1.—6

38

145. You do not remember that they were consulted ? Did the directors make any representation to the Government as to the selection of a.President?—l have no recollection of any representation being made. 146. Then, there was no recommendation from the executive of the Bank of New Zealand as to the choice of a President ?—I have no recollection that we interfered in any way with the matter. 147. You and the other directors elected in September, 1894, would be the executive of the Dank from that date, with the addition of the President, who was appointed in the following month ?—Yes. 148. And so superseded the directors in London ?—Yes. 149. Is there any record as to any representations being made in London prior to the election of the board here as to the choice of a President ?—I have no knowledge of any. 150. Would this statement be correct: " The executive of the Bank of New Zealand itself urged and recommended that an officer should be got from the bank which was to be purchased or amalgamated, if it were possible to obtain the services of such an officer who had got the experience, to occupy the position of President, in order to insure the carrying-out of the entire proposals to their first-intended aim " ? —I have no recollection of it. 151. No knowledge?—No; no recollection of it at all. 152. On the 4th September the Act was passed by which the colony was to come to the assistance of the bank by taking £500,000 in preferential shares, and guaranteeing the globo assets to the amount of £2,734,000 in round numbers. You recollect the provisions of the third section of the Act: " (1.) Notwithstanding anything contained in the deed of settlement or in any Act or law to the contrary, the said capital of nine hundred thousand pounds, and the past and future proceeds of the said call " —that is to say, the half-million we have heard of—" shall be dealt with by the directors as follows : (a) The sum of three hundred and seventy-six thousand nine hundred pounds, part thereof, shall be forthwith applied to the writing-off in the books of the bank of a corresponding amount of assets represented by debts due to the bank, which the directors already, treat as bad and irrecoverable." You remember that provision ?—Yes. 153. And you acted ?—That, I believe, has been done. 154. Then, the next subsection, (b), deals with the sum of two hundred thousand pounds, as the contingent dependency you have also spoken of?— Yes. 155. Have you the Act before you?—lt is here. 156. I ask you to look at subsection (b), which reads: " The sum of two hundred thousand pounds, further part thereof, shall be transferred to the credit of an account which shall be opened in the books of the bank, to be called the ' Contingency Fund Account' to be available for and applicable to the writing-off in the books of the bank of a corresponding amount of existing assets of the bank which the directors may hereafter find to be bad, irrecoverable, or valueless." You had that fund provided which was to be available for further writings-off?—Yes. 157. Did you take any advice as to how you should treat the "bad, irrecoverable, or valueless " debts, which might become apparent since the Act was passed ; or did the directors act in the matter as you thought you should act, without legal advice ? In your balance-sheet of the 31st March, 1896, you have, you say, allowed £54,000 for bad, irrecoverable, or valueless debts?— Yes. 158. Do you not think that the direction of the Act was that the bad, irrecoverable, and valueless debts should be provided for out of the £200,000 until it was exhausted P —We did not read it so. 159. You have, you say, only taken about £30,000 from that sum?— Yes, about £29,000. 160. And you have written off the profits for the year ending 31st March last, £54,000? —Yes. 161. If you had taken that £54,000 in addition to the £30,000 out of the £200,000, your profits for the year would have been £54,000 more ?—About that sum. 162. And there would have been a sum to that extent correspondingly more, as provision for the interest upon the share capital that is being called up under the second half-million of reserve liability of the shareholders, and ultimate advantage to the Assets Realisation accounts ?—No. 163. How is that ?— Because we were satisfied that the provision we held was not more than we ought to have made. 164. But I am assuming that you ought to have carried the £54,000 to the debit of the £200,000, and not taken it out of the profits of the year. If you had taken that view of the matter, would there not have been so much less of the £200,000, and so much more to be carried to the credit of the shareholders' dividend account, and after that as payment to the Assets Realisation Board? —Yes; but we were not able to do that. 165. You, as directors, took it upon your own responsibility to do what you have done? It never occurred to you, I suppose, that you should have first exhausted the £200,000, and not interfered with the profits of the year ?—The £29,000 was taken from the £200,000 in connection with the arrangements made for the writings-off for 1895 and 1896, according to the provisions of the Act of last year. 166. The directions in the Act are just what I am asking your attention to. Will you read this subclause again : " (b) The sum of two hundred thousand pounds, further part thereof, shall be transferred to the credit of an account which shall be opened in the books of the bank, to be called the ' Contingency Fund Account,' to be available for and applicable to the writing-off in the books of the bank of a corresponding amount of existing assets of the bank which the directors may hereafter find to be bad, irrecoverable, or valueless"? —Our reading of the Act, and of the position, is that we were not at liberty to pay anything away as profits of the bank until we had made ample provision for possible had and doubtful debts. 167. Very well, but possibly the view I have pointed to never presented itself to the directors ? The capital was £900,000 ?—Yes.