84
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
at $10,528 ?
Sir PAUL CHATER--That is to-day, yes. Not four years ago. I pointed out to you that if it was not a good thing the directors would not have taken the interest in it.
outlay which could not be productive for many
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-Your explanation seems years. The idea was conceived of forming & no explanation at all. From the chairman's new and distinct company which would under-speech we understood we could sell our property. take that work and thus avoid a lock-up of capital to the Land Investment Co. The project was submitted to your full board, who in the then position of the company referred especially to the extensive programme to which we are already committed. They deemed it prudent to place some limit on such a prospective outlay and- decided to take an interest of $200,000 in the new company. Those shares were applied for and allotted to them, and are stili hold; in this way it was considered that shareholders' interests were very appreciably protested, but I am very sorry to gather from the remarks made that shareholders themselves hold a different opinion.
Hon. Mr POLLOCK-I think in your statement just made you gave an inaccurate answer to my question just now. I asked if it was true that this company had disposed of any property or rights of reclamation to the Reclamation Co., and your answer only referred to Marine Lot 49. From what you say now I gather that you disposed of our rights to the Prays East Reclamation. Is that so!
The CHAIRMAN-That idea was suggested at a meeting of this company, but it is not so.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-Have we sold or agreed to sell the Praya East reclamation ?
The CHAIRMAN-I have already said No. Distinctly, No.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK---It was intended or con- templated to sell P
SIR PAUL CHATER-Certainly not. It was never dreamt of,
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-What is the object of the Chairman's statement!
The CHAIRMAN-I am sorry I cannot make it any clearer.
Mr. POLLOCK-It is not my fault. You have got the information. I am a shareholder and
ask for it.
The CHAIRMAN-I am sorry if you are unable to grasp it.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-You referred to the Praya reclamation.
The CHAIRMAN-That is not so. It was in view of the enormous outlay that the idea of forming this Reclamation Co. orginated, in
order to relieve the Land Investment Co of
an expenditure which would entail a very inconvenient look-up of capital.
Hon, Mr. POLLOCK-I must confess I don't understand your explanation at all.
Sir PAUL CHATER said the new project of the Land Reclamation at Tsimchatsoi could not have been kept waiting and as the Land Investment Co. by virtue of their
marine lots at East Point was committed to a
large expenditure for reclamation there which had been passed by the Government and was only pending the settlement of the dispute between the Colonial Government and the Navy and was also committed to large building opera- tions which, as you have heard from the Chair- man, have only been completed a few months
|
reasons
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-Why didn't we get it all then?
Sir PAUL CHATER--Because of the I have stated.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-I don't understand those reasons.
Mr. MICHAEL-I think I can gather at what Mr. Pollock is driving. He considers that the directors should have submitted their scheme anent the reclamation shares te shareholders, and asked whether they wanted it or not.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-I thank Mr. Michael for exactly expressing what I meant. know I was so obscure,
I didn't
Sir PAUL CHATER-We are not here to look
after individual shareholders of the company. The company is looked after by the Board of Di ectors and they took their choice. If on that oceision I had come round and asked some of you to take an interest in the concern, I taken it. venture to say not one of you would have
Mr. STEWART -That is prophecy; you don't
know.
Sir PAUL CHATER-I will go further. Some- one did take an interest to the extent of $50,000; and after the Land in question had been sold by the Government at auction to the Reclamation Co. for $220,000 over the upset price, he was very sick and sold his shares at par.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK agreed with Mr. Michael that the proper course for the directors would
have been to consult the shareholders, and a meeting ought to have been called for that purpose. As it was, the managing directors took an interest of 2,600 out of 12,500 shares, which appeared to have been, from what he could gather, a very good investment. He certainly thought the Board was starting a rival
company.
The CHAIRMAN-I must take exception to your calling the Land Reclamation a rival
company.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-What do you call it, a competing company? I should very much like to know what you defined it as.
The CHAIRMAN-You cannot have an interest in a rival company.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-It surely competes with ours. It does similar business to ours.
The CHAIRMAN-I propose that the report and accounts as presented be adopted and passed,
Mr BAIN-I have much pleasure in seconding that motion. We have had quite enough talking as yet, and I make no remarks on the question.
The motion was carried, Mr. Pollock voting against.
Mr. MICHAEL Suggested that the six million
[February 5, 1909.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK seconded the motion. Mr. MICHAEL wished the resolution amended, The Hongkong Land Reclamation Company. might at some time offer them a good price for property, and they would have to refuse the offer.
On the motion being put there were two for and eight (including 7 directors) against it, the remainder of the shareholders did not vote.
Hon. Mr. STEWART said the resolution could be placed on record as a protest.
Hon. Mr. Pollock moved "That the share- holders of this Company do protest against any of their directors and officers serving in a land company which competes in business with this company in any respect whatever.”:
Hon. Mr. STEWART seconded.
out to you that if this resolution is adopted The CHAIRMAN-It is my duty to point it will very seriously effect your commission
account.
Hon. Mr. STEWART-We'll risk that.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-I think our commission account is very small.
The motion was lost, there being three for and twelve against,
Mr. SMITH moved, and Mr. ORANGE seconded, that Messrs, N. A. Siebs and H. P. White be re-appointed directors. The motion was carried.
Mr. SAYER moved that Mesars, T. Arnold and C. W. May be re-el oted auditors.
Mr. SMITH seconded, and the motion was earried,
The CHAIRMAN-Dividend warrants will be ready to-morrow, gentlemen.
WEST POINT BUILDING CO.
The eighteenth ordinary meeting of share- holders in this Company was held on Feb. 1 at the offices, Victoria Buildings. Sir Paul Chater presided, and the others present were:-Hon. Mr. C. W. Dickson, Mr. A. G. Wood, directors; Messrs. F. E. Ellis, J. M. Graca, A. Shelton Hooper, F. Maitland, C. W. May, J. R. Michael, J. Orange, and H. Peroy Smith.
The notice calling the meeting having been read,
The CHAIRMAN said-Gentlemen,-I pur- pose with your permission to take the report and accounts as read. The net profits for the past year amount to $45,708.67 as against $40,434.57 for the previous year. This increase is brought about by the property having been leased from April 1st at an in- oressed rental of $1,000 per month. On the other hand, you will observe that the cost of repairs has increased from $2,197,50 to $5,212.34- This expenditure has been necessitated by the requirements of the Sanitary Board and the general doing up of the property on the change of tenancy. We are thus enabled to pay a dividend for the year under review of $3.65 as against $3 20 for the previous year, and in the absence of any abnormal expenditure, which we have no reason to anticipate, the returns for the current year with the increased rental under the new lease should enable us to pay a still
ago, was not in a position to undertake this dollars' worth of the Company's property better dividend in the future, Before moving.
work, for it meant the locking up of a million and a quarter of money for three years at the
least in the reclamation and a further two or three years for the buildings to be put up on it, which would have meant no dividend for the Land shareholders whereas they have had dividends of $12 and now of $7, therefore, a separate com- pany was formed to undertake the work. The Board of the Land Investment Co. were offered as much of the stock of the Reclamation Co. as
should be valued so that shareholders might know its worth. It might be worth twelve millions and if that were so they were only getting 34 instead of 7 per cent, dividend. He suggested that the value of the property should be put on record every second or third year.
The CHAIRMAN said Mr Michael'ssuggestion would have the consideration of the board.
Hon. Mr. STEWART-In the course of this
the adoption of the report and accounts as pre- sented. I shall be pleased to answer any ques- tions shareholders may wish to put,
There being no questions, The CHAIRMAN proposed the adoption of the report and accounts.
Mr. MAITLAND seconded, and the proposition was carried.
On the motion of Mr. PERCY SMITH, seconded by Mr. MAITLAND, the appointment of Hon.
they liked to take and they decided that they discussion I have listened to a remark of Sir Mr. W. C. Dickson as director was confirmed.
could only take $200,000, because of their com mitments already mentioned.
-Hon. Mr. POLLOCK-I don't understand. If it was considered by the managing directors, as directors for this company, advisable for the Company to become the holder of a $200,000 share in the Reclamation Company, why didn't they take all the shares. Why was not the extra business offered to shareholders ?
I am
Sir PAUL CHATER-With the individual shareholders we have nothing to do. speaking of the Company as a whole. The Land Investment Co. took what they wanted of the whole capital, but for reasons given you they thought it advisable not to put too much money this concern. Imagine $1,200,000 not earning anything at all; would you have got a dividend ? Certainly not.
Paul Chater's which has filled me with regret. He said he did not consider it his business to study the interests of shareholders.
Sir PAUL CHATEE-Individual shareholders.
ed. the re-election of Sir Paul Chater and Mr. Mr. GRACA proposed, and Mr. ELLIS second-
A. G. Wood as directors. Carried unanimously.
Mr. W. C. May and Mr. T. Arnold were re-elected auditors, on the motion of Mr. SMITH, seconded by Mr. ORANGE.
The CHAIRM 、N-Dividend warrants will be ready to-morrow, gentlemen. Thank you for your attendance.
Hon. Mr. STEWART-The company is made P of individual shareholders, and it seems to to me there is an error of judgment somewhere. I wish to propose that "The shareholders of this company desire to record their opinion that in future any favourable opportunities for reclamation or other dealirgs in property THE HONGKONG ICE COMPANY, in respect of which fresh capital is required ought to be offered in the first instance this company, and that no property or rights of by the managing directors to shareholders of the company ought to be sold to the Hong- kong Land Reclamation Co.”
LIMITED.
General Managers have pleasure in submitting
The twenty-fifth annual report reads: a statement of the company's accounts for the year 1905.
!
SA
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.