BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 23 February 1924, Page 3

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

ELECTION OF DIRECTOR WELLINGTON, This Day. The controversy over the Bank of New Zealand election of director is growing keen. In reply to the Auckland Herald’s reported interview with an “influential shareholder,” from reliable enquiries made by the Wellington Post, it was .reiterated that the statements made by a Wellington paper Were perfectly correct, Auckland’s denial notwithstanding. It was noted that- the Auckland shareholder interviewed in the dispatch frofn The Post’s Correspondent admitted that the ground title! somewhat shifted, arid instead of the directors having declined to appoint Mr Gibbs it was now stated that (to quote the Auckland interview) ,“I dispute the accuracy of the statement that his appointment was not urged by a section of the directorate and was not discussed by every member of the board.” “Bo that ns it may,” remarked the authority seen by The Post, “the directors, as is statecl, wisely left the shareholders, to elect, from among themselves, including Mr Gibbs—-who, for a considerable time past has been a shareholder —their own representative. “It would here he interesting to know for how long prior to the requisition being presented to Mr Gunson lie took any interest ill (lie Bank of Non Zealand’s affairs, evert to the ownership of a single share. As to the references made to the procedure of English banks, the statements made in the Auckland interview, as reported above, show gross ( ignorance of the facts. To take the I oilier proprietary bank in New Zealand, [ the National Bank: Was not Sir James Coates, late general manager of that j bank, himself appointed to the director-1 ate? Is not Mr D. W. Dnthie, also gen- ' oral manager, now on the Advisory Board in New Zealand? Is not Mr Freshwater, at one time London niaiia- j ger, now on the London Board of the National Bank? What about Messrs Mil-j burn and Willis, both ex-managers of j. the Union Bank of Australia, who both j became directors of that bank? Mr I Jeans, also at one time manager of the I Bank of Australasia, was he not placed , on its board of directors? Mr Sturgis, , of the London City and Westminster, I was he not subsequently made a diree- i ‘ tor of that bank? One could give in -i| .stances of this kind ad infinitum. But ' surely sufficient has been shown to dis- I pose of the criticism that ‘no great Eng-i lish bank would dream of making such' an appointment.’ In fact, it cannot be j imagined that any appointment could he 'I more suitable for the directorate of the ' Bank of New Zealand than that of a j man thoroughly conversant with its af-l fairs. ’ / j “It is considered in the South to be I somewhat inconsistent for the Auckland shareholders all to stand down while they put forward their candidate, Mr Gunson, who until this election was not possessed of any shares or interest in the Bank of New Zealand.”