Banking Enquiry.

Opunake Times, Volume V, Issue 198, 28 July 1896, Page 3

Banking Enquiry.

Wellington, July 24. Mr Montgomery moved that no member be allowed to speak move than ten minutes or more than once on any one motion. Mr Seddon contended that the Committee, had no power to pa3S such resolution, which would conflict with the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr Steward moved an amendment that the time limit be five instead of ten minutes. Mr Tanner said the time of the Committee was being wasted in long discussive speeches, which were turning the whole business into a farce. Mr Seddon declared if the proposal for time limit was carried he would not adhere to it.

The Chairman replied he would take care the other rules were strictly observed. After a short discussion Mr Steward's amendment was carried by 6 to 4, but it was decided it should not take effect till reported to the House. Subsequently the House vetoed the Committee's proposition to make a time limit.

Mr Maslin moved that the evidence of the sub-committee be dissolved as it was only a duplication of work. Mr Seddon had great pleasure in seconding the motion, and it was agreed to unanimously. Further consideration was then given to the sub-committee's report, covering Mr Hutchison's notice of motion.

In clause 8, summoning the liquidators of the Colonial Bank to give evidence, Mr Hutchison moved to reinsert the clause excised by the subcommittee, calling on the liquidators to produce all books, documents, &c, relating to the affairs of the Ward Farmers' Association, and (since 1892) of J. G. Ward. Mr Hutchison said Mr Ward's declaration that there had been no writings-off, in the* face of the other evidence, was only a matter of words. He could show at any rate that there had been one writing-off from the Ward Association by the Bank of New Zealand, for the C list, which included the amount of £55,000 odd of the Ward Association, proved this.

Mr Seddon said this was a repetition of yesterday's proceeding. It was evident Mr Hutchison would lose no opportunity of venting his spleen, and have his revenge on the late Colonial Treasurer in carrying out the vendetta. He had placed himself in a false position, and it was now quite evident why he wanted to get on this Committee, and since he had been on it he had shown bias, which was very regrettable. Mr Seddon contended there was no proof that Ward Farmers' account was in the C list. In fact, the inference could fairly be taken the other way. Mr Hutchison's unfairness was evidenced in the fact that he argued that the Committee should be bound by Sir Robert Stout's denial in respect of writings-off in the Guthrie Company, but he refused to accept Mr Ward's assurance in connection with the Ward Association. Mr Guinness contended that there had been no writings-off in the ordinary sense of the term, but simply an adjustment and transfer of accounts consequent upon the absorption of the Colonial Bank by the Bank of New Zealand.

Mr McMenzie said they already had it in evidence that millions of money had been lost by the Bank of New Zealand before the Ward Association or the Colonial Bank ever came on the scene, and surely these losses should be first enquired into. The Colonial Bank had nothing to do with the bauking legislation of 1894. The paltry amount said to have been owing to the Colonial Bank by the Ward Association was nothing compared to the millions that had been lost previously, and yet Mr Hutchison would have the country believe that the troubles of the Bank of New Zealand were due to the default of the Ward Association. Other members of the Committee also spoke. Mr Hutchison protested that he had no personal feeling against Mr Ward, and in seeking this information he was actuated only by motives of duty to the colony. He still contended there had been writiugs-off from the Ward Association.

Mr Seddon said Mr Hutchison's protestation was not borne out by his actions ;*at any rate*he was attempting to blacken Mr Ward politically. Mr Maslin had stated that the feeling of Minister or Ministers might have influenced their actions in connection with banking legislation, but he (Mr Seddon) wished to emphatically declare that he alone was totally responponsible for that legislation and the the lines it should go upon, and he was not involved financially in any way. He desired this explanation to go through the colony.

After further discussion, Mr Hutchison's proposed addition was refused by 7 to 3, viz., Messrs Hutchison, Montgomery, and Maslin. The remaining proposals of the subcommittee were agreed to with slight amendment. During the discussion which took place with regard to the adjournment, Mr McKenzie said the time must soon come when the Committee would have to ask the. House to adjourn for a week so that this committee would be able to sit continuously until the evidence was finished.