Marlborough Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1886.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1874, 8 June 1886, Page 2

Marlborough Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1886.

Policy-holders in the New Zealand Life Insurance Association will be called upon on the 14th instant to decide as between two gentlemen who each aspire to a seat on the Directory of the Association Board. They will ere this have received the ; r voting papers, and are informed of the proposals of the candidates— Messrs Graham and Shannon. They may also have made up their minds as to which gentleman they intend voting for, but as the business of the Association is conducted under a State guarantee, and the taxpayer as a guarantor is therefore directly interested in the management of the Association, we should be wanting in our duty if we failed to point out the datiget which lies in the return of Mr Shannon to a seat on toe Board. He is a man of vacillating character, with no fixed principles in this matter of the management of the Board, and further, he is completely under the thumb of a most undesirable chief Mr George Pisher. Mr Shannon occupies the peculiar position of seeking election while he is already a nominated member of the Board, having power to use a second vote, while he is at the same time canvassing the policyholders for election. He already has a voice in the proceedings of the Board, and if he fails to secure election he will be in a position. to champion the interests of policyholders, of which he has become so suddenly and strangely solicitous. This is a strange position, and one which Mr Shannon, we venture to say, is unable to exp'ain. The claptrap in which he has indulged as to the more honorable position of an elected member as against a nominated member is an insult to the intelligence of tho e whose votes he expects to get. The real reason is that he has been persuaded into the position by Mr George Fisher,, a bitter political enemy of Sir Julius Vogel, who as Colonial Treasurer is ex officio Chairman of the Board. What does Mr Shannou find fault with in the management of the Board ? The appointment of Mr Driver is one reason advanced. How, then, does he explain the fact that he voted for the appointment? The land purchases made by the Association is another reason given for Mr Shannon’s estrangement from the Board, yet it is a fact, we believe, that ho voted for those purchases, and took a prominent part in the acquisition of all the properties purchased by the Board. It will at once be seeD that Mr Shannon cannot explain his position. He now no doubt curses his Mentor, and devoutly wishes that he had never entered upon this campaign. And if Mr Shannon is successful as against Mr Graham, what will be the position of affairs—the Governmert will nominate another gentleman, to the Board, whose vote they can depend on, so that policy-holders will be in no better position than they are now. We hope the policy-holders in the Colony will do the proper thing and exclude such a man as Mr Shannon from a seat on the Board. His vanity, incapacity, and vacillation should have been sufficiently demonstrated to prove to their satisfaction that however worthy a man in other respects, he is not entitled to their confidence as a member of th- Insurance Board, but if anything is wantiog to prove this it is easily supplied, and we shall show that Mr Shannon has not a very clear conception of what is best in the interests of the Association, When the trouble first began

in the Board-r. oni, Sir Shannon voted in favor of the amended report agreed on by a üb-committee, as to the reconstruction of the Board. Next he placed upon iheOrdf r Paper a motion for the reconstruction of the Department on .an entirely mutual principle, without a Stite guarantee. Then he declared in favor of an entirely elective Board with a State guarantee, and, finally, I he asks the policy holders to return j him as supporter of Mr Fisher’s proposals for a mixed Board. All these proposals have be> n championed by Mr Shannon within a period of two months; he has therefore had a fresh view to urge once a fortnight. Surely the policy-holders will pause before they try their interests in the hands of a min with such vacillatin'; moods as Mr Shannon has betrayed. But apart from all these arguments we have s ronger ones still to urge against Mr Shannon’s return, and in favor of Mr Graham’s election by the policy-holders. The latter must remember that they are taxpayers of the Colony as well as poliev holders of the Association, snd that, so long as the Association has a State guarantee the interests of the State must be fairly represented. If the prepesal of Messrs Fisher and Shannon be agreed to, what may not happen in the inexperienced and incapable hands of men like these ? The policy-holders m <y not improbably find that the business of the Association is going to the dogs, that t.heirrepresenta ives are making ,£ ducks and drakes ” of the property of the Association, and then they, as taxpayers, will learn 11 their cost what it is to place their faith in untried and incapable men like Messrs Fisher and Shannon, long as the Association carries on its business by means of a State guar antee, so long must the S ' ate be properly represented on the Directorate of the A.-sociition,or thelattcr may work grievous ill to the Sia f e —the State being the taxpayers —so that, policy holders who are taxpayers have a serious responsibility to consider. It is desirable, we suppose, that the business of the Association should be carried on economically ; policy-holders therefore who are not taxpayers will remember that Messrs F-sher and Shannon propose to nay members f the Board nearly double the total amount f honorarium proposed to be paid by Mr Grp ham and Sir J, Vogel. Messrs Fisher and Shannon want to pay the Chairman of the Board 1.300 per annum. Why? Because—as it is alleged in Welling ton—both Mr Shannon and Mr Fisher are aspirants for the Oh irmanship. For all these and other reasons we ask the po icv-holders to pause before 'hey record their votes for such a vacillating and incapable man as Mr Shannon, for if e'ected he cannot !‘°rve their interests any better than he is able at present to serve them, and, if elected, he will be elected as the nominee of a most undesirable chief in the person of Mr George Fisher. How either of these men. came to be upon the Board at a 1 we are at a loss to conceive, but being there they certainly did theirybest to ruin—we use the word advis dly to ruin the business of the Association, for when differences of opinion arose at the Board table it was those men, who now rose as the champions of the interests of the polity-holders—it was these men, we say, who carried the wars of the Board-room into the newspapers. It was these men who divulged the confidences of the Association, and it was these men, therefore, who enabled rival companies to mike capital out of the squabbles of the Government Association Board, and to push heir own business at the expense of the business of the Government Association. It is a fact that scores of canvassers (we know several personally) had to relinquish their to promote the business of the Association because of the exposures, so called, made by these two gent'enipn in the Press of the Colony Then surely the policy-holders will not desire to see the Association further hampered by Mes-rs Shannon and Fisher. One word more and we have done. An attempt has been made by our local contemporary to show that the present Board has been guilty of “ extravagance and jobbery in land purchases and palatial bui dings.” We deny the charge, but if it were true, did not Mr Shannon vote for this “ extravagance and jobbery ?” Ergo Mr Shannon is guilty of “ extravagance and jobbery,” but is supported by our contemporary, who denounces “ extravagance and jobbery,” Our contemporary has furnished the best possible reason to the policy-holders for voting against Mr Shannon’s return. If he were only true in his facts, so far from extravagance and jobbery we have it upon a statement made by Sir J. Vogel in the House of Representatives during last session that the purchases made by the Association are really good investments already, and that immediately upon the acquisition of the properties purchased by the Association they returned a handsome interest on the outlay. We cannot see that good investments can by any tortuous line of argument be called “ extravagance and jobbery.” The policy-holders receive all the benefit from the outlay. In conclusion, we desire to urge upon the policy»holders the consideration of the points we have referred to, viz., the neces-ity of proper representation on the Board by the State, so long as the State gives a guarantee to the Association with fair representation to the policy-holders;

the nccfssity of entrusting the management of the affairs of the Association to men of experience and strength of character, rather than to men of no ability, no ex~ p-rience, and men whose views can be altered at any time to suit circumstances or convenience} the necessity if placing men 'on the Board who, by their past conduct and published views, give some assurance that the affairs of the Boards shall be conducted economically and yet efficiently, and the urgent deairablness of placing their trust in men who have no ulterior ends, political or private to serve. If the policy holders faithfully consider these points they will place Mr G. S. Graham, who is a man in every way qualified for the position, at the head of the poll on M ‘inlay next. He has previously received their confidence, has proved himself worthy of it, and we hope will be rewarded by a renewal of the trust.