CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8947, 3 August 1892, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

GOVERNMENT TAXATION UPON ENGLISH AND FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES. TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —At the meeting held yesterday of representatives of companies doing business in this province—fire, life, marine, and accident—a letter was read from Mr. Kirker, manager of the South British Insurance Company, replying to an invitation given to him to attend the meeting. He sarcastically remarked that his company not being included with those who it is intended to affect, he could not see what good his presence could do. Amongst all commercial institutions there is a certain espi-it de corps, which, to say the least, has been overlooked by Mr. Kirker. The cime may come—no one can tell how soon—when co-operation of companies to resist further taxation will be required, and with the world-wide business in which his company is engaged, he may require the countenance of those that constituted yesterday's meeting; and I think, upon reconsideration, he will admit that his expression, " Of course you do not like this legislation, and I fully recognise your feeliugs," etc., coraes with exceedingly bad taste to those concerned. As regards his company's investment at the Cape of Good Hope it is not analogous—that is a matter resting between his directors and the shareholders, who I trust will find it satisfactory.—l am, &c-, G. S. Graham. Auckland, August 2,1892. WESLEYAN PROPERTY TRUST BILL. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The Committee appointed by the Conference on this subject requested those members resident in Auckland to undertake the actual preparation of this Bill. As chairman of this subcommittee I am requested to reply to certain statements made oy Mr. Hobbs in your issue of yesterday. I will do so as briefly as possible. Mr. Hobbs states that the Committee did not follow the instructions of the General Conference as to a " time-limit." He is perfectly aware that the Committee had no option. They were instructed and directed by the Annual Conference to do exactly what they have done. I may also say that the General Conference gave no instructions as to putting a " time-limit " in the Act of Parliament, but simply directed each Annual Conference to assure itself that any action taken in extending the appointments was legal—a very different thing. This also answers his second point. Our legal advisers were not asked to sa / what was best to be done. That was properly left to the Church Court, the solicitors simply counselling how what that Court resolved upon could be legally carried out. In answer to Mr. Hobbs's third point, it is well-known that in connection with the proposed plan of Methodist Union some years since v every quarterly meeting in the colony discussed the very point of leaving the time-limit out of the Deed, and the majority voted for it. Prior to this it was discussed in the New Zealand Wesleyan. If it has not been so discussed again in our church paper now, I presume it is because there was nothing more to be said. As to the fifth point, Mr. Hobbs knows or might know that the Bill has not been smuggled through the House in contravention of the standing orders, but in accordance with those standing orders was duly advertised in a VVellington newspaper. As to Mr. Hobbs claiming his legal right 3. nobody wants to interfere with them. Again, Mr. Hobbs says this subject has always been brought up in the Conference by a minister, never by a layman. His memory is sadly at fault. The strongest resolution that ever passed the New Zealand Conference —that of 188b", was moved by Mr. John Manchester, a layman from Waimate, and in every Conference where it has been discussed, laymen have spoken io support of it Before it was ever mooted by a minister, circuit quarterly meetings had asked for it. As to the last Conference, Mr. Hobbs affirms that it was discussed and decided in " a thin Conference" whem " not more than ten laymen" were present, and the Conference " fagged out," will it be believed that Mr. Berry's motion was brought up on the second day of Conference (after notice duly given) and adopted on the voices, there being only two dissentients. I am informed that Mr, Hobbs'attention was specially drawn to the vote at the time. I was requested to put the motion into form. This was brought up towards the end of the Conference, and the only two votes recorded aeainst it then were the two dissentients of the former full session.

Mr. Hobbs appears to be specially grieved that this matter was not formally remitted to the Trustee meetings for a vote. He was a member of the annual conferences of 1881 and 1884, both of which recommended the extension, the latter especially asking there should be no limit. Yet he never even suggested asking the Trustee meetings to give their opinion. More than this, Auckland Methodists probably have not forgotten that twenty years since, Mr. Hobbs, as circuit steward of the Auckland circuit, invited a minister to remain a fourth year, and secured his appointment. The consistency of his action is difficult to be seen. I do not dwell upon what Mr. Hobbs has said as to representation of the laymen—that; being a matter for him to bring before his own church courts it he wishes an alteration. 1 am sure your readers will be weary of this correspondence, and I am sorry to have occupied so much space. But the committee thought it necessary thus to state the facts once for all.-I am, &c, Wμ. MoBiBT. 1 Auckland, August 2nd.