The Daily News. MONDAY, MAY 17. TARANAKI PETROLEUM CO.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 94, 17 May 1909, Page 2

The Daily News. MONDAY, MAY 17. TARANAKI PETROLEUM CO.

j The resignation of Mr. D. Berry from his / position as chairman and director of the ' J Taranaki Petroleum Co. affords another opportunity for the amateur oil expert' (and his number in New Plymouth is legion) to ventilate his pet theories to the disparagement of the present management at the wells. That the share- , holders' in the company have reason for

disappointment we admit, but we certainly are not prepared to admit, on the ' authority of local wiseacres whose sole I knowledge of oil and boring has bcjn 'gained from local gossip, that the difficulties met with up to the present could have been completely surmounted, and the oil-field proved, it has been evident for some time past that the friction existing between the chairman .if directors and the manager of the wells was such as 1 to militate against the beat interests of the shareholders. We lune already expressed our opinion on Unit point—it could not be allowed to continue. Xo 'business could hope to succeed under a dual management working at variance, and matters had come to such a pass that it was a question of choosing between Mr. Berry and Mr. Simps'on as an authority on oil boring. With all due respect to Mr. Berry's local knowledge, and the absolute sincerity j( his intentions, we do not think the shareholders are prepared to accept liira as an oil expert more competent than the present manager, and Mr. Hurry's fellow directors would have entirely failed in their duty to the shareholders had they sanctioned a continuance of the chairman's personal interference with the manager at the bores. Mr. Berry's resignation, therefore, was inevitable, although he lias deferred adopting this course until an opportunity was' afforded him of making an exit on an alleged matter of policy and principle, upon which he might appeal with some show of justification to scalp-hunting and disappointed shareholders. Mr. Berry has shown himself to be a wily general, a shrewd judge of the fickleness of the public memory when he bferentially laid the Manic for the company's nonsuccess on the manager. As' we stated some time ago, it is sincerely to be regretted that Mr. Berry, who has done yeoman work in endeavoring to establish the oil industry in Taranaki, should have assumed a vole other than that for which he was appointed, and we can only charitably assume that his enthusiasm in the interests of the enterprise has allowed his judgment to be warped. Mr. Berry in bis letter covering his rc-

sigimtion claims to be better able to assess the managers practical value to the company than his fellow directors, and "unhesitatingly affirms that the company has a,right, for such a very large expenditure, to a much greater measure of practical amninisiration, initiation, and guidance in its affairs than has-hitherto been shown.'' . We agree with Mr. Berry in his latter contention, but in our opinion, based oa recent happenings, the reason why the company has not,secured better value for its expenditure has been because of Mr. Berry's undue interference with the technical policy of the manager. It is surely singular that -Mr. Berry, who was chairman of directors when the manager was appointed and his salary ffxed, should only recently, and on the eve of the termination of the manager's engagement, have discovered that his services were unsatisfactory. Mr. Berry further professes to disagree with the "-rectors' undertaking to pay t he manager a bonus in the event of commercially payable oil being obtained. The directors reply that no such undertaking exists. Further, we di*agrce with Mr. Berry in his opposition to the manager having absolute control at the works. No competent manager worthy of the name could possibly submit to interference within his own particular domain. lf.be is not competent, it is a different matter, but .Mr. Berry has entirely failed to make any valid charge in this direction. Mr. Berry alsoeontends that the manager's re-engagement should not have been extended' beyond the annual meeting. As a matter of fad. the engagement has only been extended to tha annual meeting, terminable by two mouths' notice on either side thereafter. This arrangement appears to us to be an entirely reasonable jme. We hold no brief for the manager, hut we decline to be prejudiced against his ability merely because of the murmuriugs of disappointed .shareholders. If there exist any grounds for doubting the manager's bona iides and ability, let them be made openly, and let him be judged accordingly. Meantime, we can only hope that, working with a freer hand, the manager will justify the confidence the directors have reposed in him by pushing on with greater vigor the working of testing the capabilities of the oil-lield he has tapped.