WELLINGTON-MANAWATU RAILWAY COMPANY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 10314, 5 April 1894, Page 6

WELLINGTON-MANAWATU RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Pee Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 4. At the annual meeting of the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company Mr T. G. M’Carthy, the chairman, said that the overdraft on the last day of the financial year was only <£11,595, being <£lo,ooo less than it was last year. The profit on railway account was J 58497, and the revenue from land <23402. The total net profit was £11.899; therefore they could not only pay a dividend of 6 per cent from the. earnings of this year, but carry forward £1899 to the dividend funds next year, thereby increasing the amount of that account to £13,335, which was more than sufficient to enable the company to declare a similar dividend next year. The Chairman said that during his recent visit to England, where two-thirds of the company’s shares were held, he attended a meeting of the largest shareholders. Those gentlemen, by resolution, expressed their approval of the management of the company’s business in the colony , but they were"also of opinion thatic had done sufficient in the direction of accumulating a dividend fund, and that the company ought now, as a Railway and Land Company, to distribute periodically the net railway earnings and land revenue for each year. There had been a large excess in the carriage of passengers and goods, excepting flax, which showed a fall of 560 tons. The expenditure was 47 per cent of the revenue, as against 41 per cent for the previous year. For this increase there were two material causes. These were the lowering of rates and the fact that considerably more was required for maintenance and renewals. After referring to the company’s land policy, be said“ There are two other subjects not referred to in the directors’ report, on both of which you are probably desirous to receive some information. With regard to the more important of the two, viz., our claims for land to which we contend we are entitled under the terms of our contract for the, construction of the railway, we are still pressing Ministers to complete the Government portion of the contract. At present wa are unable to report any definite result of our negotiations, neither have we been more successful in onr efforts to obtain a refund- of the various.suma paid by the company as property tax on the debentures held by the Sinking Fund Commissioners.’’ Referring to taxation under the Land and Income Tax Assessment Act, he said that various complex questions as to the correct interpretation of the statutes had to be dealt with, the directors feeling bound to do all in their power to adjust the conflicting interests and claims of the debsnturahbldera, the shareholders and the Land and Income Tax Departments. Certain points were settled by the Court of Appeal, but in such a way as to rai& some still more complicated issues between the company and the department,some of which were still unsettled. The broad result was that after incurring considerable expense in fighting various questions at issue the amount of tax demanded and paid for the year 1893-94 had been greater than it would have been under the Property Tax Act, although the original Land and Income Assessment Act was professedly intended to give the company material relief from taxation. He next dealt with the amount o£ rates and taxes paid by the company since its incorporation. At that time no taxation was leviable, but since then the Legislature bad imposed and the company had paid as general Government taxation £27,527 Is lOd, and as rates to local bodies £14,546 8s Bd, or a total of £42,073 10s 6d. The debentureholders had also been compelled to pay £2833 as debenture tax, imposed on. them by the Land and Income Assessment Act. The capital raised by the issue of shares and debentures amounted ‘to £850,000. For _ this expenditure the shareholders received no return for nine years. Since then they had been paid the following dividends : la 1890-91, 3£ per cent, £5950; in 1891-92, 5 per cent, £8500; in 1892-93, 5 per cent, £BSOO, making a total eum of £22,950, equal return ”on the share capffaf b^ : <2170,000 over the twelve years, or £l 2s M per cent per annum. In other words, the Government and local authorities between them had demanded and been paid 24$ per cent on the share capital, while the shareholders had received 13| per cent. The report, which recommended a 6 par cent dividend, was adopted. Messrs Kirkcaldie, Pharazyn and Anderson were re-elected directors. t ; , The meeting then dosafl.;