CO129-482 - Public Offices - 1923 — Page 449

417

value of shares. On this basis the 4 cents fee corresponds

to an annual transfer of 20% of the shares of a Company,

which is certainly dieproprotionate in the case of a private

Company. Lr. Barton says that during the past four years

1,704 shares in the B.A.T.Co., have been transferred of a

face value of 100 dollars each; on these transactions the

trenefer feee, supposing the shares to be at par, would

be 340.8 dollars on the 1921 scale, but the amount the

Company paye se a China Company in lieu of these fees is 70,000 dollars per annum. In his opinion therefore it

would reem reasonable that some differentiation should be

made as regrus the 4 centa fee between public Companies (with unlimited membership) and private Companies (of

which members all be limited to 50)exclusive of

employees of the Company.

As regarus the duplication of the fee due to the fact that the B.A.T.Co. holds practically the whole

of the shares in subsidiary Companies which have also to

pay the 4 cents fee, Mr. Barton thinks some remedy ie

equally called for, but he expresses doubt as to whether

this would be best remedied by the Governor's suggestion of a total exemption of subsidiary Companies;

there are

other Companies in more or les- the same position which

would also be entitled to the same treatment, but in

thoee cases there is also a greater or less amount of independent capital which would not be entitled to exemption; and he thereupon puts forward his suggestion

that the best course would be to levy the fee in every case

in full and then allow Ching Companies holding shares in other Companies to ap-ly for a refund of the fee on such

enaree.

+

Mr.

*

poit halun -

Mr. Barton then refers to the Governor's suggestion about an increase in the contribution to the Shanghai Register. He says that it would not be difficult to find adequate reasons for such an increase and he proceeds to show that the total value of the services at Shanghai given to the Hong Kong Government may be reasonably estimated at 8,000 to 10,000 dollars per annum. The amount the Hong Kong Goverment pay for these services is 3,000 dollars per annum and the sum they receive as a result of these services is between 100,000 and 150,000 dollars per annum. He proposes that in the event of an increased contribution it should take the form of a payment to the Consular Chest, the officers engaged in the work of the Shanghai Register

as at present,

receiving a definite allowance instead of

offa proportion

of the savings effected from incidental expenditure.

Mr. Barton concludes with an observation on

the Governor's suggestion that the fees payable by. China Companies should be a question expressly dealt with in the new Order in Council. He observes that in the 1915 Order there is no explicit requirement for the payment of these fees. He quotes certain articles whion provide for the validity of acts done in pursuance of the Ordinance by the Registrar at Shanghai and for the filing of documents by China (and Hong Kong China) Companies; for the jurisdiction of the Court (i.e.

H.M.Supreme Court) in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance (this appears to embrace the enforcement of fees); for the application in China of rights under the Ordinance; for the payment to the Colonial Treasurer

of fees received by the Registrar under the Ordinance;

and