FAIR PRICES

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 138, 11 June 1920, Page 7

FAIR PRICES

TRIBUNAL'S WORK

PROSECUTIONS RECOMMENDED.

The work of the Wellington Price Investigation Tibunal has been criticised lately. In order that the public might fairly judge the position, a Post reporter sought information from the tribunal as to its investigations and recommendations. i In reference to critical remarks by Mr. j A. H. Tocker, M.A., at the cost of living meeting in the Town Hall, the reporter was informed that the cases referred to by Mr. Tocker, concerning prosecutions for selling Mellin's Food and alarm clocks, were not dealt with in any way by the Wellington tribunal. The Wellington tribunal had recommended four cases for prosecution. One case was recommended for prosecution by the tribunal two months ago, and it had not yet been tried in the Court. The second prosecution wa3 to be proceeded with at once, whilst in connection with the third and fourth, there was a little delay in collecting the- necessary evidence to support the charges. One of these cases involved a charge of hoarding. The tribunal's investigations included the following:—Bricks, boots, baking powder, clothing (of all descriptions), cartage, chaff, coal, coke, cocoa, chocolate, candles, freight, flour, furniture, glass, jam, kerosene, matches, medicines, meat, milk, potatoes, oatmeal, oats, sugar, tools, tea, tinned foods, tobacco, wheat, woollen goods, wire, and spare parts for cars. As regards the suggestion that legislation be passed that invoices be open for inspection, the reporter was told that already the original invoices of 78 firms had been inspected (over 300 invoices in all), and the balance-sheets and profit and loss accounts of thirteen firms, in many cases covering four years, had been subjected to scrutiny. This was only part of the work done by the tribunal. since its inception two and a-h;Uf months ago. The tribunal oid. not expect thanks for the difficult and onerous duties it had to perform, but the public would probably appreciate the results already achieved were they aware of them, but full publicity could not be given excopt in case of prosecutions. In many cases where the amounts overcharged had been small, the tribunal had (insisted upon refunds being' made. In one case, a firm reduced an account by 25 per cent, upon a. complaint being ma r.!e of the excessive price charged, and that the matter would be referred to the tribunal for investigation. Numerous other instances of a similar nature had been dealt with, but the public were, of course, unaware of them. The object of the tribunal was to see that unreasonable profits were not made. To ascertain this, each complaint had to be investigated, and it was found that many complaints were not justified Traders had to be given every opportunity to explain and justify their prices before the tribunal gave a- decision. The result desired was a lowering of prices, and traders now generally recognised that it was advisable to keep their prices within reasonable limits rather than risk a prosecution. It v/as pointed out that the intention of the tribunal was not to harass traders in their business transactions, but the tribunal would not hesitate to recommend for prosecution any case of profiteering which demanded such action and which was likely to succeed in Court.