BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1790, 1 July 1913, Page 6

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

QUESTION OF CONTROL,

SHAREHOLDER'S VIEWPOINT.

A reply was yesterday made by Mr. A. Macintosh, superintendent of Messrs. Dalgety and Co., Ltd., formerly general manager, and now a shareholder in the Bank of New Zealand, to the statement made by Mr. H. Beauchalnp, chairman of the Board of Directors of the, Bank of Now Zealand, relating to :tho question of control. Mr. Macintosh was seen by a Dominion reporter and asked to express his views on the statement, as a shareholder in the bank. "I regard the statement as a most futile attempt to bolster up his drastic action at tho annual meeting," replied Mr. Macintosh. Proceeding, he said: "Deeds of Settlement are not to bo construed in an absolutely literal sense. Of course, power must bo centred somewhere. Shareholders cannot rule individually, nor can they as a body, in matters pertaining to the business of the bank. Consequently authority is . placed in tile board. Were it not so, chaos would rule. There must be a governing body to decide as .to policy, to make appointments, etc. For this purpose that body must have .absolute authority, and that authority could not be upheld even as against the staff, were the Deed of Settlement not constructed as it is. To claim, then, that it gives the board power to set the proprietors at dpfiance is perfeotly ridiculous, and an insult to intelligence. "I have power at this moment," continued Mr. Macintosh, "to do in New Zealand anything and everything that my board can do, because I cannot mile without it. But is it to be seriously supposed, while constituting me as it does, for all practical purposes, the board itself, that I would use that power, without consultation with those who gave that power, in matters which would vitally affect policy? Tho Governor of the Dominion holds authority that will bind his Sovereign, but he finds it advisable at times to reserve matters for Royal assent. "Another and very important point to be kept in mind is this: power under the bank's Deed of Settlement was given to tho directors elected by, and answerable to, Cue shareholders. If those directors actcd, during their term of office, contrary to the interests and wishes of shareholders, thev could be' reckoned with when they offered themselves for re-elec-tion. Mr. Beauchamp and three of his colleagues derive their authority from quite a different source, and presumably they imagine (tho chairman does, at any rate) that the shareholders can be readily brushed aside. I contend that they are as much bound under the Deed of Settlement to act in the best interests of, and with the greatest Tegard for, the shareholders, as if they derived their authority direct from that body. Unfortunately Mr. Beauchamp's most arbitrary action has led to the impression that ho is acting in ooncnrt with his patrons, or assumes that his course of procedure will be acceptable to them." .