MR BRIDGES AND THE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.

Otago Witness, Issue 1248, 30 October 1875, Page 10

MR BRIDGES AND THE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND.

(BY TELKfiKArH.)

(feom our own correspondent.) Auckland, October 26th. The Bank of New Zealand declared the usua 15 per cent, dividend, and carried forward L 19,000. Mr Bridges was severely dealt with by Mr Stone, the Chairman, and Mr Whit taker, of Whittaker and HusselL The Chairman said — I feel bound to call attention to the evidence afforded the committee by the British representatives in the Colony of the National Bank. You will, no doubt, have observed that the Chairman of that Banlc, at the annual meeting 1 in London on the 9th August, remarked that the Directors had made a strong push to get a share of the New Zealand Government account, and he hoped in time they would succeed, adding in the course of his speech, ' I must entreat everyone interested in the fortune of the institution to put all the pressure he can on those in authority with the view of obtaining 1 this concession. ' I suppose we may accept this as the key note to the line of conduct lately pursued by Mr Bridges, but I cannot for a moment suppose that, the Directors at home could for an instant have anticipated that their chief representative here would have descended to what assumes too close a resemblance to false accusation and malicious inuendo even for the purpose of securing the Government account. But whatever may be the verdict of his fellow Directors, I am very much mistaken if they do not receive from the Colony the convincing proof of reprobation with which it is viewed by the puolic of New Zealand. Honest rivalry we are ever ready to welcome, but we canuot sufficiently deprecate the line of conduct followed on this occasion, and which has obtained for Mr Bridged the well-merited verdict of the committee, and adopted with acclamation by the House, that I his charges are absolutely without foundation, ' and wholly unwarranted. A verdict which is heartily confirmed by this Bank. Mr Whittaker said the first chaige by Mr Bridges was connected with the Port Chalmers railway, and the second connected with a certain transaction at Wellington, in which, among other gentlemen, Mr Thomas Russell and his partner, were concerned. As to the Port Chalmers railway accusation, he could say, from his own experience, that Mr Bridges had spoken | of matters of which he was totally ignorant. There was no doubt he was trying to get the Government account taken from the Bank, and he felt sure this was his object, far more than any intended injury to Sir Julius Vogel. He wanted to get the accounts distributed, and then the National Bank would come in for a share. But the means taken to accomplish this end were very unworthy of an honourable man, and having known Mr Bridges ro long as he had, and conceived a respect for him, he could hardly bring himself to believe that gentleman capable of such conduct. He was inclined to think that Mr Bridges, in hU efforts to get the account, had lost his head, and had been saying things he was not responsible f oi\ The committee was composed of no one party, and were not specially interested in the Bank, but they felt the seriousness of such insinuations, and thought it necessary that the matter should be cleared up. Mr Bridges appeared, on the face of his evidence, not to be actuated by truth. Such reckless assertions were must culpable. it created a feeling of distrust and uneasiness in business circles, for a man to divulge matters which had come under his notice in a confidential position as Manager of a Bank, and the blunt sense of honour which could make such revelations, must be regarded as something absolutely shocking. He repeated it was calculated to shake all confidence in manager?. As to Mr Bridges, that gentleman might be safely left to his own directors. Were he (the speaker) one of these, and had a servant capable t>f such actions, he should not feel safe till he was out of office