Enclosure 6.
1
>
One China Zunit.
HONGKONG, SATURDAY, AUGUST 15, 1891
Tas opponents of the Share Bill, if their declarations are sincere, fally recognise the evil done by the wild speculations of bulls and bears and are anxi us to check that evil. They, however, maintain that legislative interferenca, more particularly of the kind to be attempted in IIongkong, will not be effective and will be detrimental. They point to the fact that the English Parliament, by refusing to interfere in the absolute freedom of the trade in pig-iron and in the sale of warrants therefor, has practically condemned the principle on which the Hongkong share bill is based. Why then, they ask, should the Legislativa Council of Hongkong be permitted to in- terfere with the freedom of trade in a way condemned by the Imperial Parliament i Why because the conditions of life in Hongkong are different from those at Homo. It has been remarked that the most ardent advocates of laissez fuire become, when transferred to India, advocates of state interference; and the reason for the chauge is not difficult to find. The sound- ness of the laissez-faire policy is only re- lative. In a country where the force of |public opinion is great, it is possible for re- forms to be carried out by voluntary com- bination, and the sphere of stato action can with advantage be reduced to narrow limits. But in a country like India, where the higher civilisation is exotic, and the vast majority of the inhabitants are only semi-civilised, the State, which is the embodiment of the exotic civilisation, is compelled to interfere in the affairs of everyday life to a far greater extent than the English Govern- ment. So it is in Hongkong. That a Wersare has been condemned by the Parliament of Westminster is no proof that it would not work satisfactorily in Hong- kung.
The memorialists point out that the Leeman's Act has fallen into desuetude in England and is wholly discarded ou the London stock exchange. But why has it fallen into desuetudo-because the objects it sought to attain have been accomplished in another and more effective manner. The rules of the London stock exchange, wh.ch on the whole ensure honest dealing by reputable operators possessed of menus, and which place wholesome restrictions on speculations, effect what the Leeman's Act was intended to accomplish. In Hongkong there is not sufficient honesty and moral backbone to do this voluntary work. The Government
the gave
brokers ample
opportunity to cleanse the Augean stable, and did not start work until all hope of voluntary effort had been abandoned. The truth is-a lamentable truth- the majority in Hongkong are in favour of gambling, or 'fluttering' as the Fairplay writer euphemistically calls it, or are so under the influence of the gamblers that they cannot take energetic action against the community. A director who openly admits that he shares half the proceeds of a speculator who has been engaged 'bearing' the stock of the Company concerned, is loudly applauded by the majority of the shareholders assembled in public meeting.
Granting that legislative interference, no other being practicable, is no essary, the next question which aris s is--is the interference that has been sanctioned by the Lagalalive Council of Hongkong the | host that can be adopted! Whether it is the best possible or not, there can be no doubt that no better method of treatment has yet been suggested. The great ralue of the measure that has just been passed lies in the equal restraint it places on 'bul's' and 'bears." A false impression has been created that the Bill was introduced for the purpose of annihilating bears' and allowing bulls' unlimited scope for action, Perhaps the wide prevalence of this false idea is due in some measure to the advo- cates of the Bilt, who by their strong denunciation of the mode of operation
of the bears' may have made the public suppose that the object was the sup- pression of only one of the two oril species of gambling. They had doubtless good cause for their strong denunciation, for the feeling in Hongkong against the bear is accentuated by the conviction that certain of that class not only perturbed the market by their gambling but gambled with loaded dice. We are not going to enter into the nice question whs her 'beara' or 'bulls' do the most harm or whether one of the twina
was born a minu e before the other. The two exist together and are almost inseparable. Where the one is there the other is sure to be, and the harm both do is immense. The great value of Mr Keswick's bill is that it cramps the action of buth, and of both equally. The attempt mado to show that the bill is solely levelled against 'bears' is pure subterfuge; it is the straw which Mr Francis and the sinking mem orialists are convulsively clinging to. The bill simply puta doaling in fictitious shares in its true place among gambling transactions. If no contract enforceable by the Court can be made without real shares, the bull' will have as much difficulty in accomplish. ing his object as the bear.'
It is significant of the feeblesaness of the