THE CONSOLIDATED TELEPHONE COMPANY.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 1909, 7 February 1885, Page 2

THE CONSOLIDATED TELEPHONE COMPANY.

SIR JULIUS VOGEL'S EXPLAN ATION.

.. [fly I^gbaek.] [UNITED IRES ASSOpIATIOIf.] Auckland, This day. Sir Julius YogeJ haj letter to the New Zealand Herall wnseniwg his connection with the Consolidated Telephone. In it he says:—l am in receipt of the second report of the Investigating Committee of the Consolidated Telephone Company, and I send you a copy of it, together with one of the first reports. It was in reference to the second report that tho telegram appeared fnjin "the Unitejl Press Asssociation,' in which it wag stated' tjiat the Company intended to s,ue me fpr tlfe eWmoUB. profit Iliad made, Tlteinaliceghlje'tQJegfan} is evident, because nothing appears in tlje report about the enormous profit, Taking the extreme prices quoted, out which the report inferentially admits, I did not realise as it state's, The salos took place over a long period previous to the .high rates, and the amount could not be designated enormous. As a matter of faot —I have no particulars with me—l am certain that the profits on the whole of my 3330 shares did not exceed or even amount to £7OO. The first report states that I was allotted 1500 shares and the second that I allotted myself 3330 shares. Both statements are incorrect, I did not allot my shares to myself. I indicated my wish to take'333o shares, and the Board allotted them to me. I was not, to the be§t',qf roy hejief. on the allotting committee. I may l|aye been, and probably was, at t-He' Board's firmed the Committee's" : %# shares were applied for nearly six time? over, and when It was decided not to allot pn rata, it was, of course, necessary to make the allotment by an abitrary decision. I have been engaged in lengthened negotiations for arranging the terms of powers of sale. But that I was going on the board I would have been entitled to, and could have claimed a largo commission and the board, recognising my oxcrtons, paid me the complimont of allowing me to name those friends among the applicants to those I desired the allotments to be made to an amount, including the shares I Jqok myself of 1600. I do not think I fullyavajleol myself of the privilege; but if -I did what ppible flbjeejiijons toujd tjiere be? It is not a cpmmojj pragtige"fpj: directors to indicate those pf their friends amongst applicants to- wjioin they wish allotments to b§ made? The general complaint against gpnpnjeij js that the directors do not take sufficient intorset in them, I gave the best possible guarantoe of my opinion of tho 00m. pany's prospects, and surely, of 150,000 shares, it was not excessive to ask that the application of my friends, to the oxtent of less than 12,000 shares, should be granted, besides 3,000 to myself, Then it was alleged that the allotment to me was informal, bocause my application was only for 1)000 '%res_. I believe that it Is a common practigewith'dfete no|i Jm send in applications, but to indicate '4 meetings of. Boards, prior to allotment, how many shares they wish, The samo thing happens every day, tho application and allotment money being paid in one. I have no memoranda with me, and it may be that my initial application, before the allotment was considered, was forl,ooo sjiarcs only; but it is stated that the application number was altered from 1,000 jf am" (juifa certain fchaf; this was not done my sirecjfqs and ijS ia evident jthat 'njo, one cpuld have made t|e ajjlerS; tlflii wpflut an authority'to warrant it'. The appji.catf.qn fpr flip "pther lour thqu-' sand cannot be fojj'njj. It jf! pjpjabjy mislaid, a.s I must hjiye pas application. and allotment mpnpy fpr the shares. What object could I have possibly haye in not signing an application 1 Thp report states that the Board are advised by counsel that they have grounds of action against me, but the facts were not correotly stated, and I am advised that they have no case. If they had, it would be a very technical one, and would involve the disturbance of many other allotments, The remainder of the letter deals with the circular issued holding out a prospect of 10 per cent, returns,whjph Sjr Julius Yogel contends was justified by circumstances at the time, the unexpected withdrawal % liie postal department from the main portion of its contract with the company, the di* vidends paid, and the. present financial position and prospeotß pf the company,"