CO129-468 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1921 [6-8] — Page 204

C

-5-

202

14.

The telegraphic transfer duty

introduced by section 27 is

new, but there seems to be no valid reason why remittances

by

telegraphic transfer should escape duty while remittances by bill

of exchange pay.

The rate is the same as the bill of exchange

and exchange contract rate, i.e., 10 cents for every $500.

This

duty is expected to produce about half of the total increase an-

ticipated as a result of the passing of the Ordinance.

15.

Section 39 is meant to fasten and broaden the liability in

It is intended that the case of corporate bodies and firme

criminal liability shall attach, to the corporate body itself in the former case, and to the person appearing to have the management

In other words, in the latter case, upon mere failure to stamp. the corporate body in the one case, and the manager in the other

case,

will be liable for the mere omission, apart from any ques-

tion of intention to evade or of guilty knowledge, and will be

bound to see that the instrument is duly stamped.

16. The power of inspection given by section 40 may seen rather wide and severe, but it will probably be used comparatively seldom

and it is considered very desirable to have the power in reserve.

17.

The maximum penalty provided in section 43 may seem high,

but the temptations to evasion, and the gain resulting from con-

tinued evasion, will be great in certain cases.

18.

The Companies (Sale of Shares) Ordinance, 1891, Ordinance No.5 of 1891, which is known as "Keswick's Ordinance", is repealed

by section 44(1), because it does not seem reasonable to collect under one Ordinance a duty on instruments which are made void by

another Ordinance.

That position would arise if Ordinance No.5

of 1891 were allowed to stand on the statute book after the intro-

duction of the New Share Contract Note duty (See Heading No.42

(4) in the schedule).

The Ordinance, in any case,

has not justi-

fied itself.