Cenclosure 5
71
¦ Chę China Shail.
HONGKONG, THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1891.
THE Share Bill again! During the last two or three months, columus have been written and spoken about Mr Keswick's share bill. It was with a sigh of relief that we welcomed the passing of the measure; for now at last, we thought, the subject may be dropped and the public delivered from the wearisome iteration of the arguments pro and con. But our joy was premature. The party in Hongkong, strong more by influence than in numbers, who thorough- ly hate the bill and hate everything which interferes with their manipulations and their gambling, will not accept the decision of the Legislative Council. They have re- solved to appeal to Cæsar. A memorial setting forth all the objections against the Bill has been drawn up and signatures are being canvassed for in much the same hole- and-corner way as the signatures to the anti-Sunday petition were obtained. The moving spirits of the opposition know well that a man who would not sigu s petition exposed in a public place may be got to sign it if it is brought to him by a friend with whom he has business relations and whom he does not wish to dis, lease; and they are acting accordingly. It is impos. sible, however, to keep such a memorial secret; and it has not been difficult for us to ascertain the leading arguments aet forth therein. The arguments, it is need- less to say, are not new; but the memorial has this merit, that it presents the full Case of the opponents of the Bill in concise form; and although there is a good deal of tedious repitition --the statement that short-selling is not the cause of the present suffering being made about a dozen times-the case is stated clearly and concisely.
Before examining the argumenta in de- teil, a few words on the principles involved. A great deal has been written about the distinction between gambling and specula- tion and the function of the State in refer- ence to both. In auo her column will be found an article from Fairplay, which admir- ably illustrates the reasoning and the attitude of those who favour the widest licence. The article contains the usual saeers at the 'moral' men who dare to suggest interfer- ence with what is termed legitimate speca- lation. Now if there is a class of peoplo more detestable than the hypocrites, it is the professional anti-hypocrites, The worst cant of Exeter Hall is sincerity compared with the cant of some of the scorers at
Exeter Hall principles.
Men destitute of courage bud an excuse for their want of principles and their want of morality by insinuating that those who seek to improve their fellow-men are actuated by mean mo- tives. Nowhere has this objectionable species of anti-cant been more observable than in the discussions that have taken place about gambling and commercial mo- rality. In certain quarters it seems to be taken as an axiom that a man who seeks to put a check ou commercial gambling must either be a foul or a hypocrite or both.
There are broadly-speaking three main divisions of business-private business, com- pany business and co-operative business,→→ which may be likened to the three species. of government-autocracy, aristocracy, and democracy. The leading feature of this age is company business. True co-operation, in which may be found the solution of all the labour and capital difficulties that now beset the world, camiot yet be realised.
A long period of moral discipline has yet to be
gone through. We have only reached the limited liability or aristocratic stage; co- operation, or industrial democracy, is a thing of the future. As Mr Francis truly re- marked in one of his speeches, the very essence of the limited liability prin. ciple is that there should be a free and
open market for the sale of shares. But what ia freedom? Does it mean the right of every man to do as he pleases? If so, then freedom may become worse than the most galling bondage, If men are to live in a social state their freedom must be circumscribed by the rights of others. It is on this sound principle that all laws are based. Mr Francis and his co-nemo- rialists say, let buils and bears work their free will, their actions will neutralise each other.
*****
This is almost equivalent
to saying, let Paul rob Peter and Peter rob Paul, and they will soon get even process of readjusting property, which, if permitted, would speedily lead to the dissolution of all civilised states. In a place like Hongkong, whern eight out of every ten of the foreign residents are speculators-we won't say gamblers-it seems superfluous to define what bulling and bearing really signify; but, judging by the loose way in which the terus are used, it is evident that their significance is not always clearly comprehended. Bulling means the purchasing of shares mainly for the purpose of raising the market, and *bearing' means selling shares for the pur-
pose of depressing the market. The two operations may be carried in to a small extent with genuine shares alone, but
j
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.