SIR JULIUS VOGEL AND THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1214, 7 August 1884, Page 3

SIR JULIUS VOGEL AND THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES.

Considerable interest has been excited ia Wellington (sny the correspondent of the Press) by a controversy which has arisen between Sir Julius Vogel and the New Zealand Times. The London correspondent of that journal in his last letter wrote “A month ago I was present at the general meeting of the Consi-uJated Telephone Construction and Maintenance Company, of which dir Julius Vogel (though then in New Zealand) was Chairman. The meeting was attended, and the proceedings rather lively and noiav. Several shareholders wanted to know what had become of their capdal of £175,000. Others proposed that a Committee of Investigation should be appointed. The latter proposal was carried by a large majority. The Deputy-Chair-man said ho had received a telegram from Sir Julius Vogel (in New Zealand) offering himself for re-e’ection ms a Director. The Chairman then moved the re-election of that gentleman. Only one hand, amidst much laughter, was held up for the motion, while a host appeared against, I was a little surprised at this result, for Sir Julius Vogel ceases to be a Director and Chairman of this company, wmch is very likely to he wound up, and he would have been very useful iu giving evidence before the Committee of in vestigai ;on.” Taking this as its text, the New Zealand Tunes comments very severely on Sir Julius Vogel, suggesting that if the people of Christchurch had only known they might have neglected to return to Parliament a man who would not have accepted a seat if it had not been assured to him without the trouble of a contest. To this article Sir Julius has addressed the following reply: —“ iho article in vour issue to-day is full of uncalled for insinuations against me, based on very slender information. I should not, indeed, deem the production worthy of notice hut for the evdent intention to

connect it with passing politic d events. Condensed into a brief form the facts of the case are these. The Consolidated Telephone Company was formed to take over the rights of Mr Gower, including a contract with the Post-office for 20,000 telephones, subject, however, to a power to the Post-office to end the contract after the supply of 5000 instruments, The United Telephone Company, Limited, which had the monopoly of the use of the telephones in Great Britain, whs also bound by agreement to, take all its telephones from the Consolidated Company, and to give that Company the sole right to manufacture telephones in Great Britain for export. When I left England in May 1882, the Company was in a good position, and it* shares were quoted at a very large premium, A series of misfortunes overtook it during my absence. The Company quarrelled with the United Telephone Company. The Post-office gave notice of ending its contract after the first 5000 instruments, and, most unfortunate of all, the directors, contrary to opinion previously expressed by me, were induced to purchase concessions in Austria, entailing on the Company very heavy responsibilities. The directors telegraphed to me to return, which I did sooner than I other wise would. On my return I did the best I could for the Company. I succeeded in arranging the differences with the United Company, and recovering from them, as compensation, £SOOO. The United Company also agreed to give us the benefit of the modified agreement into which it had entered with the Post-office. My Company Directors expretsed the most unqualified approval of the manner in which I carried the negotiations to success. The Consolidated Company, however, could not rid itself of its Austrian liabilities, and it was those (for which, ns I have said, I was not one atom responsible) which dragged the into difficulties. I did not like to resign when I left England in February last, because of the Company being in difficulties, and so obtained leave of absence. A few days after I reached Dunedin I received a telegram, of which the following is a literal copy— * Ballotted out. Do you offer re-election V There was no signature, and I thought the telegram was from the Oriental Telephone Co. (Ld.,) of which I also was a Director. 1 telegraphed in reply, April 20th, to the code address of the Oriental Company, as follows *lf the Board support.’ The ViceChairman of the Oriental was Vice-Chair-man of the Consolidated, and he naturally took my telegram to apply to the latter Company, as 1 was not ballotted out of the Ooriental, but continued a director of it. Thus by mistake it was supposed 1 offered myself for re-election to the Consolidafed ’ Board, a thing I should not have thought of doing. Naturally my election was not supported. The affairs of the Company were in a condition requiring immediate and urgent attention, and it would have been absurd to continue me on the Board when there were other shareholders willing to come on.”