Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE TUESDAY, AUGUST 5th, 1913. THE SUGAR TRUST.

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 August 1913, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE TUESDAY, AUGUST sth, 1913. THE SUGAR TRUST.

Last week the Appeal Court. delivered its reserved judgment on one of the most important cases yet submitted to itsadjudication. We refer, of course, to the prosecution of what is commonly known as “the Sugar Trust.” It will be remembered that some three years ago, Sir Joseph Ward declared that the operations of trusts were making their sinister influence felt within this Dominion, and believing that the best interests of the people were menaced he passed legislation directed ' against commercial trusts and combines. That this precautionary legislative measure was not without justification was proved by the investigations of the Loyal Commission on the cost of living. The Commission drew attention to the “reprephensible practice, common in New Zealand, of combinations in different branches of trade, not merely fixing ! selling prices, but fixing penalties for j breaches of -the agreement to sell as j arranged, or bringing pressure to bear i on suppliers to refuse supplies to hide-1 pendent traders ivho do not conform to i their selling condilions.” The par-j ticuiar combination given special pro- j minence in this report was the Met-, chants’ Association. The Commission affirmed that they had “definite proof that the members of the association have banded together for. the purpose of restraining trade in their own interests and boycotting independent traders;” and that “when they have succeeded in securing control of imported and locally produced commodities their operations have been fallowed by increased prices.” Then followed a list of some two dozen lines of commodities over which the Merchants’ Association had obtained control, and the first item on the list was sugar.. The report mentioned that, acting on legal advice, individual members of the Merchants’ Association had refused to give evidence, and some people deferred judgment on the ground that

only one side of the case had been heard; mid that one of the members of the Commission (Mr. Andrew h airbairn) had been in conflict with the association in the course of businessHowever, the report made a definite charge of breaches of the Commercial Trusts Act and the Government thereupon instituted legal proceedings against several members of the New Zealand Merchants’ Association and the Sugar Company. The trial, a very lengthy one in which a galaxy of legal talent was engaged, way taken by Sir Robert Stout in, February last and at its conclusion, his Honor convicted the defendants, and imposed fines of £SOO on each of the defendant firms belonging to the Merchants’ Association, and on the Sugar Company four fines aggregating £1,500. Sir Robert Stout held that a monopoly which kept prices up was contrary to the public interest and therefore to the existing law, and that apart from the effect on prices, if persons conspired to monopolise the demand or supply of goods by acts in violation of the law, this also constituted a breach of the law. This was the main part, though by no means the whole of his findings. Against tips verdict the defendants appealed and the dissertation which the Appeal Court lias made on the points under review is at once as interesting and valuable as the judgment is of historic importance. Tne Court has made it apparent that the New Zealand Act is more clearly and definitely worded than the Commonwealth Act, under which the Coal Vend was recently abortively prosecuted. The Commercial Trusts Act ns, as the judgment says, an entirely new departure in our legislation, and though the analogous Act of the Commonwealth Parliament resembles it closely there is an important distinction. “The provisions of our Act,” says the judgment of the Court of Appeal, "appear to be more stringent in several respects than those of the Australian Act. By sections 3 and 4of the Act certain acts are made offences., The Legislature has considered these acts to be evil in themselves, and the Court has not to consider whether any particular act which comes within the words of either of these sections is or is not contrary to the public interest.” An act which the Legislature declares to be an offence, and visits with penalties, is plainly in its opinion hostile to the public interest, and must therefore be so regarded by the Courts. The very question that appeal’s to have given the Courts or the Commonwealth the most concern was therefore determined beyond dispute for the New Zealand Courts by our Legislature. It was even left an open question by the Commonwealth A.ct whether an intent to injure the public was not a necessary part of the offences which the Act created. Such an intent would always be exceedingly difficult to prove, and, even in cases where the results were highly injurious, might be nonexistent. Our law, however, leaves no doubt on the point and under Sections 3 and 4 certain acts are made offences. The essence of those sections is that the ' grant of a rebate or discount to a perI son in order to secure his custom, exI clusively or principally, for some other j person or persons is an offence, and I that conversely the refusal to deal, ; either absolutely or except relatively , disadvantageous!}', with any person in I order to prevent him from dealing with j any other person or persons, is an ofI fence. The discount system and simij lar methods employed by the defend- | ants were held to violate these sections, | regardless of whether or not the public j interest was prejudicially affected. The j Chief J ustice arrived at this conclusion, I which has now been confirmed by the j Appeal Court and the conviction re- | corded and penalties imposed on the | defendants duly endorsed. The last |of the matter, which fairly bristles with legal intricacies, has not yet befen heard, since provisional leave to appeal has already been granted the defendi ants.