DRAMATIC RUMOR

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18632, 16 February 1935, Page 11

DRAMATIC RUMOR

THE INVESTMENT TRUST CONTROL IX QUEENSLAND? STATES OUTWITTED lln, Mr. .1. W. S. McArthur beaten five Governments? r.:.ks the X.Z. Financial '1 lines. i nat is ihe question —but what is I,lla nn.->wer? if it is a fact that is bar irg.fiituion affecting the Investmeuv l-i.uii.vi' Trust of New Zealand, Liiititeo. v.as passed by any legislature, a company bad been given, and exercised. an option to purcnase, the shares of tue company and 10 take over its liabiht.es, wnat is the position'? It i.> 1 (-ported that effoits by the reuei.u aim Mate Governments have liiiK.u 10 induce liie Queen, land Labor uovernii). in 10 fab into line and pass .egi-aui. ii min. Jar to mat already enacted by tile New Zealand, federal, .sc..- .Son Ili Wales. Mouth Au.-dlahun and Victor.an Parliaments. Through the all.tilde of .Mr. Forgau Smith, tin; Premier, the state of Queensland may afford protected territory lor an enterprise wnieli hostile, legislation lias removed from the Doinnnou and'several Australian States. '(lt will be recalled, by the way, that when the special act was bonne the New South Wales Parliament .lie Labor Party, under Mr. Lang’s leadership, strongly opposed it.)

i, 10 m.o.'.n imu., during me \»e..k pre„e,..ng Uii- ]ia;.s.ny 01 11m icgi.i.ai.on, ,wr. .11C.V1 i.ilii' nil., in oriauaim aim mat, nt cm. lieu lo hyuiii-y 011 me nay tiiat tne .egi. i.iL.un \\ a, pa.vicd. it, is now uiuter,i«».id tn.it a company was formed, and .0 kills company an option was given to piiieiia.ie ilio whole of the sliares, iisseis, ami iiusuiess of tin; Investment r.xecUk.ve Trust 01 New Zealand, JLnuil(M. That option has, we are liuoriued, ne. 11 exercise. 1, and tile Queensland company now claims Unit 11 is entitled to tiie transfer 01 me whole of the property, assets and liabilities of the l.is.T.

li our inhumation is correct, then it is one of me givaie.it financial sensations 111 tne history of Australia and New Zealand. The dramatic action by five Governments may be defeated, if the rights of the Queensland company can be maintained m law, then the i.E.T. will continue to function as formerly. A crop of legal questions arises: llow far can the lights of the Queensland company 111 the exercise of its option—d Unit option had been given and exercised—be interfered with or denied by the legislation passed in New Zealand and. me Australian States? Were the acts so passed an infringement of 'Constitutional rights, and would they be upheld on appeal to the Privy Council? can the Public Trustees in New Zealand and New South Wales maintain their trusteeships against the claim of the Queensland company to the assets of the company? The legal questions are of peculiar interest and may reach far down into basic principles’ govern.ng the powers of parliaments and the rights of States. In short —can powers granted and exercised under the. laws of the State of Queensland be set aside or unnulcd by acts of other parliaments? if the shares in the Investment Executive Trust have been sold to the Queensland company, can that company be leiiiefl the lights it acquired under their law? '

Wo understand that t.lie names of .Messrs J. \V. S. McArthur and C. G. Alcorn do not appear, but on the other hand, the directors of the Queensland company include an official of the State Law Society and an official of the Society of Accountants. It would, therefore, lie difficult for any court to bold that these, at least, are not fit and proper persons to carry on the company.