The Dominion TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1920. TRADERS IN COMPLAINT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 271, 10 August 1920, Page 4

The Dominion TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1920. TRADERS IN COMPLAINT

, 6 Amongst people who feel and resent the pinch of high prices— a very numerous body in these days— the habit has developed and become widespread of abusing the Board of Trade and declaring that it utterly fails to perform its duty of protecting the consumer from exploitation. The Board of Trade and the legislation it administers -were presented in a very different light yesterday when a deputation rcprcI senting wholesale and retail trad- [ crs "from North Cape to the Bluff" interviewed the Prime Minister and his colleague the Minister of Industries and Commerce. Apart from any question of sympathy with the deputation and the traders it represented, there is no doubt that its members were genuine and whole-hearted iir-.thcir expressions of resentment against the form of control exercised by the Board of Trade. Some people—only those it is true who have not troubled to look into its activities—regard th* Board of Trade as a sham. Traders, as will he scon from the report of yesterday's proceedings, consider that its operations arc "a menace to ordinary usages and customs of trade as carried on for generations past," and furthermore aro of opinion "that to drag honest men before the (profiteering) tribunals and make them prove that they were honest was an indignity which, regarded in its proper light would not be tolerated by any section of the community." These are decided, views, and tlicy stand in interesting contrast to whit is a common if mistaken public estimate of the Board of Trade and its associated tribunals. Explicitly and by implication—as when one of them stated that no rate, of profit could bo fixed beyond which profiteering would begin—the members of tho deputation askod for a great deal

more than the Government and Par- - hament could grant with any regard for public opinion on the merits of the case, but their contention that as matters stand trader? are denied ordinary justice and fair play is entitled at least to consideration. It, of course, goes without saying that measures against profiteering must be maintained and made as efficient as possible, but it is as necessary in the interest of consumers as in that of traders that in the process every caro should be taken to avoid penalising legitimate trade or subjecting it needlessly to vexatious and hampering restrictions. The drastic powers of investigation exercised by the Board of Trade and the tribunals are indispensable to any real regulation of prices and profits. On the other hVnd traders arc plainly entitled to have their responsibilities much more clearly defined than they are at present. The most obvious necessity at the moment in order that the legitimate grievances of traders may bo redressed is that the Board ' of Trade should give a clear ruling on the subjeot of fair profit. The ■Rosird of Trade Act of last year, Section 32, on which discussion centred yesterday, provides that every person shall be deemed guilty of an' offence, punishable by heavy fine or imprisonment, who sells any goods at a price which "produces, or is calculated to produce, more than* a fair and reasonable rate of commercial profit. ..." Until the. lastquoted phrase is explicitly interpreted, traders arc hardly in a position to know whether they are observing or breaking the law, and although the determination of "a fair and reasonable rate of commercial profit" raises a difficult and complex problem, what is meant evidently ought to be made more clear and definite without delay as a matter of justice to all concerned. Standards of permissible profit, which presumably will vary in different classes of business, must be set and determined before any real basis can lie afforded for the comprehensive administration of the anti-pro-fiteering legislation of last year. cases of alleged' profiteering heard in the law courts have apparently been decided on detail evidence and with reference to prices charged by other traders for similar goods. The declaration of standard rates of profit seems to offer the only means of clearing up uncertainty and allowing traders and the public to know where they stand. Traders should not be expected to work to an unknown standard. Tho. members of yesterday's deputation were particularly insistent in urging that profits must be assessed on replacement value if traders were to maintain a sound financial position, but at an immediate view their arguments in support of this contention were inconclusive. One of them observed that business did not end when a consumer purchased an article. The trader was in business permanently and had to replace that oracle. It seems a sufficient reply that each consumer is entitled to purchase goods at a fair price, based on then- cost, and has nothing to do with their replacement. If the contention that profits must be. assessed on replacement value means anything, it means that consumers on occasion ought to pay more than a f,air price in order that either the ; trader, or other consumers, may • benefit in some future transaction. I This does not commend itself us i either just or essential to the- sue- i cessful conductof business. As mat- I tcrs stand traders have neither made ' out a positive case for the assess- 1 menfc of profits on replacement ! value, nor-disposed of the Prime ( Minister's statement, based on ex- < pert advice, that the adoption of ' this procedure would make the rcgn- ' lation of profits on a fair basis impossible. One of the chief points brought out yesterday was that then* is still room for greater frankness and more open publicity in the administration of the anti-profiteer-ing legislation. The declaration of standard rates of profit and the publication of fair prices fixed by tho local tribunals would at once'limit (he uncertainty under which traderare now labouring and further demonstrate to the public that the anti-profiteering legislation is by no means a dead letter. The conditions of uncertainty which give traders just cause for complaint are at the same time vsll calculated to arouse in the public mind exaggerated suspicions of profiteering.