Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Correspondence.

(To the Editor of the West Port Times and Charleston Argus). Sib, in your issue of this morning, a repoi't (?) is made of the Hospital Committee meeting, which took place on Thursday evening last, and in which I find your reporter chooses to make me figure very prominently, in the most unreasonable and captious opposition to yourselves as printers of the Rules and Regulations. Now sir I beg to deny in toto the gossip of your report as far as it concerns myself. "Your representitave has been repeatedly cautioned to use becoming discretion, when summarising in his report the proceedings of the Hospital Committee. And on several occasions ho has wontonly and as it would seem maliciously reported personalities which have only been productve of unpleasantness. In this instance he has gone further and been guilty of eaves-droppingan act of meanness so Contemptable and dishonest, that I consider it my duty to trouble you with this explanation The conversation whichyourreporter overheard was private and took place before the meeting was constituted and the report of which, (as could only be expected) is incorrect and while it shows the bias it expresses the inexperience of the writter. I have only to say further, that if on the plea of being your representative an individual obtains admission to our committee meetings, and then in a spirit of spleen and prejudice perades eveiy private conversation he may overhear among the members present in the columns of your paper, that his presence at the Committee table will scarcelybetolerated. trusting you will insert my letter I am Sir Yours Truly JjJfO. Mukbo, Secretary. [Note. —The writer of the above letter (which for fear of further misrepresentation we print verbatim') having impugned the truthfulness of the report referred to, Ave have made 'enquiry of some members of the Committee who were present on the occasion, and in justice to our reporter, must state that they confirm the general accuracy of his report. Ed. W.T. ;andC.^.J

HOW THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO PAY. The following strange proceedings in connection with the Government financial operations are thus referr d to in the Auditor-Generals report:— The Crown Agents in London were instructed on the 15th March, 1866, to deliver £IOO,OOO New Zealand C per cent bonds to the Bank of New Zealand, as a collateral security for advances to be made by the bank to the Provincial Government of Auckland for the service of the Waikato settlements. These bonds were subsequently placed in the market by the bank, and sold for £92,448 ss. For effecting this sale the Bank charged £IOOO, in accordance with an agreement proposed by Mr. "Whitaker, the Superintendent of Auckland, on 7th March, 18 GO, by which the Bank was to receive 1 per cent commission on all securities effected by them. "If the sale had been negotiated by the Crown Agents, the Commission would have been only £250;" but, althongh the Crown Agents did not negotiate the sale, they nevertheless took full commission for having transferred the bonds to the Bank, " so that the Colony has paid commission twice on the disposal of the same set of debentures."

A similar charge of full commission was made by the Crown Agents on delivery of £500,000 of bonds to the Imperial Treasury, as a collateral security for the debt that might be found due to the Home Government. It is considered that a charge of £1250 for signing and handing over the Debentures is unreasonable. The negotiation and sale, is a very different transaction, for which no charge should have been made by the Crown Agents. The Crown Agents have been informed of the opinion of the Auditor, but they have not been instructed to repay h the sum objected to. The Colonial Treasurer shows a receipt, under the War Loan, of £IOO,OOO, as the proceeds of his draft on the Crown Agents in London in favor of the Bank of New Zealand. It is found that on the same day the Bank of New Zealand issued its draft on London in favour of the Crown Agents. "As the two drafts were contemporaneous, they virtually cancelled each other ; and it is found that the Crown Agents in London exchanged one draft for the other. For this transaction the Bank has been paid one thousand pounds, as appears on Voucher No. 1612 of the Colonial Treasurer's Account." The voucher states that the one thousand is the amount paid for exchange on draft on London in favor of Crown Agents, dated lOth April, 1567.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WEST18681024.2.25

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 385, 24 October 1868, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
756

Correspondence. Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 385, 24 October 1868, Page 5

Correspondence. Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 385, 24 October 1868, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert