36
10
75. Its shares, a very considerable number of which continue to be held in Great Britain, are now, also, widely held within the Colony of Hong Kong and elsewhere.
At
76. In fact, many other joint-stock companies are known to have reserves and other special accounts in the nature of superannuation funds so invested. the present time, no less than thirty-eight outside Corporations including British, Dominion, British-Colonial, Hong Kong, European and Foreign Companies (in no sense of an allied or subsidiary nature) have invested in the shares of your Petitioner. In this connection it may be pointed out that certainly prior to the advent of certain Hong Kong Government Loans, the shares of your Petitioner have been looked upon throughout the Colony as of that class of security for capital normally attracted into Government Loans investment.
77. Every fall of $1 in the market value of the shares of your Petitioner re- presents a loss of $650,000 on such invested capital.
78. Since information of the present position became public knowledge the Hong Kong Stock Exchange official quotation for shares of your Petitioner (all or- dinary shares of one and the same classification) has fallen from $20 to $13 per share representing a loss to investors of no less than H.K.$4,550,000 or £455,000 sterling.
79. Unquestionably this serious depreciation of 35% is largely due to the well evidenced public anxiety to-day of what further inroads may be facilitated and a growing mistrust that the Executive will continue to refuse any measure of protec- tion to your Petitioner's established interests.
80.
Unwilling as your Petitioner is to credit such a state of affairs in a Crown Colony it is forced to admit that events since the year 1928 cannot but convey that impression to its shareholders and the general public. In fact, at the moment there is great fear (not only on the part of your Petitioner but generally) that the motor bus licensee may secure from Government further additional facilities or concessions which will enable them to increase their intensive competitive campaign over the tramway area.
81. If the views of Government are in accord with such deductions an open declaration of policy would be preferable to a pursuance of the present course that threatens to cripple your Petitioner to the point of impotence.
82. At the present time new traction motors with an estimated life of 25 years are being imported from England and reinforced concrete foundations with an estimated life of 40 years are being laid down for new track. An open de- claration of policy by Government might show that this programme of systematic and costly renewals and replacements still being pursued by your Petitioner should be abruptly terminated.
83. Your Petitioner commenced its service in 1904 with thirty-six single-deck tramcars. They now have ninety-one double-deck (vestibule saloon top) tramcars operating over 10 miles of route measuring 19 single track miles.
84. Your Petitioner's present General Manager (Mr. L. C. F. Bellamy, M.C., A.M.I.E.E., M.INST.T.) thoroughly appreciates the fact that in a large number of towns tramways are being superseded by either trolley vehicles or motor buses. In 1922 (when General Manager of the St. Helens Corporation Tramways) he recommended the Municipal Council to seek Parliamentary powers to operate motor buses and trolley vehicles in substitution of or complementary to the Municipal tramway routes. This resulted in an Act of Parliament conferring such
11
powers on the St. Helens Corporation and that Municipality has now almost com- pleted the process of substitution of tramways by trolley vehicles.
85. In spite of this, however, your Petitioner is advised that the Island of Hong Kong, with its high traffic density over its long 9-mile route from East to West, comes within the category of cities of very much larger area such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Calcutta (to mention only three examples) where the retention of electric tramways for an indefinite number of years appears to be an economic necessity.
86. Hence your Petitioner has so shaped its policy and so carried out its plans as not only to look forward without apprehension to 1939 when a Royalty of 25% on the working profits of the company becomes due to the Government, but with an easy mind and conscientious scruples towards 1952. If, in that year, Government decides to purchase your Petitioner's undertaking and if—as a result of this Memorial-your Petitioner is encouraged to perpetuate its present policy of completely renewing each year a number of tramcar bodies, trucks, electric traction motors and a certain length of track, the Government will take over a tramway system which, today, is and will continue to be amongst the best in the
world.
87. Regarding the permanent way (see road map enclosed) the length- approximately four miles between Causeway Bay and Shaukiwan was originally single track with passing places. In the year 1922, however, Government announced its intention of making such extensive alterations to the whole length of this road that the question had to be faced as to whether your Petitioner would construct a new double track-in a different position and at altered levels-in substitution of its single track.
88. There was at that time no suspicion of Government allowing motor buses over the tramway routes (at any rate at equal fares) and your Petitioner agreed to abandon the single track and to construct a new double track, for the whole distance, entirely at its own expense.
89. This work commenced in 1924 but due largely to the consequences of the political strike in 1925 the Government suspended its plans and although by 1926 your Petitioner had completed the double track for about one and a half miles at the extreme eastern end of the Shaukiwan route it was only last year that the Govern- ment greatly expedited these roadway developments and accordingly construction of the tramway double track (on entirely new reinforced concrete foundations) has been continued. When completed this work will have cost your Petitioner $800,000.
90. It seems almost unbelievable that the Government should entirely ignore this matter. Your Petitioner does not enjoy a monopoly over its routes-along which it bears heavy statutory roadway construction and maintenance obligations-whereas, a Bus monopoly has been conferred by Government upon The China Motor Bus Co., Ltd., for routes (and partly along the tramway) along which that Licensee has no such obligations, and yet this new company is being permitted to compete with your Petitioner at equal fares.
91. Throughout the period of the new Shaukiwan Road construction and, indeed, throughout the life of the company, your Petitioner has had to work in the closest co-operation with the Public Works Department and work in connection with the renewal of rails and re-surfacing of track has had to be dove-tailed into Government road work.
92. Thus the closest contact has always to be maintained between the Public Works Department and your Petitioner. It is a great pleasure to state that
37
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.