The Taihape Daily Times FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1916. COMPANY LAWS.

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 200, 22 September 1916, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1916. COMPANY LAWS.

AND WAIMABINO ADVOCATE (With which is incorporated The Tal hape Post and Waimnrino News.)

Recent developments and disclosures in connection with some public companies point unmistakeablj; to the fact that for the proper protection of the public from exploitation, and possibly fraud, some very definite change should be made in the company laws of this country. A certain company that is not in very good odour just at this time, one that is a sort of hydraheaded concern, is linked up with a foundling that has a uaid-up capital of less than ten pounds, while its alleged business involves thousands, and its nominal capital is ten thousand pounds. Although this company was floated some time ago, at the end of May of this year eight thousand shares had been taken up, but of which only seven, involving were cash, the others went to promoters as fully paid up. Now, it is obvious that allowing companies of this kind to be registered as limited liability companies is a menace to an army of the com paratively poor people, amongst which there is a larfee sprinkling of widows and other feminine beneficiaries in the estates of deceased parents, who have been left small sums which they are anxious to invest to the best admntage. It is nedless to say what easy victims they fall to the share canvassers of some worthless, cashless, .fraudulent body that may be formed and registered under present com pany laws. In Christchurch there was a company called ‘.‘Negotiators. Limited’ 5 floated, it seems, to- take over the

sole right of selling shares in the Dominion Home Builders, Ltd. Its existence depended upon the selling of such shares, which seems to be something outside the intention of the Compares’ Act. The promoters of our local freezing company would not be considered honourable men were they to -have formed a little coterie, registered as a company with no capital, and then as directors of the freezing company handed over to themselves as a negotiating company the sole right to sell the freezing company shares, and by such a questionable dodge have put several thousands of pounds of subscribed capital into their own pockets. But this is the sort of thing that is possible under our Company laws; but worse still, it is possible, and there are cases in which pro moters sell out their interest in these dangerous affairs, pocket thousands of pounds more, and say good-bye to the country. It is not that the people of New Zealand are less clever than other people that the promoters of such thieving concerns reap such splendid harvests. They are coming to face the trickery of less honest people from other countries for the first time, and it behoves everyone to place less credence in the stories that share sellers on commission in worthless concerns tell with such forcefulness a= to give an appearance of truth. The Companies Act is no protection whatever to the public, and it is good practice to refuse to touch shares in a limited liability company that is not publicly known to be a stable concern. On the other hand, the fullest informa tion should be obtained from the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies before dabbling with anything new or un knoAvn. The Act protects the company and leaves the public a prey. Recent disclosures plainly indicate that tne law needs to be altered so as to give some degree of protection to people of simple life, from whence come mos: victims. We are in no way interested in .any such companies, other than that we realise in them a danger to honest people, which the laws of the country should take early steps to repress and make impracticable.

WHERE WEALTH GOES,

In these days the old political economists are blatantly written down as fools. An article has just come under notice which brushes John Stuarr Mill aside as mere trash and goes on to show that he was an awful fool as a political economist, and in a highly respected publication, too. Mill said, “The possegsors of industry are able to take an enormous share of the total wealth produced/’ but a writer, by quoting a profitless maze of figures thinks that he has proved Mill's dictum bosh, and that he has established the fact that it is, labour that occupies the position ascribed by Mill to tno possessors of industry. If this writer has been successful, even to the smallest degree in his efforts, then things are not what thsy seem. When we look abroad and think we see the possessors of industry in older countries indecently rich, and practicing orgies that are a disgrace to the genus homo, we do not see correctly, for we are told that they are not able to get the greater proportion of the wealth that is being created. It seems hopeless though, to seek any other evidence than that with which our senses come in contact. On the one hand we see [men squandering millions, indulging in disgraceful orgies, gratifying the most depraved appetites, enslaving; the most lovely in creation for their depraved desires, and we come to the conclusion that these, the possessors of industry, are able to take and arc taking the greater proportion of the wmalth produced. Then we view the workers, and from their condition can only assume that, at least, they did not get the greater proportion. We believe Dr Johnson wrote that, “Many envy and desire wealth, who can never procure it by honest industry or useful knowledge.” No desire can be formed which riches do not assist to Agratify; if only this predominant appetite had operated in accordance with virtue, to have riches and to have merit would then have been the same, and success might reasonably be considered as a proof of excellence. When we read of disclosures in wealth s

ting in this young country it seenv that we are drifting back into the methods where cunninjg and mig gave tlie power and right to possess.