WILL SOMEONE EXPLAIN ?

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1437, 11 May 1912, Page 4

WILL SOMEONE EXPLAIN ?

Mr. Harold Beauchamp's explanation of the circumstances surrounding his retirement from the Board of Directors of the Bank of New Zealand is particularly interesting for two reasons. The first of these is that it is very plain that Mr. Beauchajip regards the decision of the Government not to reappoint him as being due to his refusal not to let his views as Chairman of the Bank be subservient to the political exigencies of the party in power. This is very significant. It would be very interesting to learn a little more on this point. The Chairman of the Bank of New Zealand should certainly not have to subordinate his opinions as Chairman to the political needs of the Ward Government or any other Government. The Bank should be kept clear of all political influence— tlns i has been emphasised again and again—and the Wabd Governnicnt constantly voiced its extreme virtue in avoiding anything in the nature of attempting to interfere with the Bank. Mr. Beauckamp's remark, however, would seem to indicate that subserviency to the political exigencies of the Government was necessary to retain the goodwill of Ministers. But that point may be passed over for the present in order to direct attention to another phase of the matter which' calls for explanation. On March 19 Sin Joseph Wabd stated, i as published by our evening contemporary, that the reason Mr. Beauchamp was not reappointed was that Mr. Beauchamp had officially intimated that, on account of the state of his health, he did not intend to seek reappomtment. Sir Joseph Ward added: "I have received a letter from Mr. Beauchamp, written from London, to that effect. There is, therefore, no reflection on Mr. Beauchajip, who has carried out his responsible duties in a thoroughly satisfactory manner." This statement was made on March 19. But it has to be borne in mind that the appointment of Mb. D. J. Nathan as successor to Mr. Beauchamp was announcod on March 6, so that Cabinet must have decided not to reappoint Mr. Beauchamp on or before March G. The date is important because Sir Joseph Ward stated that Mr. Beauchamp was not reappointed be-1 cause of a certain intimation concerning his state of health. Mr Beauchamp, on the other hand' ■states that the decision not to reappoint him wae determined on before his letter could have reached the Government. Who, then, is correct? Obviously Mr. Beauchajip, because his letter was only written in London on February 6, and could not possibly have reached New Zealand by March 6 when the new appointment was an- , n ° un , c fd; Why, it may be asked, , should the Government seek to cover ■ up the real reason for their appoint- : ment of Mr. D. J. Nathan in place of Mr. Bbauchamp? If they had : good ground for their action on ' March 6, or whatever date prior to that they came to a decision,' why should they fall back for an exam on a letter which plainly must have come to hand days after their decision had been publicly announced? - The public will probably find the answer to these questions in the rra son given by Mr. Beauchamp. The incident should prove illuminating as showing the unreliableness and the P§ , trickery underlying ,ae methods of .the late Government as well as their unjust treatment of those who ventured to disagree with their views.