SUGAR COMMISSION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15919, 3 May 1912, Page 7

SUGAR COMMISSION.

THE KNOX INCIDENT.

DECLINED SPEECH PUBLISHED

United Press Association—By Electrio Telograph—Copyright. SYDNEY, May 2.

Failing to get a hearing before the Sugar Commission Mr Knox published, a portion of his statement in tho Press dealing with the Colonial Sugar Company's position in regard to the industry. It shows that during the period from April 1, 1907, to March 31, 1011, the company's profits from the Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane refineries were £591,785, or 15s Hid net per ton of raw sugar treated. He claims that sugar refining is a wholly freotrade industry, and in support of this he points out that in New Zealand there is no duty, sugar refining being free from Customs supervision, while the prices charged only differ by 5s a ton from the rates ruling here, when £6 Customs duty is deducted. He rebuts tho charge that the company has a monopoly of the sugar trade in Austhalia, and declares that only about onethird of tho sugar produced in Australia is made in the company's mills. Regarding the White labour question, he holds that there cannot be tho least hope of the industry being maintained otherwise than with sufficient protection to cover the extra cost of White labour. He shows that raw sugar can be imported considerably cheaper than it can be produced by the company in Australia. After reference to the good relations between the company and its employees, he concludes, " Like every other employer in Australia what the company most wants is to be left alone so long as its actions are in conformity with tho law." DEFIANT WITNESSES.

MR KNOX'S ALLEGATION.

THE CHAIRMAN'S STRONG STATE-

MENT. (Received May 2, 9.35 p.m.)

SYDNEY, May 2

A serious situation has been created for the Sugar Commission. Mr Knox and other directors of the Colonial Sugar Company, failed to attend. Mr Kaber, the chairman of directors, wrote stating that Mr Knox, as manager, knew all that he and the other directors knew, and the directors had decided that he should represent them.

Mr Knox wrote a long letter, in which ho declared that as he had not been supplied with a copy of the evidence, as promised by the Commission, he was unable to rebut statements which were untrue. "Therefore," he wrote, " I cannot submit myself for examination and cross-examination.'

Mr Justice Gordon, chairman of the committee, declared that he knew of fio right of the Company to dictate as to who should give evidence. Dealing with Mr Knox's letter, he stated that the excuse seemed very like a shuffle. Regarding the statement that the Commission had promised to supply a copy of the evidence, Mr Justice Gordon said, " I characterise that statement as a deliberate lie. I only said that we did not object to the reporter supplying a copy unless it interfered with his work. Tho reporter found that it did interfere." The chairman mentioned that the Company had had two shorthand writers present at all the meetings of the Commission, and Mr Knox's excuse was not genuine. To deliver it was covert defiance of the authority of the Commission. So far the Commission had met with little success so far as any revelations regarding the Company were concerned. All the officials of the mills had said that they did not know whether the Company was working at a profit or a loss. Muffled secrecy pervaded the whole arena of the Company's service. , Being in the city, the chairman added, lie would not take upon himself the responsibility of authorising tho prosecution of these gentlemen for not attending, but would leave it to the Federal Government.

The Commission adjourned for a week.