SOUTHERN CROSS PETROLEUM COMPANY.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1228, 19 December 1882, Page 2

SOUTHERN CROSS PETROLEUM COMPANY.

A meeting of the shareholders of the Southern Cross Petroleum Company was held last evening at the Albion Club Hotel, to determine the question of leasing the ground on tribute in small parcels. Present: —Messrs Clarke, Maude, Adair, Stubbs, sen., Stubbs, jun., Quigley, Wilson, Motley, Ratcliffe, Capt. Porter, Major Ropata, Keefer, Fraser, Carlaw Smith, Tucker, Barnard, Wood. On the motion of Mr Clarke, Mr Adair was voted to the chair. The Chairman then read the notice convening the meeting. Mr Clarke said he was in favor of leasing on tribute, and would go so far us promising

a bonus of £5OO on the tributera striking J payable oil, however he must bow to the decision of shareholders, one half at lea*t of whom he believed to be decidedly op* posed to leasing. Mr W. Wilson moved the following proposition, seconded by Mr W. G. Motley That the shareholders are decidedly adverse to the leasing of any portion of the 2000 acres of the Company’s ground on tribute, until such time as the property has been moie effectually prospected, and that it is undesirable to bring this question up at the annual meeting of the shareholders. Mr Wilson said that he and Mr Motley had both come up, as representing Hou them shareholders, prepared not to yield one iota in their determination to oppose leasing on any conditions at present. It was a mistake to suppose that the division was simply one of half the shareholders, as most of those who had not sent in their proxies would most probably oppose it equally as strongly. He thought even in Gisborne the feeling was adverse to basing. He himself expected a proxy from a Gishorno gentleman (to be used to that effect) who is a holder of J 060 shares, Mr Stubbs, jun., exposed equally strong opinions adverse to leasing to leasing. He would like to hear the specific offer made to the Company read to the meeting. Mr Piesse produced the letter which was from Mr H. E. Johnston, offering to lease 50 acres of the Company’s ground on. tribute for the whole period of the Company’s Ifease at 10 per cent. A letter making an offer for working 20 acres on tribute, at 10 per cent., from Mr James Ballantyne, was also read. Mr Stubbs, jun., said that he was of opinion that the offer was manifestly unfair to the Company who had already spent £14,000 on their works. Ten per cent, was ridiculously inadequate. He only held his own shares on the prospect of striking oil, not for the value! of the ground or plaiit. Any offer must be far more liberal in itf terms before it could possibly be entertained. Mr Maude said he was in favor of tributing. He did not think the Southern shareholders had given sufficient consideration to the extent of ground and shortness of lease enjoyed by the Company, and the relative value of other prospectors in determining thfe ground. Ten per cent, certainly did not in I all respects seem adequate, but then the shareholder must remember that they held 2000 acres of land which must be worked out in 21 years.

Mr Carlaw Smith thought that the proceedings of the Company were too much like that of ths old Company j too narrow-viewed. The South Pacific had started since the old Company died, with what results all know The Southern Cross Company was still working an experiment only. It seemed that from a dog in the manger policy the ahareholders were anxious to keep the thing in their own hands, it Was absurd in an untried country to think to do BO; For his part he would like to see fifty shafts at work By how much, would he ask, would the Company’s property be enhanced in value by this*. If it were done they would never regret it. He believed the opposition had been organised, and if it were quietly thought over he believed the more sensible* business men holding shares would be in favor of tribute. Suppose they let ground on tribute, and the Company and the tributers both strike oil, even then the Company’s property would be enormously increased in value. On the othei* hand, supposing the Company went on for six months or a year and did not strike oil; who would offer to tribute theni No one. Captain Porter said he had gathered his first knowledge of tribute being proposed from the newspapers, and on looking into the question and hearing the offers read he agreed with the previous speaker. He was not satisfied with the dilatory way in which the development of the ground was being carried on. If things went on like this there \. would not be a shareholder left in the Company. He thought tribute would be a great incentive, and invaluable to the Company. He thought those gentlemen who came armed with proxies and the intention to veto tribute would be very wrong if they carried out their intentions. He thought if they would modify those intentions so us to consider a fair scheme of tribute they would be doing much in the interests of the Company. Mr Carlaw Smith said that the offers before the company to-night were not necessarily to be the offers accepted. It was the principle he advocated. However supposing these tributes had been let, they would most probably have been formed into small companies and the Shareholders in this company wonld hare a chance of buying. * Mr Stubbs said that as n shareholder and Director of the old company, he must take exception to Mr Smiths speech regal'ding it. That Company had paid their debts in full. As far as the tribute principle generally goes he approved of it, but he was opposed to the offers made, as being not remunerative to the company on these points. The area asked was too large j the tribute was too small; and there was no guarantee offered for the work If proper conditions were laid before the meeting so that the Directors could faithfully recommend the shareholders to lease on tribnte, he would go hand and glove with them. He was decidedly in favor of tribute - ! generally. Mr Carlaw Smith explained that it was the general principle ho advocated, not the special offers. Mr Stubbs, Jun., asked what then ware the terms on which it was propc .ed to let. Mr Clarke said it was only throwing away time to canvass a foregone conclusion. Mr Carlaw Smith said he was sorry, but it was evident that there was a block vote.

Mr Woods regretted that the matter had not been put more clearly by tthe Directors. He opposed the tribute. Captain Porter said he was surprised that the Directors had no scheme prepared to laybefore the Shareholders, so that they might have a proposition and an amendment, and with that in view he should make a proposition. Captain Tucker said he for one wished to hear the question argued. If the gentlemen who came with an overwhelming quantity of votes came to swamp the tribute question generally he would oppose them, but if they simply wished to veto the present offers only he was with them. He took it that if 50 per cent, was offered, not a single voice would be raised against it. The reason the Directors were not prepared with a scheme was that they had decided to ascertain the feeling of shareholders on the matter. He would like a line drawn to guide the Directors in accepting or rejecting tribute, such ns that no tribute under a certain per centage should be accepted. Captain Porter moved, as an amendment, “ That in the opinion of shareholders it is desirable that steps should be taken by the Directors for letting a portion of the Company’s ground on tribnte, upon such terms and conditions as may be approved by (shareholders at the general meeting in February next. Mr Clarke called attention to a remark of Mr Wilson’s that a threat had been held out that this matter would be discussed again, that is to say when the vetoing shareholders backs were turned. Thin was rong; he had not meant to convey such an impression. Those gentlemen were bound to block the tributing, and, therefore, it was no use discussing the matter further. Mr Carlaw Smith said that the question ’ of the I Mrectors coming forward with a fixed proposition had been mooted at a previous