Are They After Sugar Or “Sugar”?

Operations of Companies in Papua.

IT is time that something is done, by either the Australian Commonwealth or Papuan Government, to supervise the sales of shares and bonds to the public by companies allegedly interested in the industry of growing sugar in Papua.

THERE is nothing wrong or fantastic about Papuan sugar-growing.

Probably, there is no country where better sugar can be grown, or where it can be produced so cheaply. It is this fact that has stirred a certain class of company promoter to activity; but so far as some of them are con cerned, the only kind of sugar they will ever produce is that which they will take out of the pockets of their deluded share- and bond-holders.

At the present time, there appear to be four different groups interesting themselves in Papuan sugar.

Sangara.

The only group worth serious con sideration by Australian investors is the Sangara Company, at the head of which are two practical men, Mr. Tom Nevitt, plantation inspector in Papua for the B. and N.G. Company, and his brother, Mr. A. L. Nevitt, of Cairns.

Both have a thorough knowledge of sugar production. The Sangara Co. has obtained the only freehold land suitable for sugar-production in the region of Collingwood Bay, in the North-East of Papua, and it now has a large and flourishing experimental plantation there from which it can plant out thousands of acres in sugar cane, when it is ready. The Nevitt Brothers are now on their way to Lon don, and while there it is probable they

will secure British capital. They want at least £300,000. They are not pro posing to offer bonds to the public.

Sugarlands Ltd.

This is what is called “the New Zea land concern.” There was originally .formed in New Zealand a concern called Papuan Rural Products Ltd., and it applied for 20,000 acres in the Col lingwood Bay region. Later, it became involved with Mr. Mond, the picturesque swindler who came into Sydney and talked in millions, and came in conflict with the law. Then Messrs. Donaldson and Spencer came to Papua, apparently searching for land, and they appar ently selected the 20,000 acres already referred to, and acquired from the wreck of Papuan Rural Products, Ltd. whatever rights it had to the land.

The latter were disposed of to Sugar lands Ltd., but Sugarlands Ltd., if it is a genuine seeker after sugar produc tion, is not a quick mover. Little has been done with the proposition up to date, and the Company’s title to the land should be carefully investigated by any likely investor. All holders of leasehold land are under an obligation to carry out certain developmental work within a certain time, on pain of forfeiture.

Tropicane Ltd.

It is the activities of the concern known as Tropicane Ltd. which par

ticularly should have early and careful investigation. It is a year since we first drew attention to Tropicane Ltd. and to an allied concern, New Guinea and Papuan Undertakings Ltd., of 17 Martin Place, Sydney. We said then that we could not ascertain that Tropi cane Ltd. had any practical knowledge of sugar-growing, or that either com pany had any practical connection with sugar-growing in Papua, or that either of them even owned land in the Ter ritory. We said that persons asked to purchase shares or bonds should in quire very carefully into the proposi tion. We have since learned that Tropicane Ltd. has been offering for sale, in various parts of Australia, bonds in a so-called sugar-growing en terprise in Papua. We do not know what representation has been made by these bond-sellers, so we cannot say there has been misrepresentation; but we do say that persons who invest in bonds under the following conditions are super-optimists; (a) Up to the end of February last, this Company did not hold any land in Papua. It had merely lodged an application for a certain area of about 20,000 acres in the Collingwood Bay district. If the application is approved many formalities have to be observed before the native rights can be inves tigated, a survey made, and possession given. (b) Tropicane Ltd., or its allied con cern, has not done any experimental or preparatory planting whatever. (c) It is not shown that any of the directors or chief executives of this Company has any practical experience of sugar-production.

We have received letters from Queensland, dealing with the methods employed by both companies in sell ing bonds, and scrip, and referring to the issue of some Supreme Court writ; but we are not detectives, and do not propose to canvass the stan dard of commercial ethics adhered to by Tropicane Ltd., or anyone else. All that we are concerned about is that Papuan sugar-growing, which has marvellous possibilities, shall not be injured by misrepresentation or by the operations of “go-getters”. We say emphatically that a company like Tropicane Limited, in selling bonds in something that is merely an idea elaborated on paper, and which had not, up to the end of February, spent £50 in Papua itself in experi mental or preparatory work, must expect to find itself suspect.

The Kingsmill Group.

There were frequent reports, last year, about a sugar-growing enter prise fathered by Senator Kingsmill and Mr. Gus Nelson, of Papua. It was active for a time, and it inquired con cerning land in the North-East dis trict; but nothing has been heard about it for several months, and it is thought to be moribund, if not dead.