1.—6

6

3. You can only give us the position of the bank as disclosed by the balance-sheet of the 31st March, 1894 ?—That is so, Sir. 4. That being the case, we proceed to the balance-sheet of 1895. What was the position of the bank on the 31st March, 1895 ?—The capital was £3,059,745 9s. 2d. 5. What is the amount of assets over liabilities? —£3,105,129 os. 3d. 6. How do you arrive at that; the figures are not given in the printed balance-sheet ?—The guaranteed stock is £2,000,000. Then, there are 100,000 shares of £5 ss. each, £525,000; and 50,000 at £7 10s., £375,000; and calls of 1895 account, £159,745 9s. 2d. And, then, there is the reserve fund of £45,000; and the balance of profit and loss, £383 lis. Id. That makes the £3,105,129 os. 3d. 7. The Chairman.] What, then, do you state are the assets over liabilities ? —£3,105,129 os. 3d. Of course, it appears on the balance-sheet that a considerable amount of assets are not given as assets. That is the balance according to the statement here. In this list of assets you have here, are the Bank of New Zealand Estates Company shares taken at par value, and bad and doubtful debts amounting to £422,281. Of course, it is well known to the Committee that they were the subject of subsequent arrangement with Parliament and the bank. 8. Hon. Mr. Seddon.] Were there any writings-off between 1894 and 1895 ?—The writings-off of 1894 the Committee had yesterday, £15,164. The next writings-off provide for the two years 1895-96, £1,531,951. 9. This, then, Mr. Booth, with what you have given us from previous balance-sheets from 1888, brings the total writings-off to £3,095,799 ?—That is right, Sir. 10. That is exclusive of losses in connection with the Estates Company?— That is so. 11. Can you give us now the losses in connection with the Estates Company from 1888, taking the various changes from the Globo Assets Company and the Estates Company?— That is wrong, Sir. That will include the writing-off for the Estates Company too, but it does not cover the estimate of deficiency, £800,000, but short of that it will include the whole of the writing-off for the two companies. 12. Wih.you separate the amounts in the list, £1,531,951 ? Will you separate what the bank has written off and what the Estates Company has written off, so that we may keep the two separate ? —That makes the amount £767,645. 13. The Chairman.] You have given us the total writings-off—£l,s3l,9sl—for 1895-96. Mr. Seddon wants to know the amounts written off the bank and the Estates Company separately. First of all, what is the amount written off in connection with the bank ?—From the bank the figures will be £767,645. 14. And from the Estates Company?— From the Estates Company, £764,306. 15. Hon. Mr. Seddon.] Are these correct figures now, as showing the writings-off from the Bank of New Zealand from the Ist January, 1888, to the 31st March, 1896—£2,335,622 ? You gave us up to yesterday £1,563,848. Now you give us £767,645. Add these two together and you have £2,331,493? —-It should be understood that the writing-off from the bank leaves us in possession of nearly £200,000 of contingent reserves. We have that still available. 16. Divide that by eight, Mr. Booth, will you?— That makes an average of £291,436 per annum. 17. That is a writing-off of £291,436 since the Ist January, 1888, from the bank alone?— Yes. 18. That would show a loss of £2,335,622. Will you give me the dividends that have been paid while you have been making that loss ? —I think it ought to be mentioned that, while this is the average loss, the writings-off cover a good deal that has been written off from 1888. 19. You are stating what is outside the balance-sheet ?—Yes; the balance-sheets from 1888. They take account of all these accumulations going on for some preceding years. 20. What you remark will refer to losses in the Estates Company as well ?—Yes. 21. We have not touched those yet. At all events, you have paid how much in dividends during the eight years in which you have had losses ? 22. The Chairman.] What is the total amount of the dividends you gave yesterday ?—The total would be what was paid away in dividends from 1888 to 1893—£243,188. 23. Was there no dividend in 1894 ?—We had no dividend in 1894. 24. Hon. Mr. Seddon.] I have got them here. 1888—£35,000 ; September, £24,500; 1889— March, £33,063; September, £39,335 ; 1890, no dividend; 1891, £21,250, £22,500, £22,500; 1892— March, £22,500; September, £22,500; 1893, September, £22,500; 1894, March, £22,500 ?—There has been one dividend omitted. That would make the amount £265,688. 25. I will quote from the Chairman's statement in 1891 (sth August) in reference to your saying that there was a continuation in these statements of losses prior to 1888 : "The directors beg to submit the following statement of accounts for the year ended the 31st March last. The net profits, after making provision for bad and doubtful debts, amount to £59,522 Is. 3d., out of which the directors have placed £20,000 to a reserve fund, and have invested the same in Consols. They recommend that the balance, £39,522 Is. 3d., should be appropriated as follows: To payment of a dividend at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum for the half-year ended the 31st March, £21,250; to be carried forward to profit and loss new account, £18,272 Is. 3d. . . . The Chairman, Mr. Glyn, said: . . " I now come to the balance of profit and loss with which we have to deal to-day, £59,522 ; and here I may say that proper provision has been made for rebate on bills discounted, amounting to a little over £8,000; but of this £59,500 the directors, as you have been informed, have taken £20,000 and invested it in Consols to form the nucleus of a reserve fund, and of the prudence of that action I take it there can be no two opinions. As regards the balance of £39,522, lam aware that the shareholders are not entirely unanimous. Some shareholders have expressed the opinion that at this early stage it is very important to make the bank as strong as possible, and that it would have been more prudent to have carried the whole amount of £39,500 forward and not paid any dividend at the present time. That, no doubt, would be a very