Bank of New Zealand.

Opunake Times, Volume II, Issue 54, 8 January 1895, Page 3

Bank of New Zealand.

THE LEGALITY OF THE CALL. As the calling up of the third of the liability of the shareholders of the Bank of New Zealand has caused considerable discussion—not only in the colony, but also in England—and as the legality of the action of the directors in making the call has been questioned, a representative of the Otago Daily Times waited upon Sir Eobert Stout to ask his opinion on the matter.

Our reporter having stated his mission to the senior member for the City of Wellington,

Sir Eobert Stout said : " When the Bill was first introduced this call of one-third of the reserve liability of the shareholders was compulsory. It was, on the suggestion of Mr George Hutchison, made optional at the discretion of the Colonial Treasurer. It seems to me that the shareholders are now too late in objecting to such a condition. No doubt they might have taken up this position. They might have said, ' We decline to accept the colony's guarantee on the issue of stock or shares if we, the shareholders, have to submit to such a call.' But the shareholders, neither in London nor here, took up that position. They accepted the conditions of the Act, and were, I understood, grateful for the Legislature's interposition. It is now too late to raise points about the call." " Do you consider that there is power to make the call ? " Sir Eobert was then asked. '• I certainly cousider there is power to make the call," was his reply, " and I do not see any defence the shareholders can make in answer to it. I express no opinion as to what use the call is to be put to. But that the shareholders will have to pay it, I have no doubt." " Suppose the shareholders do not pay it, what will happen ? " "I suppose what usually happens when shareholders do not pay a call," Sir Eobert answered. " They will be sued or the shares may, I believe, be forfeited or sold. I do not think it fair of the' shareholders to have first accepted the Guarantee Act and then to try and repudiate one of the conditions of assistance." " What is your opinion of the future of the Bank ? " " Personally,'' Sir Eobert said, " 1

know nothing of its a«--s< is. It las a good busincHs, and, I should ircarjne, witli prudent management, and if it is not made a mere political machine, it should have yet a bright career before it. No doubt it is veiy hard en shareholders at j resent, but what else could be done ? If the president and auditor certified that a call was necessary the Colonial Treasurer would have undertaken a grave responsibility if he had not required a call to bo made, and I understand the directors, who ore largely interested, approve of the call." ' "Do you think Parliament will interfere in any way?" was the next question. " I would be sorry to endeavor to predict what the present Parliament might do or not do. But what do you mean by interference ? " The reporter explained that he meant interference with the call. "I should say not," replied Sir Robert. "If tho Bank is wise it will try to carry out its business as the business of a bank should be carried out, and not bother the House again. It has ample powers, and I repeat, a capital business, and if it caunot carry on without further Parliamentary interference it would be better if it stopped. In my opinion, however, its shareholders should have hope. Its directors, so far as I know them, are able men, and I am well acquainted with two of them, slightly with one, and regarding the fourth I hear him highly spoken of. They are, I repeat, all able business men, and I believe they will do their utmost for their institution."

"You do not think the outlook bad ? " was the final question. "I don't see," replied Sir Robert, " why it should be so with prudence and economy. No doubt we are in troublous 'times —we have often been so in the past; but we must go forward with hope."