Daily Press.
HONGKONG, JUNE 27TH, 1891.
Mr. VERNON, in his letter on the Share Bill published in yesterday's issue, says the supporters of the Bill seem never tired of reiterating that the opposition have no ar- guments but interested ones to bring for ward, and he writes with the declared inten- Liou of expressing some, to him, very strong reasons why the Bill should not become law, On examination, however, these reasons are! found to be nothing more than a sories of abstract propositions unsupported by ar- gument, and the converse of which may be used just as effectively on the opposite side. Mr. VERNON in enumerating his reasons says that first and foremost is the inadvisa- bility of in any way artificially interfering with the normal condition of the share market. A supporter of the Bill may very well retort that the normal condition of the share market is constantly being interfered with by the operations of bulls and bears and that it is to protect it against this inter- ference, so disastrous in its consequences, that the Bill is brought forward. Mr. VER. NON goes on to say that the market is go- verned by its own unwritten law of supply and demand. The Bill will allow this law to operate more freely thau at present, be- cause it eliminates dealings in fictitious: stock, which are a disturbing element inter- fering with the legitimate operation of the law of supply and demand in the same way that thunderstorms interfere with the work- ing of the telegraph. Then wo are told the market is very sensitive, which is true, and likely to continue true so long as the market is controlled by operators who manipu late it in the interests of gambling and not of investment. The term one-sided inter- ference" is used. But the Bill is not one- sided; if it prohibits the selling of fictitious shares it likewise prohibits the buying of such shares. Freedom of contract, it is said, is also attacked. There are many descriptions of contracts that are not recognised by English law, such as contracts for the sale and purchase of human beings, and, to come close home, contracts for the sale and purchase of Manila lottery tickets. The Bill will not interfere with any one who possosses shares entering into a con- tract for the sale of such sbares; all that it | doss is to withdraw from the cognisance of
C. O.
685
18313 RECE
R 14 SEP 31
the Courts contracts for the payment of hets dependent upon the rise or fall in the price of shares. We are further told that the Bill, in attempting to mitigate one evil, will foster endless others, chief amongst which is bulling, which when rampant and unchecked is more a source of ruia to the "swaddling clothed" class of speculators than bearing is. Perhaps Mr. VERNON will explain how the Bill will encourage bulling. If speculators were incliued for any reason to run up the price of a particular stock they would at all events have to pay hard cash for the shares to do it with and would not, like the short seller, be able to reap a monthly harvest of differences on shares which were never in their possession. An- other argument advanced by Mr. VERNON against the measure is "the savouring of class, not to say personal legislation, which "is such a strong element in this Bill, and which a good many of its chief supporters make no bones about acknowledging." In a small community like this, where every one is known to every one else, it is inevitable that the names of individuals should be mentioned in discussing the pro-. bable effects of a Bill of this kind, and per-
| sonal considerations are apt to divert atten- tion from the real merits of the measure. This is a tendency to be struggled against; the question is whether the Bill is good or bad in itself, not whether it will interfere with this or that individual's prospects of making gain. In the Bill itself there is nothing savouring either of personal or class legislation; it aims at a class of transactions in which any one may engage, not at any particular class of persous. The last reason advanced by Mr. VERNON is "the depression of an already "depressed market which is sure to follow "the passing of the Bill if its conditions are "strictly followel." But would depression follow the passing of the Bill? Is it not the fact that at the present moment, when we are all talking about depression, there is a large amount of money in the colony awaiting investment, but that people are afraid to buy shares because they are told that things have not yet touched bottom, that there are still a few unfortunate specu- lators to be broken? Investors are frightened out of the market because they feel they are no match for the men whom Mr. ROBINSON, in his able letter published in Thursday's issue, styled "manipulators.” Remove manipulation and eucourage hond fide invest- ment and the market would soon recover its
}
Page 690Page 691