Feb. 18.] THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE. 347

Totara Rifle Volunteers.
James Cherago MacFarlane to be Captain.
Thomas Wanless Bruce to be Lieutenant.
John Henry Cass to be Lieutenant.
Date of commissions, 14th January, 1892.
R. J. SEDDON.

Volunteer Corps disbanded.
—
Defence Office,
Wellington, 13th February, 1892.

HIS Excellency the Governor has been pleased to approve of the disbandment of the O Battery, New Zealand Regiment, Artillery Volunteers. Date of disbandment, 30th June, 1891.

The under-mentioned gentlemen therefore cease to be officers in the New Zealand Volunteer Force, their commissions having lapsed under clause 51, Volunteer Regulations, 1889:—

PETER ALEXANDER LINDSAY, Esq., late Honorary Surgeon,
The Rev. GEORGE HENRY SOMERSET WALPOLE, late Honorary Chaplain.

R. J. SEDDON.

Volunteer Officers resigned.
—
Defence Office,
Wellington, 13th February, 1892.

HIS Excellency the Governor has been pleased to accept the resignations of the commissions held by the under-mentioned officers:—

D Battery, New Zealand Regiment, Artillery Volunteers.
Captain William Harold Sefton Moorhouse. Date of resignation, 3rd February, 1892.

Peninsula Naval Artillery Volunteers.
Sub-Lieutenant Francis John George Holmes. Date of resignation, 28th January, 1892.

R. J. SEDDON.

Justice of the Peace resigned.
—
Department of Justice,
Wellington, 15th February, 1892.

HIS Excellency the Governor has been pleased to accept the resignation by
FRANCIS SEVERNE, Esq.,
of Havelock, of his appointment as a Justice of the Peace for the colony.

W. P. REEVES.

Despatch.—Companies, &c., carrying on Business in German Protectorates.
—
Colonial Secretary’s Office,
Wellington, 11th February, 1892.

THE following despatch, received from Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, is published for general information.

P. A. BUCKLEY.

(Circular.) Downing Street, 17th November, 1891.
My Lord,—I have the honour to transmit herewith, for the information of the colony under your Government, copies of an extract, with English translation, from the North German Gazette of 16th August, 1891, containing the decisions arrived at by the German Imperial Colonial Council with regard to companies, &c., carrying on business in the German protectorates.
I have, &c.,
KNUTSFORD.

The Officer Administering the Government of
New Zealand.

[Extract from the North German Gazette of 16th August, 1891.]
(Translation.)
THE long-expected publication of the decisions of the Colonial Council with regard to the law respecting colonial companies appeared in yesterday’s Deutsche Colonial Blatt.
The decisions are as follows:—
(a.) Foreign corporations, in so far as they are commercial companies, particularly joint-stock and “commandite” companies, must obtain the permission of the Government in order to carry on their business within the protectorate.
Regulations will be made to put the same principle in force, without delay, in the German spheres of interest.
(b.) Foreign companies (a) must produce proof of sufficient means (viz., sufficient capital) before they can obtain admission to the protectorate.
(c.) Foreign companies (a) must found a branch in the protectorate in which they ask for permission to carry on business.
It rests with the Government to decide whether the appointment of a representative and the acquisition of a legal status shall be considered sufficient.
(d.) 1. The authorisations of a public legal nature granted by native chieftains are not to be recognised as valid.
This regulation especially holds good for—
(a) Exclusive concessions for roads and railways :
(b) Commercial monopolies :
(c) Exclusive mining rights :
(d) Concessions of authorisations to carry out mining works, and of rights to the soil and ground, over the whole territory of a tribe, or over a greater or undefined portion thereof.
2. In case the Government admits the rights of a commercial company of the nature described above in 1, (a), (a), the exercise of such rights must be under the form of a company founded according to German law in Germany or the protectorate.
From a consideration of the above decisions it appears that the Colonial Council was engaged upon two different questions.
These questions may be deduced from the answers as follows:—

1. Under what conditions are foreign communities of people bearing limited responsibility to be permitted to carry on business in the protectorates?
2. What can be considered as a possible subject for the granting of concessions on the part of native chiefs, and to what extent is it incumbent on the Government to recognise such legal businesses?
   The decisions from (a) to (c) answer the first; those under (d) answer the second.
   With regard to foreign companies, all those who do not carry on business for profit, e.g., missionaries, do not come into consideration.
   It may be gathered that it makes no difference to the position of these companies whether their members barter with the natives in order to procure their necessities, or whether, with a view to educating them to work, they found trading settlements, provided that these businesses actually serve the objects of the mission. Open trading companies differ from industrial companies, as also from “commandite” companies.
   In fine, foreign companies are only to be permitted to carry on business in the protectorate with the consent of the Government.
   This carries out the old Prussian maxim, which has always been upheld by the Legislature.
   The extension of this maxim to the protectorate is at once justified when it is considered how the uncontrolled influx of foreign companies with large capital would influence the development of economic life in the as yet undeveloped protectorate.
   One has not only to consider the dangers which might arise as to the fixing of the relations of exchange between the protectorate and the empire.
   The immediate damage to the development of our protectorate would have to be anticipated if there were a possibility, by availing ourselves of the easier forms of foreign legislation in colonies, of our beginning to found companies deprived of a solid basis, and whose collapse would for years bring economic undertakings in the protectorate into discredit.
   It may be imagined, further, that the Government will not establish regulations with regard to the admittance of foreign companies which will frighten away foreign capital from the desirable participation in the economic development of the protectorate.
   How the medium will be found between these conflicting interests cannot further be gathered from general regulations. The Colonial Council has made a wise reservation, even though with regard to this it has only established two points.
   The Government, before admitting foreign companies, shall demand proof of sufficient working capital. It shall, secondly, make sure that those companies are always represented in some way in the protectorate, which will spare to the creditors the risk and consequences which are connected with the prosecution of legal claims in a foreign country.
   The second question is no longer a question of the right of a company.
   It refers much more to the general question of the validity of the concessions of the natives, regardless of whether they are granted to foreigners or not, to single individuals, or companies.
   The manner in which many of these concessions have been obtained is sufficiently well known. Subjects of concession have frequently been the most valuable rights of sovereignty and possession, stretches of territory as big as kingdoms, the entire mineral produce of a country, and exclusive rights of innumerable description.