CO882-(6-8) — Page 233

79

The difference between the case of the company and that of partnership is that the shareholders do not hold any shares in the estate as real property-that is, vested in the directors, and passes to the Liquidator. The shares of the shareholders are personal property, against which no mortgage can be inscribed. If by any remote possibility no liquidating committee were appointed, it might be that the shareholders would then become a civil partnership, holding the estate in indivision, and subject to licitation; but then, of course, no mortgages could be inscribed ranking before the already inscribed privilege of Government. The Government position is, therefore, perfectly secure.

So far as civil partnerships are concerned, I have instructed the Conservator of Mortgages in giving his certificates to be careful to report any mortgages or privileges inscribed against the shares of the partners, and the deeds will not be passed until they have ceded priority. The position of the Government in this case will also be perfectly secure.

F. T. PIGGOTT,

Procureur-General.

Enclosure 4 in No. 67.

MINUTE OF THE GOVERNOR.

March 4, 1903.

The Procureur-General asks that if there is a flaw in his reasoning it may be pointed out, or in the alternative it may be approved.

I do not see how the Governor can take upon himself the responsibility of approving or disapproving the legal opinion of the Procureur-General. He certainly incurs a serious responsibility if he acts contrary to it.

Can the Procureur-General suggest any way by which any doubts may be removed by legislation or by agreement in particular cases?

If so, does the Procureur-General advise such a course?

The only other possible course seems to be to proceed with the distribution of the loan and refer the point raised to the Secretary of State, leaving doubts to be removed by subsequent legislation, if necessary.

I shall be glad to have the Procureur-General's advice on these points to-day. We have arrived at a moment when delay may wreck the whole scheme.

12

(No. 87.)

No. 68.

GOVERNOR SIR C. BRUCE to MR. CHAMBERLAIN.

(Received April 6, 1903.) [Answered by No. 69.]

SIR,

Government House, Mauritius, March 7, 1903. IN the fourth paragraph of my despatch, No. 78, of the 6th instant,* on the subject of advances to planters under Ordinance No. 43 of 1902, I informed you that I had called upon the planters to whom advances were made to pay 24 per cent. on their actual advances to cover the expenses of raising the loan and remittance of the proceeds.

2. After my despatch had been written the following telegram was received from the Crown Agents:-

"Referring to your telegram of 3rd March, £101,200 issued at th per cent. discount, £98,800 at par, carrying interest at 4 per cent. from 6th March. Payment of interest, 1st August, 1904, 1905, respectively. Estimated cost of issue, brokerage, stamps, loss of capital and incidental expenses, say, £892; issue, management and redemption, £538; total expenditure, £1,430; cost of remitting Rs. 2,454,000 = £165,720."

I annex a statement prepared by the Receiver-General showing various expenses incurred locally in connection with the loan, in addition to those indicated by the Crown Agents.

3. From this statement it appears that the total ratio of expenses is now estimated at nearly 1.9 per cent. As it is possible that on the final adjustment of these loans it may be found that further incidental expenses have been incurred, I have decided not to interfere with the percentage which the planters to whom advances have been made have been called on to pay.

I have, &c.,

CHAS. BRUCE,

Enclosure in No. 68.

Governor.

Enclosure 5 in No. 67. PROCUREUR-GENERAL to COLONIAL SECRETARY.

C. B.

March 4, 1903.

The first paragraph of my Minute was intended to be general, and to be intro- ductory to any Minutes which I might find it necessary to write, concerning legal or other questions which arise in my examination of the documents submitted by the different applicants. At the time I wrote this Minute I was also writing another one on joint mortgages, which was not exactly a legal question, and was one on which my opinion might well be open to criticism. The reason why I proposed to adopt this plan was: First, to deal with general questions separately instead of having to refer to them on each application, when they arose; and, secondly, that a permanent record of my opinion on these points might be preserved. I do not think any record of opinions with reference to such questions exists in connexion with the hurricane loan, but it certainly would have been convenient to have had the Procureur-General's opinion.

In the present question my opinion with regard to both points is that the Government position is perfectly secure. I have put my analysis of the legal position en record, and I do not think that any further action is necessary.

STATEMENT of estimated expenses incurred in raising Loan under the Sugar Estates (Advances in Aid) Ordinance No. 43 of 1902. A.-Cost of raising loan and incidental expenses as per

£1,430 at

47.75 per cent.

telegram of to-day

Rs. 21,125

B.--Landing charges in Mauritius

100

C.-Discount on drafts sold in Mauritius D.-Premium on do.

Rs. 5,000 325

4,675

£200,000

198,102

£1,898

or

Rs. 28,470 at

per cent.

THE

E-Difference between 47.75 per cent.-rate at which the £200,000 were realised-and 49.12 per cent. -rate at which the Rs. 2,955,000 were lent to planterst

-

28,470

Rs. 54,370

That difference, namely, 1.37 per cent., covers the cost of transmission to Mauritius and remitting to India.

Rs. 54,370 represent 1.839 per cent. of Rs. 2,955,000, total amount advanced in local currency.

A. and E. are the costs included in the Crown Agents' telegram of the 10th instant, the other items being expenses incurred in the Colony.

JAMES J. BROWN,

F. T. PIGGOTT,

Procureur-General.

Treasury, March 7, 1903.

• No. 65.

Receiver-General.

PUBLIC RECORD

OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON