The Banking Enquiry.

Manawatu Herald, 20 August 1896, Page 3

The Banking Enquiry.

Daring the examination of Mr Booth, one ol the directors of the Bask of New Zealand, the following important statement was made : — The Premier asked if there was anything within witness* knowledge that would warrant him in saying that it would be detrimental to the Bank to continue the present management.

The witness said he would answer that question in this way : When the direotors with car* made that agreement whioh was submitted to Parliament last year, he, and he believed the other directors, thought they had provided for two things— Parliament having given them authority to buy another bank, they took care to show in the agreement submitted to Parliament that they bought only good business from the Colonial Bank ; in the next place, they made it clear that the bank they purchased bad one asset of accounts good for 4900,000 ; one, £600,000, which required to be made good by a cover ; another of £98,000 whioh the Bank of New Zealand was not able to take without cover; and another for £102,000 which they were not able to take at all. This was made dear, and he thought that intelligent gentlemen like the present committee, with that information, should be satisfied that the responsible man* agement of the Colonial Bank could not have the confidence of the public if they were appointed to the management of the Bank of Ne* Zealand. After the painful and trying experience they had, it occasioned him the bitterest distress to be obliged, apparently in answer to questions put to him, to make reflections upon gentlemen with whom he had been in, confidential relations for some time.

The witness being further pressed by the Premier, said : — The directors did not express an opinion as to facts disclosed, as Par liament was as able as they to do that. His experience since satisfied him that it would not justify him in approving the appointments in connection with the Bank of New Zealand.

In Mr Watson's examination he said:— -Mr Booth was a suspicious man, and he thought that the witness waa aware of certain matters in connection with the transaction at the time it took place which only became known to him some months afterwards.