THE H.B. TRIBUNE FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1924. SENSITIVE MONEY-LENDERS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIV, Issue 45, 1 February 1924, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1924. SENSITIVE MONEY-LENDERS.

A good deal of curiosity has evidently been aroused by the cabled mysterious announcement of the London “Daily Telegraph” that "arrangements have been nearly completed for the issue of an interesting colonial Government loan,” said to be of “fairly substantial” amount and likely to be offered during the current week. Some of the keener hunters after Government expenditure got on the trail at once, and Mr Massey has found it necessary to let them know that they are this time on a false scent, as no New Zealand loan is in early contemplation. Reading between the lines of the message, the inference that is prompted is that the predicted issue will prove to be one from Queensland, as that, no doubt, would excite very widespread interest among London financial circles. The only thing against this is that Mr. Theodore, the Queensland Premier, who left some little time back on a borrowing mission to the Imperial money centre, can scarcely as yet have reached his destination. It is quite possible, however, that he may have considered it a shrewd move to have his Agent-General put out, while he himself was en route, a preliminary feeler of moderate amount in order to ascertain, if possible, the attitude investors were likely to adopt towards Queensland proposals. As is pretty generally known, it is understood that these will receive a cordial welcome only if the Premier exhibits some disposition to meet reasonably the complaint made with regard to his Government’s legislation held to be a distinct breach of faith with some of Queensland’s Crown leaseholders. As was mentioned a few days back, Queensland Has some 25 millions of London loan money falling due within the next eighteen months, for which redemption or renewal has to be arranged, to say nothing of new development money also wanted. The loan now spoken of has quite a likelihood of being a modest kite flown to ascertain how the wind blows. Mr. Theodore may want to find out before he lands whether there is really anything in the rumours of a virtual boycott should the Queensland Government refuse to reconsider the position of its tenants and those who have lent them money on the security of the leases whose value has been so seriously depreciated. On this latter point the feeling seems still to be very strong at financial headquarters, recently received newspaper files having frequent reference to what has been dubbed in London "the Queensland Repudiation Act.” In the latest number of the "Times” to hand the chairman of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company is quoted as making allusion to it at the annual meeting of shareholders. While expressing sympathy with those who had suffered directly and indirectly from the legislation , passed in violation of contracts, he “laid stress on the hope that by mutual concessions it might be possible to arrive at some agreement, which would place Queensland in a position to preserve her credit.” Commenting on this, the City editor adds: "The remedy is therefore in the hands of Queensland. Compromise on a fundamental principle is impossible if credit is to be restored. ■ As the chairman pointed out, . lenders must be satisfied that a borrower will strictly carry out his obligations and act in such a manner that his credit will not be adversely affected. Further, lenders

must be satisfied that the moneys borrowed will be expended judiciously for the sound development of the State. He rightly said that only by strict adherence to these funda mental principles would it be possible for Queensland to borrow upon such terms as are necessary to her future welfare and advancement.”

A cable appearing in a Sydney exchange just to hand makes reference to another meeting, that of the Australian Pastoral Company, •it which the same subject was again mooted. From this report it would seem that a concrete suggestion has been made to refer to the Privy Council the question as to whether or not there had been a breach of contract with regard to the Queensland leases. This looks like an eminently sane proposal, and one that should commend itself to the Queensland Premier as relieving him from further responsibility in the matter. Here again the City Editor of the “Times** is quoted, his observation being that hopes may be entertained that the suggestion will now receive the careful consideration of Mr. Theodore and the Queensland Government. He adds that it would be a matter of eventual regret and loss to all parties if nothing were done to remove the “misunderstanding” undoubtedly existing in the minds of British investors in Queensland com. panies regarding the effects of the 1920 Act. The City editor repeats that if Queensland can dispose of the “misunderstanding” she will find no obstacle to borrowing all she neecls from British investors.