MR. MURDOCH IN DEFENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXII, Issue 243, 15 October 1888, Page 4

MR. MURDOCH IN DEFENCE.

(A. Z. Herald, October 8.) Sib,— l have read in your issue of the 4th instant the report of tbe Shareholders' Committee of the Bank of New Zealand, whioh wws preflflnted at a meeting of shareholders on the Srd Instant, and as the committee have Been fit specifically to name me in their rejotfe, whioh will be transmitted to England

by the outgoing mail, and as no other op* portunity will be afforded me prior to the departure of the raiul of making any counter statement, I will aek you to publish this letter in your summary, immediately following the report vi ;ho shareholders' met tinp. In a time like t.hip, af w-r the unexamtl^d •lepression of the ya^b six yeavp, I can piite appreciate the difficulty the committee vould experience in a't'Cliia/>- va^u s to the argo mass of securities held by the Bank. [ have heard it urgod thai a propart'y for yhioh uo off r cm bo obtained is worth nothing, and any advai C 3 against it should be writtea off as a bid debt. I hnve not the leasb id.:a on what dat* the committee have arrived &t their estimate of 1ob», bu - , unless on some suoh principle as above, tho result ia quite irreconoilable with any knowledga poßnßsed by me of the Bank's securities. The result, however, ia truly trenchant, and I o»n only o^n^ratulate wbo-j\er Biioceeds to the office of General Mttntigar, fchat Binh a clean sheet bas been pr>vided for him. The innuendoes in the report s-re worsa than the accusations, aud do cred:t to the ingenuity of t'ia framers. In iho seventh paragraph ther< is on:) v ry unoalLd-for, aE '0 the seleo'iou of managers for Sydney and Adelaide, Such s?le(tioH, it ia said, was in each oase, tJ say the least, unfortunstc, tho implica ion evidently fa-ing th >t the director* had some Biuiaer motivo in makiug thf eeleotioo, R totally gratuitus aid unwar r ntable r fleosion. Tfie par gfca^h goes or to say that after n gambling oare/r, lont, known to most people, the m^na^'t was convicted of embezzling the Bank's funds Here, again, by inference, shareholders an i acked to believe th-t there wis culpabli neglect in the direotora not knowing wha , was known to most people. This matte: wob dealt with at the n&lf.yairly maetinj ! on the 28th April, 1886, when in reply to i queaiion " whether in the opinion of thi authoril ies a man who is apparently nctorioui as a bettor and racing man is eligible for thi ofßc3 of manager of a bmk ?" ;t was state* that neither directors nor executive had an; knowledge of the mauager having sucl character, and if the knowledge was pos sensed by shareholders, it was mnoh to b deplored thf-y did not give a note of warain| to the directors. The same reply may wel be given to this part of the commibtea'a re port. The farther statement that in Adelaid mouey appears to have b?en fqa&ndered in ; way which can only be characterised a reckless ned disastrous, is a very wild oo< with some justification as fo the chorau c of some of tie advances, bub withoafc »• ; allowance for, or appreoia ion of, the almop universal bankruptcy whioh overtook th commercial community of Ad 1 aide conse quent on the eff. ct of a four yeirs' drought If direo/ora and managers had the advantag possessed by the onmmifiee of judging ftfte the event, it would be a very easy matter t avftid losses. I pass over the next three paragraphs whioh mora properly fall to be answered b; some momb-r of the Board, In the eleventh paragraph there is a ver uncalled-for allusion to the New Zealani Loan and Mercantile Agency 00. There ma; be different opinions as to the value of th conneotion, on which the Committee appea to «et so little weight, but I can say that a far as ratei for business go, the oompany ha had no advantage over other important' com meroial accounts. It is, however, to the next paragraph that . would desire to call special attention. In nuendo again appears in the statement that was intimately aseociated with a limitec cirole who have had the real control of th^ Bank's policy for many years. It is impossibli for me to say what was in the minds of thi Committee when this was written. I do no suppose it is meant to be implied that thi limited cirole was outside the Bank ; if so the implication would be as unworthy th< Committee as insulting to me. If the limite( cirole was the Board of Directors, surely it ii not unnatural that more or lesa intimat< aspociation should exist between them am the General Manager. I am not, hoAyever aware of ever having had a transaction witl any of the directors, except being fellow, sufferers in various local enterprises in whict we were shareholders, much to our own loss Tho report would, no doubt, have been mor< sympathetic if its compilers had risked somi capital in tee same direction. » I much regret the importation of there mainder of this paragraph into the report whioh lends to it an appearance of personal animus, from which it should have been free There is in it misrepresentation of my action, and misstatement of facts, which a little wider inquiry would have prevented. But, while I adhere to the statements I have made! I am not going to follow the example of the Committee by introducing into this letter petty questions of division of responsibilitj and relative efficiency of officers, These were subjects for the private consideration of the Committee, but can have no interest for the general body of shareholders, and should have had no place in the report. I will only further add that this is no time for vituperation and reorimination, which the report seems to court. We may disagree as to the warrant for such very incisive action aa has been taken, but I am sure that there can be but one hope, that it will prove tc have been for the best intereits of the Bank. I am, etc., D. L. Murdoch. Auckland, October 6, 1888. ' niiiiinri i iiihiiii ■ iiiiini^M»ii«iniia_ > i)um_jjm_jm___^