AMENDMENT TO TEE MINING ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9890, 5 August 1895, Page 3

AMENDMENT TO TEE MINING ACT.

PROPOSED RESTRICTION ON SHAREHOLDERS. THE AUCKLAND SHAKEBROKERS' ASSOCIATION. A STRONG PROTEST. This announcement contained in our special correspondent's Wellington telegram in Saturday's Herald that the Goldfields and Mines Committee of the Legislative Council had introduced a very stringent clause to be incorporated in the Mining Companies Acb Amendment Bill, and that it was likely to become law, created an intense feeling of alarm, not to say consternation and indignation, on the Stock Exchange on Saturday. Certainly the proposed provisions are of a most drastic character, inasmuch as they provide that no sbarebroker shall on his own account, on account of bis wife, or of a member of his family, of any clerk in his employ, in any way directly or indirectly buy, sell, or deal in, or become holder of, any shares or stock in any mining companies registered or incorporated under the principal Act or the Company's Acb, 1882. Every instrument of sale or transfer of such shares or stock executed after the commencement of the Act by any sharebroker or his wife, whether as transferer or transferee, is unlawfully executed and shall be absolutely void for all purposes. No transfers of any shares or efock to or from sharebroker or his wife snail bo registered in the books of the company. Every person committing a breach of any of the provisions of this section shall be liable to a penalty nob exceeding, for first offence £10, and for every subsequent offence £100. lb is well known that many of the Sjentlemen who are members of the Sharebrokers Association have been for years deeply interested in the development of the mining industry, and have expended large sums of money in that) direction, and it was felt even by those outside the members that a great hardship would be inflicted if such a provision became law. The matter was discussed by the Shareholders' Association when they meb for the ten o'clock quotations, but it was felt that the questions involved were of too grave a character to be discussed at an ordinary meeting, and ib was therefore decided to hold a special meeting after business hours at half-past two o'clock in the afternoon. Tress representatives were admitted to this meeting, at which there was a very large attendance of members, Mr. J. M. Lennox, chairman of the association, presiding. The clause of tho proposed Amendmenb Bill was read from the Herald by Mr. D. B. McDonald.

The chairman moved the following resolution, "Thtb the members of the Auckland Stock and Sharebrokera Association strongly protest against the proposed new clauses in the Mining Companies Amendment Bill having reference to sharebrokers. They demand for their wives, children, employees, and themselves, the right to invest their money as they choose, the same right which is not withheld from the humblest subject in the country. In London, prominent members of the Stock Exchange are some of the largest holders in our New Zealand mining stocks. Such measures as these proposed, would unfairly restrict the liberties of a large and respectable portion of our community, and materially retard the progress of our mining industry. The members of (this Stock Exchange hope the good s«use of the House will prevail, and prevent such measures from becoming law, and thus save our mining industry from the disaster which must inevitably follow legislation of this character."

In speaking to the resolution, the chairman said he should not say much in support of it, except that such legislation was an outrage on public decency. Here was a country which thought so much of women that they gave them the franchise, and placed them in the same position as men, and they could invest their money as they cheese ; yet now it was intended to pass an Act prohibiting them from investing in the main industry of the colony, and which says that a woman, because she is the wife, or it may be the mother-in-law, of a sharebroker must not invest in mining. Why the humblest shoemaker, or artisan, or his wife, could invest their monoy as they chose, but they could nob, if this provision became law, invest in the main industry of the colony if they had the misfortune to have a relative a sharebroker. It was an outrage on common sense, and the sooner it was pub a stop to the better for a country which they all hoped to Bee happy and prosperous. (Cheers.) Mr. D. B. McDonald seconded the motion, and said he did not need to add much to the chairman's remarks. This Government seemed to have selected special classes for special legislation, and it was not the first time the sharebrokers had been attacked by them. Some time ago they legislated to prevent sharebrokers from having anything to do with the management of mining companies. Tnere was, perhaps, no serious disaster on that occasion, but it was of no benefit to the community. But this fresh outbreak was an ontbreak on the rights of British subjects, and it prevented them from dealing with a commodity which was open to all other classes of the community. This attack might pander to the wishes of rabid persons holding strong views . regarding sharebrokers, and might gratify those who are making the applications to pass this law, but it was not going to do any good. On the contrary, it would restrict the mining industry of the colony. It would restrict the circulation of capital, the expenditure of which was for tho benefit of the country, and if the hands of the brokers were tied up in the way proposed by this measure it would be disastrous to the country. If they were to have special legislation for the suppression of sharebrokers the country must suffer. Mr. Hull said that if that measure became law the relatives of land agents would bo affectod. Mr. Brimblocombe said ib would come to this that drapers could not buy goods in their own shops. Mr. J. F. Clarke said ho was harder hit than most of them. For twenty-five years he had been in business as a sharebroker, and during that time he had been largely concerned in the development of the mining industry of the province. He had taken up claims and contributed to their development, and he was now, as they were aware, largoly interested in the Monowai. In this area there are fine largo reef« containing gold, bub the trouble was that hitherto ib was found impracticable to extract the gold profitably, and he himself and the party interested with him had expended £7000 in finding a way to save tho gold. They had erected a pan amalgamation plant at a cost of £1300 ; bub that did nob answer, and they then expended £3000 on a cyanide plant ; bub that did not meet the emergency, and now they were expending again, and had an English metallurgist making experiments and alterations by which they expected the difficulty would be disposed of, and the mine would become a profitable one. His (Mr. Clarke's) calls this year alone amounted to £700; and now, if this Act was brought iii, he musb either give up his profession us sharebroker or his mining interests. Was bhab nob a hardship? His mining interests were so large thab he could nob give them up, as he had invested largely, and he would therefore have to give up sharebroking. No one could say thab he had ever beon guilty of dishonesty, and now he was being treated worse than a criminal. Ib was a hardship, and he felt ib very keenly.' Mr. Brimblecombe said he understood that what shares they held at present they could deal with, bub after a certain date they could not do so. Mr. Hull said he had been connected with the Sharebrokers' Association for 25 years, and during the whole of that time there had nob been a single defalcation. Could, he asked, as much be said of any other profession? Yet they dealt with thousands of pounds, their word was their bond, or a mere scribble passed between them. Yet there was nob a single defalcation, the hackneyed phrase about swindling sharebrokers" and such claptrap being taken up they were abtacked by the legislature of the country. Mr. Frater asked how about trust shares. That he held was the most material point, more important than any interests of their own.

The Chairman : You cannot hold any shares,

Reference was made to Mr. Clarke s son who was a legal manager and who therefore had to hold trust shares. - „ Mr. Clarke said there was nothing tor it but that his father must go out of sharebroking. ~ , ~ Mr. Hull said men at a distance would be prevented from investing. They frequently had clients at a distance who authorised them to invesb moneys, with instructions to transfer them to a certain name. , ~ , The Chairman asked why should a sharebroker's son, who may be away in the South, in business perhaps for himself, DO prohibited from investing in mines. Mr. Buttle said he was in the same position as brokers all over the colony, bat he believed with Mr. Frater that the chief matter was their trust shares. He held thousands of these, although he hardly held any of his own. , . Mr. Frater and Mr. Hull said that also was their position. Mr. Clarke said the difficulty in his case was that he could nob transfer his interests to his son or daughter.

Mr. Hill asked at what age sons or daughters could act for themselves ? The Chairman said it did nob matter under this Bill. Mr. Clarke : Why my domestic servant has shares, although she did not buy them through mo, and it appears now she cannot deal with them. •' The motion was then pub and carried unanimously. Ib was agreed on the motion of Mr. McDonald, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to telegraph the resolution to kindred associations at Dunedin, Wellington, Christchurch, Thames, and other centres. Ib was stated that Mr. Button, M.H.R., would probably bo in Auckland on Monday, and Messrs. McDonald, Hull, Clarke, Buttle, and the chairman were appointed to meet and confer with him. Arrangements were also made for telegraphing to the Auckland members in the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council, asking them to oppose the proposed amendment.