That Oats Transaction.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXI, Issue 6695, 22 September 1896, Page 1

That Oats Transaction.

The evidence taken by the Legislative Council Banking Committee has not yet been published, but the Wellington Post has been burrowing into the copy laid upon the table of the Council for information as to-the celebrated oats transaction, of which so much has been heard. The following is the result of the Post's search : Mr Vigers, who acted on behalf of the Colonial Bank throughout the transaction, and who is now a liquidator of the Bank, stated that when he issued the warrant against the oats he " did not take any evidence of the oats being there afc all." Asked as to the latter history of the L 30.000 draft, he said it was afterwards redebited to the account of the Ward Association. Mr Fisher, the manager of the Ward Association, in the course of his evidence, said the issuing of the draft had the effect of reducing the overdraft of the Ward Association, and at another stage he informed the Committee that it was not afterwards redebited, which is a contradiction of Mr Vigers evidence. Mr Fisher's evidence points to the issue of the warrant being a very unusual one, for he says—" I stipulated in giving the draft that I would not pay any stamp duty upon it; that I would incur no expenses whatever upon it; that if the draft were put through it would be put through at par ; and that I would pay no exchange upon it—exchange upon such a draft at that time would come to something like L 450 ; and, further than that, that I was not satisfied that the Bank was entitled to such a draft, and that it must on no account be sent forward to England until Mr Ward's arrival in the colony, when it would be determined as to whether my interpretation or the Bank's was right in reference to this L 30,000 draft." In answer to a question from the Chairman of the Committee—namely, "Was there any security for the draft ?" Mr Fisher said, " Well, the position was this—that the draft was not issued afc all upon any colonial security, but it was issued upon the basis of this presumed credit in London, and subsequently, or immediately after this draft was drawn, Mr Vigers, the officer who conducted the negotiations on behalf of the Bank, asked if I had oats in store and what quantity. I replied that I had 80,000 bags of oats in store. He asked for a warrant for that quantity of oats, and I gave a warrant for that quantity. I had very considerably in excess of 80,000 bags of oats in store at the time, but the balance over and above the 80,000 were held on behalf of outside clients to whom we had afterwards to deliver them. One's actions are very often controlled by the exigencies of the moment, and some time after I had given it I concluded that in giving it t had probably made a mistake because of not making the position exactly clear. The Bank held at that particular time warrants as special custodians for other people to an almost similar extent, or something in excess of 70,000 sacks, and I inferred that in giving one warrant for 80,000 the desire of the Bank was, of course, to get one concrete warrant for all the oats that we held, and that the other warrants previously held, would, of course, be cancelled, but I did not make it clear to Mr Vigers—in fact it never struck me at the time, but I told Mr Vigers that I had 80,000 bags in store, which was absolutely and positively correct. I had more than 80,000 sacks, but, as I say, the Bank was aware that I had 80.000 sacks at that time, because they held special warrants for an almost similar amount. The Chairman of the Committee : Which did not belong to the Association 1 Mr Fisher : Which did not entirely belong to the Association. We held them as warehousemen for the Bauk for advances. The Chairman : Who were these other persons that you held oats for ? They were clients, I suppose 1Mr Fisher : Yes. The last-mentioned oats belonged to clients and the Association itself, and they were oats that the Bans had special warrants for. I should like to make that absolutely clear, because I infer from remarks that have been made, and from what I have seen in the public Press, that it is supposed by many that I did not have any oats at all. I had considerably over 80,000 bags. Questioned further, Mr Fisher said: " I mean 80,000 sacks for which I was entitled to give warrants, but which I had already given warrants for " ; and again, "The fact of having the oats or not would not have, interfered with the issue of the draft. The draft would have been issued for L 30,000 irrespective of my having given a warrant at all." Mr Fisher was examined upon the oats transaction at length by different members of the Committee. In answer to Mr Shrimski, who wished to know why he did not ask for the return of the old warrants before the new warrant was issued against the oats, Mr Fisher replied: " That is just the point; I should like to know myself why I did not do it, but, as you see. under the exigencies of the moment we sometimes fail to do the thing that we should do. Strictly I should have asked for them. I was, however, not in the habit of doing that. I have issued a great number of warrants which have been redeemed and were treated by the Bank, and the cancelled ones were simply put among the old vouchers of the Bank, and I did not lift them." Mr Ward also examined his late manager upon the oats transaction. In answer to him, Mr Fisher stated that the Colonial Bank had never made any intimation to him that they "doubted the existence of 80,000 sacks of oats or a,ny other quantity of oats. He did not know that they expected 80,QOP in addition to what they had already. He had never during his term as manager been requested to give a warrant to fche.Colonial Bank or anybody else for grainj goods, or produce thab did not exisfr,' and he had never done so.