17
I object to this Ordinance:
1st. Because it has been introduced into the Council by the Managing Directors of the Company, without the authority of the company first obtained. I do not question the bona fides of the Directors. I assume that they have consulted many large shareholders or some, and have secured a certain number of assents, but they have not taken the sense of the members generally in any form.
2nd. Because the only proper course for the Directors and the Company to adopt is, if they have a capital so tremendously in excess of the requirements of the Colony and so far beyond the legitimate objects of the Company, and the course that nearly every shareholder would adopt with pleasure, would be the reduction of the capital and the return to the members of the surplus money.
7
3rd. Because assuming that a large majority of shareholders are in favour of widening the range of the Company's operations, the only safe, proper, and legal method is reconstruction in either of the recognised methods voluntarily or by Ordinance.
4th. Because, supposing this Ordinance to be, what it emphatically is not, a reconstruction ordinance, there is absolutely no need to proceed by ordinance. Reconstruction under the companies' acts and ordinances is easy and simple, and acts of Parliament are never passed for the purpose of doing that which can be done lawfully and properly otherwise.
The real objection to reconstruction is probably, that most people interested in the company would like to see its capital