " Then it is alleged that the allotm( to me was informal, because my appli tion was only for 1000 shares. I beliew is a common practice for Directors 3 to send in applicatians, but to indicate the meetings of the Board previous to all ment, how many shares they wish. 1

thing happens every day. I have, memoranda with me, but it niay be tl my initial application, before allotment v considered, was for'looo shares only, bul is stated that the application number-t altered from 1000 to 5000. lam qii certain that this was not done by.; directions. It is evident that no one cot have made the , ;alterati«n without authority to warrantit. If the applicati for the other four ; thousand cannot found, it is probably ' mislaid, as I mi have paid the application and allotmi money for the shares. What object cot I possibly have in not signing an appli tion? ■'-■". ''

"The report states that the Board i advised by counsel that they have groin of action against me, but the facts w< not correctly stated, and I am' advis that they have no case. ; If they had would be a very technical one, and woi involve the disturbance of many other all ments. The report makes a point of a c cular sent out by the Directors in Dece ber, 1881, stating that they expected to able to continue to pay dividends at the rs of 10 percent. At that time the prospec fully warranted the statement. Th< seemed to be five years of such'dividends view of several contracts, apart from t ordinary business of the Company as s< licensed manufacturers of telephones Great Britain. It would serve no purpose inflict on your readers an explanation of h< the Post-office inost unexpectedly exercisec right to withdraw from the inajor porti of its contract, and how a second centra •was compromised for a small paymei These disasters occurred during my la visit to Australia. When I returned England the Company, which I left, as thought, in a brilliant position, was sv rounded with difficulties. It appears no from the report of the Committee, th, the Company has lost a quarter of i capital, about .£60,000, which is mu< less than the value of the contra with the Post-office unexpectedly ups< and for which a large consideration w paid. It is proposed to write off 5s in tl <£, but the shareholders have received 3s the £ by way of dividends, so they lose in the £ and interest up to date. It is e pected the Company will pay a dividei this year. " But I cannot further pursue this su ject of the Company's affairs without ,ui duly trespassing on your indulgence, tihink I have s,aid enough to show you th: i the questiohubetween the Consolidated Tel iphone Company and me is in' the natui of a private dispute that does not concei the public, and that it was a cruel thing < the correspondent to telegraph about tl report, knowing as he did, that until Ir ceived it I had no.means of replying 1 bis unfair representations of what that r< port contained.—lam, &c, " Julius Vogel." Feb. 2,1885. l ;v