43
2.
the Head Office" and "had the effect of confining trans-
actions in the shares to the very limited hanghai market."
In my opinion this complaint is not borne out by the facts.
Prior to 1st January 1916 the great majority of Comp ani es
registered under the Hongkong Ordin@nces, and whose operations
were directed and controlled from places within the limite
of the China Orders in Council, availed themselves of the
provisions of section 35 of the 1911 ordinance and obtained
licences to keep local registers in one or other of the
Treaty orts of China; and this was certainly the case with
those Companies which were in existence at that time and
whose names appear at the foot of the Petition. But not one of those Companies, I believe, had the necessary qualification
under Section 35 to be licensed to keep a local register in
London. After 1st January 1916 those Companies automat-
ically became China Companies, and were obliged (under Section 6(5) of Ordinance No. 31 of 1915 and article là of
The China - (Companies) urder in Council 1915) to have their registered offices within the limits of the china urders in
Council (not necessarily at Shanghai, as stated in the Petition.) The effect of this new legislation was to make it unnecessary any longer for the China Company to be license
to keep a local register in a China Treaty Fort. it was provided therefore that Section 35 of the 1911 ordinance should not apply in the case of the China Company, but that the Amual fee at the rate of 4 cents for every 100 dollars
of the paid up capital (which was previously paid in respect the licence) should now be paid by every China Company to
the Colonial Treasurer of Hongkong • In other respects the general rights and duties of the Company which had previously held a licence, but which had now become a ChinaCompany, were not altered by the new legislation; and the market for transections in such Company's mares was certainly not more
confined than formerly.
In/
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.