The Press. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1903. THE PREMIER'S ANTI TRUST BILL.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11689, 16 September 1903, Page 6

The Press. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1903. THE PREMIER'S ANTI TRUST BILL.

Since the famous “Washers and Manglers Bill” of Mr Buckland, M.H.R., we should say that no more fantystio piece of legislation lias ever been submitted to any Parliament than “The Trade Monopolies Prevention Bill,” which was read a first time in the House of Representatives yesterday, and which, by the courtesy of the Premier, we are enabled to print in our columns this morning. As an attempt to define urn 'indefinable, and to legislate in regard to matters which are not capable of being effectively dealt with in Acts of Parliament, it has a certain amount of interest Mr Seddon himself, however, we feel sure, lias too much common sense to suppose tout such a singular example of “freak legisla- “ tion” is likely to pass into law, or tliat it would be to tire advantage of anyone if it •were to do so. Whether it would protect us against the abuse of trusts, about which so much lias been said lately, is problematical. That it would increase the burdens on the taxpayers of this already- overgoverned country, and add to the anxieties of the honest trader, is beyond question.

Let us examine some of the details of tills remarkable production. In the first place, a new court is to be created to consist of the Chief Justice and two other judges. Without wishing to under-rate the judicial acumen and mental penetration of the New Zealand Bench, we venture to doubt whether even a conrt of three judges will be able to grapple with the vague and complicated conundrums which it is proposed to submit to their decision. The scope of the Bill is very comprehensive, embracing trades dealing in commodities of all kinds, from electricity to boots and beer. It makes it illegal to enter into an agreement, one of the main objects of which is (1) to destroy, restrain, or prevent, the reasonable trade competition of other traders, whether in the same or a similar trade; or (2) to enhance the price of goods sold by the parties “ beyond the price reasonably obtainable for such goods, if suqli price “were determined by reasonable trade “ competition in the absence of such an “agreement.” This brings us to the

questiou as to what' is meant by “ reason- “ able trade competition/’ and this is defined as “such competition in any trade "as will not prevent or tend to prevent *' individual traders or firms or limited “ companies engaged in any such trade, “and possessed of sufficient capital, knowledge and business capacity, for carry- “ ing on such trade, from earning the fair “ average promts commonly earned by such ‘‘trade in the absence of any trade “monopoly, provided that in determining “ what amounts to reasonable trade competition. the Court shall be guided not “ only by the interests of the traders con“ceraed, but principally by the following “considerations:—(l) The interests of the “consumers or purchasers of the goods 'sold by those engaged in such trade; “ (2) the interests material or social of “ the public generally in respect of such “trade; (3) the distinction between com- “ petitors in the wholesale and retail “ branches of such trade respectively.” Furthermore, it is made illegal to form a trust or combination of any sort " with "an abnormal amount of capital or ab- " normally extensive operations for any "particular trade.” The Bill, i'e it remembered, is a penal Bill, creating a new offence hitherto unknown to our law. The first essential of such a measure is that it should be precise iu its terms, so that the public may know exactly wliat the offence is, , and a man may not be led into committing it unwittingly. Anything more weak, watery and elusive than the vital clauses of this particular Bill we cannot imagine. Everything depends upon what the Court may consider reasonable, or unreasonable, “abnormally “ extensive,” “ -abnormally large,” and so forth. The prospect of attempting to carry on a legitimate trade with, vague dangers of this kind threatening loss and possible ruin at any momeut, is certainly not to be contemplated with equanimity. The method of bringing culprits before the£ourt is as remarkable as anything m this truly fearful and wonderful measure. Either the Minister of Labour, or the Minister of Commerce and Industries, can set the law in motion by sending notice to the Registrar, or it may be done by a petition “signed by no less than fifty respectable persons,” that “there are reasonable grounds for believing that a “trade monopoly exists." The Registrar is to forward the notioe or petition to the local Inspector of Police, who is to enquire into the matter, and if he has good reason to believe that any trader is guilty of a trade monopoly he is to report this portentous fact, and his reasons for thinking so, to the Commissioner of and the hitter is to forward the documents to the Solicitoy-General and the AuditorGeneral. These officials act as a sort of preliminary Court of Enquiry, and have power to call for the trader’s books and so forth. If they tliink a prim ft facie case is made out, then they report accordingly to the Attorney-General, who is to lay an information against the trader, and bring him before.the Court. One hardly knows which to admire most, the belief shown in the almost supernatural intelligence and power of work possessed by the average police inspector, or the exceedingly dignified and circuitous manner in which Hie defendant is ultimately brought within the purview of the Court.

Space will not permit us to go into the sweeping and arbitrary powers of break: ing contracts, winding up defendant companies, issuing injunctions, inflicting fines, etc., bestowed on t-lie Court created under this Bill. We can only say that if Parliament does its duty it will give p. short shrift to this ridiculous, involved, and at the same time dangerous, piece of legislation. We cannot believe it has been introduced with any serious intention ot passing it. The most anomalous thing is that while in their labour legislation the Government treat competition among employees as an evil thing, to be restricted as much as possible, the present measure treats attempts on the part of employers to restrict competition among themselves as a crime. As a matter of fact, within legitimate limits, combination among manufacturers is a, good thing—good for the consumers as well as for themselves. There is nothing either immoral, or even dangerous to the community, as the Bill, seems to imply, in carrying on business on a large scale—it is often the most beneficial to all concerned. The framer of the Bill apparently thinks that if the colony is given over to a;lot of little traders, all cutting each other's throats, and all in mortal terror lest they should at any moment be haled before the Chief Justice and two other Judges for some vague, undefinable offence, Elysium will have been created. We cannot share in this opinioa.