THE ANTI-TRUST BILL.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11691, 18 September 1903, Page 3

THE ANTI-TRUST BILL.

OPINION IN AUCKLAND. (SPECIAL TO "THE I'ItESS.") ' AUCKLAND, September 17. The " Star," in a leading article on the Trade Monopolies Prevention Bill, .says: li Wo hold with Mr Scddon that the time has already come to deal vigorously villi the combine before prescriptive rights and vested interests have given it such a hold upon the country, as would not easily be shaken off. At the same time this is a very difficult question to deal with, and the Bill introduced by the Government appears to us to be open to many very grave objections. Its arbitrary powers might, be used in a very harassing way against legitimate private enterprise, and will require considerable modification." The Bill has not been favourably received here. A member of one of Auckland's wealthiest merchant firms said that a hurried glance through the Bill convinced him that it would mean a social and commercial upheaval. " There would," he said, " be no knowing where to stop. Almost anything could be shown to be a monopoly. For instance, a firm might be agents for a speciality which is shipped to them alone. The firm thus controls the price and makes a monopoly. The Bill is an impossibility, and cannot pass. I should call it communism. I could understand a Bill being aimed at trusts and corners, such as they have in America, but that refers more particularly to certain staple products of the country, like beef and flour. As business is constituted hero such corners are practically impossible. Take the butter industrythere are so many interests involved that it would bo practically impossible, to corner all the dairies and creameries of the colony. The existence of so many small trading concerns would make it quite impracticable to form a trust; it is not. from such material that trusts are formed." Mr Kent, President of the Auckland

Chamber of Commerce, in an interview, said:—"l think that the proposed legislation is premature in New Zealand. We have no trusts or combines to speak of in this colony, and under our present conditions I view Use proposed legislation with great distrust, 1 do not like this proposed setting up of a Court to regulate trad?. Demand and supply should constitute the only Court to do this, and any other Court which might be set up will be open to grave abuses-. We have too much interference with the manufactures and industries of the colony; there is little or no freedom of action on the part of tho mbnicd man in New Zealand, and consequently lie will not branch out into many an industry he might venture into if there were not so many and vexatious interferences on the part, of the Government. lam willing to think that in introducing this anti-Trust Bill the Government is actuated by good motives, but I cannot, help regarding tho proposed legislation as distinctly dangerous. If we lived in other and widely different conditions of mercantile life, such as have obtained in the United States of America., then I could travel heart and soul with the Government in the Bill to regulate trusts, but under existing conditions I think that to place this Bill on the statute book as it is would be only to add further unnecessary and embarrassing legislation to the laws of the country, which is already official ridden almost beyond endurance. It is to be sincerely hoped that both the Government and the Opposition members alike will remember thqii is is thelß duty to do everything in their power to encourage trade .and enterprise, and to stop tho 'hampering and interfering policy which has been going on so long, and which is strangling the spirit of venture without- which we. ran never take our proper place in the commercial world. Where, for instance, is the enterprise and [ capital to come- from to thoroughly entab--1 lisli first-class engineering works and shipI building yards in this colony, if this policy !of constant interference with trade and I manufacture is to continue? It, is almost hopeless to look for it, because the men who have the capital in different parts of tho world who might ho induced to come, to Now Zealand and open up such industries are repelled by our restricting legislation. That this is so there can be no doubt. Take as an illustration tho establishment, of iron and steel industries in this colony. Why do they not commence? ! Why are we annually sending thousands and thousands of pounds away from this I colony to purchase in many cases inferior ! iron and steel, which we could manufacture I here ourselves? Xo country-is possessed I of richer raw material than we have in New Zealand, and yet we are constantly j sending away the wealth of the country | to buy these things, while under favourable i conditions of legislation, combined with the natural richness of our country, our { industries would be emptying thousands I of men, and circulating hundreds of thouj sands of our money annually. The cause of this inactivity is to be found in our labour laws, and the Government interference in trading and commercial matters, and this proposed anti-trust legislation would still further cramp enterprise instead of encouraging it." | MP. T. .7. McBRIDF/S OPINION. In reference to the Trade Monopolies ■ Prevention Bill, a representative of "The Press" saw Mr T. J. Mcßride yesterday. Mr Mcßride has followed closely the progress of commercial tendencies, especially in tho sale and manufacture of farm implements and machinery. Recently he wrote an eight-page pamphlet, in which his views on the subject of trusts were set forth. Ho stated yesterday, with reference to the Trade Monopolies Prevention Bill, that it seemed to him that nothing better could be devised to throttle the industries of the country. He thought that a consolidation of interests was absolutely necessary in a small country like New Zealand, in order to cope successfully with foreign competition. Tho industries of this country were very limited, and if all the companies in a single lino of trade were combined in one concern, it would still be small in comparison with similar concerns in the United States or Canada. At the samo time the limit of profit should be specified in each and every industry, and after paying Union wages and all legitimate expenses, the surplus profits should be divided between the producers, consumers, and capital. A trade association under free trade, Mr Mcßride declared, was quite as effective in keeping up prices as a protective tariff.