Mr. KESWICK-It appears to me that as the broad principle of this Bill has been disposed of once for all in a fair manner after such discussion, I think-although I myself voted for it-that there has been no cause shown, and there is no necessity for introducing the measure now before us. I do not think it would do any harm, but I do not think it is called for, and legislation that is not called for is more or less useless. The Company which it was specially intended to benefit has found means of relieving itself, and there is no difficulty in winding it up and re-forming a new company. Seeing, therefore, that the China Traders alone has taken any steps towards such legislation, and that there is no representation whatever from any other portion of the community that such a law is required, I think it would be foolish to pass it.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL-I took it for granted that it was so patent to hon. members why this should be made law, that I simply stated the general facts. Now I put it that the fact of the Council having passed the former Bill and given the China Traders' a special Ordinance, shows that there was a necessity for it. The general includes the particular, and if there was a sufficient reason for giving it in the one case the Company can still get the same under a general Ordinance and are not getting a special benefit. If you have committed yourselves so far as to pass the other Bill you are giving a relief to the China Traders' and denying it to other companies.
The CHIEF JUSTICE-The principle of that Bill was that the shares should not be less than $1,500 each.
The ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL-The object of this ordinance is to give to all companies limited by shares and registered in the Colony the power of sub-dividing their shares. We are following the old law; there is no new legislation. The Ordinance has been taken section by section from the Imperial Act of 1867.
Mr. Lowcock-On the same argument you might say it was free legislation because it was thrown out before.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL-The real point was this, that there was a want felt and that want was met, and the question is whether the Council, having shown its willingness to give relief to one company, should refuse it to others. It was found necessary in England, and we are only following suit.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—I was not aware that there was a protest against the former Bill, but I can quite approve my opposition to the Bill because of its negation. If the limitation were put in at $1,500 that would go partly to my objection. My principal objection to it now is that there is no present cause for it, and we are precisely in the same condition as we were before. If my reason is to be guided here by the commands of the Government at home I must bow to it, but I should like to know on what facts his Lordship gave his direction, and whether he was aware of what was said here. If I saw the correspondence, I should then probably be bound by his Lordship. But if my conscience tells me that this is a matter contrary to what the interests of this Colony require I am bound to send my protest, and then his Lordship would deal with that. I should have discharged my conscience, and I am sure his Lordship would discharge his. The whole of the argument of the Acting Attorney-General shows that this was Ordinance to enable the China Traders' Company to subdivide its shares. He takes the title, but he does not add to it the limitation that the shares were not to be less than $1,500 each.
The GOVERNOR-I think I can simplify and shorten this matter. The hon. Colonial Secretary has explained in few and perfectly clear terms the position in which this Bill stands. I do not pretend to be a lawyer or to go into the law to which the Chief Justice has alluded. He has a perfect right to hold and express an opinion on it, and he has done so very fully, but now with the knowledge he has that both these Bills have been before the Secretary of State who has recommended that the more limited Bill should be withdrawn and the more general Bill submitted for adoption.
The CHIEF-JUSTICE-Does he say "adoption"?
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-Yes.
The GOVERNOR-I used the word advisedly—I say with that knowledge before the Chief Justice, I will take upon myself to withdraw the Bill, stating that considering the position he has taken I did not think it expedient to pass it. I beg to say, therefore, that the Bill is withdrawn.
241
Mr. KESWICK-It appears to me that as the broad principle of this Bill has been disposed of once for all in a fair manner after wüch dis- cussion, I think-although I myself voted for it-that there has been po cause shown, and there is no necessity for introducing the measure now before us. I do not think it would do any harm, but I do not think it is called for, and legislation that is not called for is more or less useless. The Company which it w specially intended to benefit bas found means of relieving itself, and there is no dif- ficulty in winding it up and re-forming a new company. Seeing, therefore, that the China Traders alone has taken any steps towards such legistation, and that there is no repre- sentation whatever from any other portion of the community that such a law is required, I think it would be foolish to pass it.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL-I took it for granted that it was so patent to bon. members why this should be made law, that I simply stated the general facts. Now! I put it that the fact of the Council having paised the former Bill and given the China Traders' a special Ordinance, shows that there, was a necessity for it. The general includes the particular, and if there was a sufficient reason for giving it in the one case the Com- pany can still get the same under a general Ordinance and are not getting a special benefit. If you have committed yourselves go far as to pass the other Bill you are giving a relief to the China Traders' and denying it to other companies.
The CHIEF JUSTICE-The principle of that Bill was that the shares should not be less than $1,500 each.
The ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL The ob-. ject of this ordinance is to give to all companies limited by shares and registered in the Colony the power of sub-dividing their shares. We are following the old law; there is no new legisla. tion. The Ordinance bas been taken section by section from the Imperial Act of 1867.
Mr. Lowcock-On the same argument you might say it was freeb legislation because it wa thrown out before.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL-The real point was this, that there was a want felt and that want was met, and the question is whether the Council, baring shown its willingness to give relief to one company, should refuse it to others. It was found necessary in England, audi
we are only following suit.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—I was not aware that there was a protest against the former Bill, but I can quite approve my opposition to the Bili because of its negation. If the limitation were put in at $1,500 that would go partly to my objeo- tion. My principal objection to it now is that there is no present cause for it, and we are precisely in the same condition as we were before. If my reason is to be guided here by the commands of the Government at bome I must bow to it, but I should like to know on what facta bis Lordship gave bie | direction, and whether he was aware of what was said here. If I saw the correspondence, I should then probably be bound by his Lordship. But if my conscience tells me that this is a matter contrary to what the interests of this Colony require Tam bound to send my protest, and then bis Lordship would deal with that. I should have discharged my conscience. and I am sure his Lordship would discharge bis. The whole of the argument of the Acting Attorney-General shows that this was Ordinance to enable the China Traders' Com. pany to subdivide its shares. He takes the title, bat be does not add to it the limitation! that the shares were not to be less than $1,500 each.
BU
The GOVERNOR-I think I can simplify and aborten this matter. The bon. Colonial Secre- j tary bas explained in few and perfectly clear terms the position in which this Bill stands. I do not pretend to be a lawyer or to go into the law to which the Chief Justice has allu led. He has a perfect right to hold and ex- press an opinion on it, and he bas done so very fully, but now with the knowledge be has that both theve Bills have been before the Secretary of State who has recom- mended that the more limited Bill should be withdrawn and the more general Bill aabonitted for adoption
The CHIEF-JUSTICE-Does he say "adop- tion P"
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-Yes.
The GOVERNOR-I used the word advisedly →→
I say with that knowledge before the Chief. Justice, I will take upon myself to withdraw the Bill, stating that considering the position be bas taken I did not think it expedient to pass it. I beg to say, therefore, that the Bill is withdrawn.
241
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.