The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1905. ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 13933, 15 December 1905, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1905. ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION.

I The Australian Bill to prevent the operation of trusts and monopolies in the Commonwealth is a bold measure of the directly prohibitive type. Legislation of. the kind has been contemplated in New Zealand, but so far has not been considered urgently necessary by the Government. Last | session Parliament adopted a curiously complicated method of meeting th& American I harvester combine, and as we are promised a, revision of the tariff next year it is possible that the simpler method of placing a duty on imported machines will be considered. The Australian i Bill is more pretentious. It takes cognisance of all forme of combination, whether by trust or merger or ordinary working agreement. A permaJient Commission is to be set up to investigate complaints, and if it is proved to the satisfaction of • this Commission that ..any trust or combination is "dumping" goods in Australia to the detriment of local industries, or is resorting to excessive or to other methods of competition with the object of driving the local manufacturer out of the field, the offending trust or its agents will be liable £o a , fine of £SOO. Contracts entered into 1 with trusts for the purposes of unfair competition are to be void, and agents of trusts are to be punished as if they were principals. Moreover, a manufacturer whose business is injured by the unfair competition will be given power to recover from the invaders three times the amount of the loss incurred through the unfair competition. In fact, from the cabled summary the Bill seems to be .a comprehensive attempt to prevent foreign manufacturers from fighting Australian manufacturers by the customary methods of the American trusts. If the -beef trust, for example, sheltered by the high tariff of the United States, should take to "dumping" canned meats ' into Australia at excessively low price®, the aid of the Commission would be sought by tho local meat companies and the nature of the competition investigated. If the Americans were selling at a price which would not permit the payment of a living wage, the employment of " men at reasonable •hours and the payment of full freight rates, the Commission would naturally suspect " dumping." We do not know how the Commonwealth Bill proposes to deal with the International Harvester Company, which does not begin by rate-cutting. The usual method of tEe Harvester Company _ is to invito the local manufacturers, to sell out. If all ftie manufacturers are willing the .company secures its monopoly by perfectly / peaceful and legal means. It arranges | with country agents, smiths and others, to keep duplicate parts only for its [ implements, and if there is a (stubborn..

manufacturer he is "frozen out" as gently as possible. Special inducements are given to farmers to buy only the Harvester Company's manufactures, and tho local industry then declines from natural lack of business. Of course, if Sir William Lyne's system is to be administered in common sense and equity it will go hard with the trusts; but if the letter of the law h considered the great American companies will simply suspend the measure in the law courts. The nature of their action will depend on the value of tho trade to be captured. We hope Sir William Lyne's Bill will go through, provided, of course, it does not deal harshly with simple trading and manufacturing companies. New Zealand will havo to adopt an anti-trust law of her own in the near future, an.fi a year's experience of tho Australian law would be invaluable to us. At the same time we cannot help feeling that these, directly prohibitive measures are devised on wrong lines. In spite o? all the harsh criticisms that were directed against 'it, the suggestion of Mr M'Bride, which, was embodied in MiTaylor's Bill of .last session, contained the only reasonable proposal for dealing with trusts that we have yet found.