L—sa

79

62. I suppose your manager communicated with Messrs. Wright, Stephenson, and Co."?—I presume our manager would not communicate this to Messrs. Wright, Stephenson, and Co. He should not make a proposal to Messrs. Wright, Stephenson, and Co. 63. It has been given in evidence that Messrs. Wright, Stephenson, and Co. did pay the interest ? —They gave a guarantee for the principal. 64. When ? —On the 2nd September. 65. Then there was an interval between the offer of Messrs. Wright, Stephenson, and Co. to guarantee the interest ?—They offered to pay interest when due, but we declined the offer. 66. The guarantee of the principal came later —on the 2nd September?—Yes; on the 2nd September. 67. It has been given in evidence also that a telegram was sent clown from here by Mr. Eitchie, which caused Messrs. Wright, Stephenson, and Co. to go to the bank under a mistaken idea as to the meaning of the telegram. Can you enlighten us about that telegram ?—We did receive a telegram which we could not understand, on the Ist September: "Wright, Stephenson, and Co. informed Eitchie has arranged with our bank for time." 68. I understand that you found that was a mistake ?—We telegraphed that we did not know Mr. Eitchie in the matter. 69. Can you tell the Committee what the terms of that telegram were from Mr. Eitchie ?—I can only tell you what Mr. Grierson was told. We could not understand why he sent this telegram. Mr. Douglas wrote to Mr. Grierson as follows :" I have received the following telegram from Wellington : ' Matter cannot be settled for a few days. Have arranged time bank.' (Signed) ' J. D. Eitchie.' " 70. Then, Mr. Eitchie has explained in evidence that there was a word left out in the telegram. I presume, therefore, the telegram should read, " Have you arranged time bank "?—We had no communication with Mr. Eitchie. 71. The telegram should read, "Have you arranged time bank?"—Of course, that is more reasonable. Ido not know anything about that. 72. Do you know of anything that occurred in the interval between the time that Messrs. Wright, Stephenson, and Co. offered to guarantee the interest and the 2nd September, when they guaranteed the principal ? Do you know if anything had occurred to induce them to pay up ?—I do not know. They gave their guarantee on the 2nd September. They found that no arrangement had been made, and on the next day they gave their guarantee. 73. Then, you do not know if anything was told your branch manager to lead you to suppose that the money was paid in for any particular reason ?—Not that I have any knowledge of. When they gave the guarantee we let the matter drop. 74. When was the date of discharge ?—The 15th October. 75. Do you know the date when the sale occurred?—No. 76. It has been said in evidence that you were realising on this security in order to be in a position to transfer capital to Australia ?—Any statement of the kind is absolutely without foundation. We are, and have always been, anxious to put out money here. 77. Were you anxious to put money out at this particular period, September?—Yes. 78. Had you any instructions about the lending of capital here at this period ?—Yes, direct instructions. 79. What instructions did your department get from the Head Office at that period, as to lending money out in New Zealand ?—One letter, I remember distinctly—l could produce a dozen—■ but one letter I have here, which says : "I rely on you to see that managers lose no opportunity of safely and profitably extending business." That was a letter to our office, and was received at the same time that we were discussing Mr. Douglas's matter. 80. Mr. Green.] Do you remember the date of that letter ?—About May or June of the year 1893. I remember another letter which the General Manager wrote at that time, because that was the time of the financial crisis. He said, " I have no desire to restrict advances in New Zealand. That is a distinct instruction to our Head Office in New Zealand to guide them." 81. Is the Head Office that of the Inspector's Department ? —The Eesident Inspector's Department in Wellington. 82. Mr. Scobie Mackenzie.] Did you offer to provide Mr. Douglas with money at this period, above the money he had had advanced from you on securities?—We did not offer it to him. We never offer to anybody; but we said, "We are prepared to consider proposals without regard to amount." 83. For advancing further money to Mr. Douglas on other securities ? —-On anything proposed. 84. Had you plenty of money to lend at the time in New Zealand ?—We had plenty of money. 85. And were prepared to lend to Mr. Douglas on sufficient security ?—Yes, or anybody else if the business was good enough. 86. And specially expressed the fact to Mr. Douglas that you had plenty of money to advance to him on good security ?—We did not say that to Mr. Douglas. We told our Dunedin manager that we were prepared to consider proposals from Mr. Douglas. 87. Did you instruct your Dunedin manager to advance money to Mr. Douglas, providing that he could show good securities?—Not in that form. We would consider proposals for advancing. 88. You have stated that you had plenty of money to advance on good securities, and you have given it in evidence that you called this money up. Why did you call up that advance ?—Because we did not care to rely on that security alone. We did not want to have any risk of having this security on our hands. 89. Why did you so object to having this security thrown on your hands?—Mainly because it was not a productive one. ,; 90. What do you mean by not a productive one ?—There was not sufficient income from it to show any prospect of reduction or repayment of the advance except by sale of the security.