THE BANKING COMMITTEE

South Canterbury Times, Issue 8610, 27 August 1896, Page 3

THE BANKING COMMITTEE

(By Telegraph.) WELLINGTON, August 27. The Banking Committee resumed at 11 o’clock this morning. A letter was received from Mr J. O. Hanna, asking that his evidence should be taken this week, or that he should be relieved of attendance. No action was taken respecting this letter. Before continuing his evidence, Mr Watson said that the directors had acted in accordance with the Bans; of New Zealand Act, 1889, in declaring a dividend while a deficit existed in connection with the Estates Company. The provisions of that Act were looked upon by the directors at the time thedividend was declared as authority to ignore the deficiency. The witness produced figures relating to the earnings of the Estates Company which differed from those given by the Hon. .1. McKenzie a few days ago,but Mr McKenzie’s figures probably included losses on trading concerns. Under examination by the Premier, Mr Watson said that £54,000 had been written off the profit and loss account last year, because it was thought desirable to retain £170,000 in the contingency found. This fund was practically on the same footing as the old secret reserve fund. No more would be disclosed in the balance sheet presented to Parliament. Unless the shareholders authorised the payment, of a dividend on the preferential shares held by the Government the bank could not pay it. Bethought that legislation should be passed to enable the Government ,to receive payment on these preference shares in time to meet the liability on the bonds. It is only fair that the bank should pay the dividend to the Government, no matter what the profits of the bank might be. The trading affairs taken over from the Estates Company were now kept at their ascertained value, and had no book value. He would produce a return showing their own book value, and the profits now derived from them, without disclosing names. It was not true that the witness had threatened to exercise his power of veto if Mr Henry Mackenzie was not appointed to the Bank of New Zealand, nor had he attempted to intimidate his fellow directors respecting that gentleman’s appointment, Witness knew of nothing to warrant Mr Booth’s strictures concerning Mr Mackenzie. The statements were absolutely untrue that since the purchase of the Colonial Bank the officials of the Bank of New Zealand have been dismissed to make vacancies for Colonial officials. The Committee then adjourned.