THE BANK INQUIRY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10587, 3 September 1896, Page 3

THE BANK INQUIRY.

(Fee Uhiteb Pbess Association.)

Weixington', September 2. Tho House Banking Committee resumed its Sittings at 11 a.m. . The Chairman, in formally announcing that the' House had granted the committee three weeks' extension of time in which to Bring down its report, expressed s, hope that members trould «cc the necessity of conserving time as far as possible. ;■ .- . ' ■ A letter was read from Mf W. G. Foster,' manager of the Estates Company and Assets and Realisation Board, stating that he was instructed by Mb board of directors not to supply to the committee tho latest ascertained values of the Estate Company/ properties. ' i The Hon. J. M'Kenzie s»id that this could aot be looked upon as private'bnßiness, and Mr Fostes had no right to refuse to give the information. Mr Hutchison said the committee would have to recall Mr Foster to give evidence. A motion was carried a3 to the method of taking the ovidence of Mr John Murray at Sydnejv Mr Hutchison moved to rescind tha motion of July 24, by which it was decided that the liquidators of the Colonial Bank should not bo called upon' to produce the books, documents, and papers relating to the dealings between the 3. G. Ward Association and the Colonial Bank' Mr Hutchison said ho thought the motion should be rescinded in order that the investigations of the committee might be made complete. The Hon. Mr Seddon pointed oat that it had already been decided to call the liquidators of the Colonial Bank, but it had been rhle'd that no documents could ba produced relating to private Accounts until writings off had been proved. After a short discussion the motion was negatived by 7 votes to 2. Mr Montjomery moved —"ThattheHon.R. J. Seddon be required to e'Y6 ovidence before thio committee and produce all documents in the potseisiou of the Government relating to Blatters within the order of roferehce." li« thought; it was right that the Promier nhould be called to produce these documents. He had been called in another place and had produced the papers to that committee. It would be in the interest of the Government that the Promier should ap e eir as. a witness, and he had no doubt tbe.GoverbmPac wonld come oul of the inquiry very well. His own epinion was that the Premier had beeu judicious and exceedingly circumspect throughout the banking troubles, but the country would never bs satisfied nntil they had ovidence from the Premier by word of mouth. Tho.Hon.'Mr Seddon said theuttnd he had taken up from the first wns that the Government were not ou their trial in *his. matter. Anyone would think from"«hat Mr Montc'omery Baid that the Government had been impeached and must prove its iunocanco. He did net thank Me Montgomery for his expression of epinion that the Premier had bpen exceedingly judicious under the circumstances in connection with tho banking troubloi, for under it was the covert innuendo that some other member of the Ministry bad not been circumapect. Mr Montgomery interjected that ha had no Such idea in bis mind. The Hon. Mr Seddon paid he who very glad to have the hon. member's assurance on this point. H» went on to sny that the Government had not been impeached, and nh*t they had done had boon done openly in the Houje, and the full facts were laid br.fore the country. He painted out that Mr Ward-win to be called as a witness, »nd every lucilily would bo given of questioning him upon the documents iv possession of the Government, and every paper in the hands of' the 'Government wauld be open to him. The" motion,; therefore, was not necessary. From the inception of the banking legislation the Government and every member ot it' had been absolutely correct, cartful, and judicious, and they hud done at considerable sacrifice to themselves a great service to the conntry The Government had nothing to gain and everything to lose in the action they hid taken, aud they had done their duty to the colouy. The banking question had been a source of constant worry to the Government ever since, and now it was wanted to put them on their trial. He could aisuro the committee that not» single etep h«.d been taken by Mr Ward mi which he (Mr S.-ddon) had not been ' connilrvjct and on «rsu-L b'l had not conferred with Wo o:(.jr la im-r:1- if the Government, and ie (Mr Seddon) ifwi s.ilely responnible for some lcattirs laid as Mr Ward's door in this rattter. Members of Ih* Government were not ssked to give evidence at last year's committee, *nd when he had produced correspondence before thu Legislative Council Committee this session he was nob oxamißcrt upon it. Mr M'Gowan s«.td tho r/iotion was au attempt to bring the Premier into '.he same position ai tho parties who had benefited by the banking legislation, and there wai nothing in tho order of reference to allow that. He was opposed thorefore to tbe Pretnitfi being called as a witness.' t Mr Guinness pointed oul that the. committee could ess from Mr Waid ail the necessary information regarding tiio correspondence in the bands of the Government.. If Mr Montgomery was not satisfied -with that ta conid move to call other members of the Ministry. He failed to see any necessity for the motiou. Mr Hutchison couteud'id that the conduct of the Government was impugned when this committee was set' uu. The Hon. Mr Seddou denied this was so, and added that from the beginning to the end of the whole banking legislation the conduct of tbe Government had not beau impugned, nor had members of the Miuistry been impeached. The Hon. J. M'Keuzie deplored the waste of time that bad takeu plac&that morning, arid he thought that after what had been said by the Premier, Mr Montgomery should withdraw hii motion. Mr George Hutchison had subjected Mr Booth to a long and searching examination, but, although tho witce« was politically, and he believed privately, hsutile to the Govern-' ment, the member tor Patea was hot able to obtain any evidencs from him derogatory to the Government or individual members of the Ministry.Mr1 Masiin thought this committee had now become an object lesson how not to do things. The Chairman remarked that Mr Masiin should hot make remarks disparaging to the committee. Mr Masiin, proceeding, regretted the waste of time that had again occurred, and expressed bis doubts, too, whether the committee could finish its labours within the three weeks' extension of' time. The committee would not have time to examine one-thicd of the witnesses it bad already been decided to call, and he saw no use in adding to thp: number. For that reason he would vote aipuiist the motion. On a division Mr Montgomery's motion was negatived by seven votes to two (Metsrs Montgomery and Hutchison). iThellon.Mr Seddon gave notice to move— "That in future,notices of motion be not considered on Wednesdays, except by the unanimous consent of the committee." He remarked that he was determined to prevent further waste of time over notices of motion. Mr Watson produced a statement showing that all the information which was available to the general manager of th» Bank of New Zealand between 1891 and 1834- was available to the head office in London. The head office was therefore in almost as good a position to form ID opinion on matters affecting the bank as the {[sneral manager in Nesv Zealand was. Mr IVatson handed in a list of the officers, who tarnished the reports to London during that perLd. At 12.30 the examination ef Mr Watson by Jie Premier was resumed. Witness produced > balauce sheet of the position of the bank on me 25th June 1894, which materially agreed Kith Mr Murray's balance sheet of that date. Ur Murray had nothing to do with the first Bvertures for the purchase of the Colonial Bank In 1895. He was tent for, however, during negotiations, - and dissipated some misapprehension held. For instance, Mr Andrews ' thonght the Bank of New Zealand wonld lote 25 pt-r cent, of the business of the Colonial Bank if it purchased that bunk. Mr llurrny was convinced that this was not. likely, aud folly recognised tbe necessity for rebuilding tbe Bank of New, Zealand by some purchase such as that of the Colonial Bank. Neither bank took the lead in the negotiations. The representativesof thebanks metand discussed matters, and came to conclusions on certain points. He hardly thought Mr Booth capable of judging of the banking ability of a man like Mr Mackenzie. Mr Booth's own banking experience only extended over about a year. The second Banking Bill of 1895 was promoted by tbe Government at the request ef the bank. He did not think the bank's solicitor and the bank drafted a bill. The solicitor had told the witness that he had not. The accumulation of properties and dead accounts in the Babk of .New Zealand led, to t'na formation of the Estates Company. The debentures were floated in London at 5i per cent, for a term of 20 years, redeemable at six months' notice at a premium of 105. The cosls of floating and full particulars of these debentures he would endeavour to ascertain. At 1.10 p.m. the committee adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.