TRADE MONOPOLIES BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12660, 14 September 1904, Page 3

TRADE MONOPOLIES BILL.

DISCUSSED BY CHAMBER. OF COMMERCE. ADVERSE CRITICISMS. SLEDGE-HAMMER LEGISLATION. A meeting of the council of the Chamber of Commerce was held yesterday to consider the Trade Monopolies Prevention BilL There wore present;, Messrs. John Reid (presiding), L. J. Bagnall, A. B. Roberton, Alfred Nathan, Graves Aiokin, J. H. Upton, M. Clark, J. Schischka, J. B. Macfarlane and H. Goulstone (secretary). VIEWS OF THE PRESIDENT. The President said the Bill had been published in the Herald and circulated among members as well as the Chamber could do so. The matter was brought under his notice by some members of the council, and it was thought better that the council, as a body, should consider it. However, some members were opposed to the Bill and others appeared to approve of it. The impression upon his mind was that the Bill was a very drastic measure, and it seemed strange that in a small country like New Zealand it should be thought necessary to bring in such .stringent legislation. It called into existence a great staff of officials, including a chief justice, two justices, a registrar, two police officers (an inspector and a policeman), who had to report upon people; then a commissioner of police, then a solicitor-general, an auditor and con-troller-general ; then an audit inspector came upon the scene; then the attorneygeneral calls upon the registrar of the Supreme Court, who communicates with the judges, and so it went on. Fortunately arrests wore not effected under warrant. The measure being'such a very serious one h© thought it should be seriously considered by the council; AN AWFUL CLAUSE. Mr. Nathan said there was absolutely no protection to the merchant anywhere in the JBill. Clause 0, section 2, was a most drastio provision. It read: "In particular, and without affecting the generality of the foregoing definition, a trade monopoly includes any agreement or method of trade whereby the supply of any goods for retail sale is restricted to any persons or class of persons, or any person or class of persons is precluded from purchasing any goods for retail sale." Such a clause, if carried, would absolutely prevent business being carried on. This was really an awful clause. Again, Clause O, section 2*, empowers the Court to "declare that all or any contracts thereafter entered into with such defendant in furtherance of such monopoly, including contracts for the sale and supply of goods by such defendant, shall be void and be unenforceable, provided that the Court may, in making such declaration, qualify it in such manner as it thinks fit in order to protect any person contracting with such defendant bona fide and in excusable ignorance of such declaration."

Mr. Bagnall wondered what was meant by a "reasonoable price" as tho term was used in the Bill.

Mr. Graves Aickin pointed out that the Bill dragged in no less than three sets of officials. One great objection to the Bill was that people, under Clause 0, section 2, could blackmail business firms. Mr. Nathan said everyone would be affected by the Bill if it wore passed, including the insurance companies and shipping companies. SOME GROUNDS OF OBJECTION. Mr. Roberton proposed: "That the council of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce deem it necessary to oppose this measure in its present form on the following i grounds:— Its provisions are 100 drastio and far-reaching, and are not warranted by the conditions and circumstances of ; trade in New Zealand. 2. That if carried out in its entirety it would affect persona and trade* in New Zealand in a manner not contemplated by the framer. 3. Sub-section 0 would interfere in an unwarrantable manner with the rights of property and freedom of action in the conduct of private business, as it would compel a trader or merchant to supply any person with goods who demanded them as being for retail sale, whether the , trader or merchant wished, in the interests of his business, to supply such person or not. The farreaching and injurious effect on traders and merchants' trade that this clause would create must'be patent to all. >. The legal processes for the working of the Act seem both cumbrous and costly, and must I cause no end of worry to any business man or firm cited for some trivial breach of the Act. 5. It is contemplated to appoint officers to carry , out the provisions of the Act. This council is of jspinion that trade, commerce and industry are already too much hampered by official supervision." Mr. Roberton suggested that a general meeting of the Chamber should be called, to whion other mercantile men might be invited. The measure would, he felt sure, most seriously affect firms doing business in the colony if it passed into law. He read a letter from Mr. H. E. Partridge addressed to the Chamber as follows:—. OPPRESSIVE BAMTPICATIONS, Be Trades and Monopolies BUI: In reviewing the 30 clauses incorporated in this Bill, at flrst reading, it is difficult to realise its uncommendabla provisions and possibilities. On careful study and reflection it is clear that the framer was either not familiar with the common and intricate, but withal systematic, laws governing ordinary trade or commerceor that the framer has been guided by one or more persons, who may or may not be labouring' under some real or imagined injustice at the hands of some firm or corporation doing business in this colony, and while endeavouring to 'enlist the sympathy and assistance of the Government they must have overlooked the fact that, if the Bill is passed, it will strike at the root of individual control and management of every branch of their own businesses as well as other people's. The oftener the Bill be read the more needlessly vexatious does its galling and oppress: ve ramifications appear. From first to last the Bill does not contain one single saving clause,. whereby a trade or firm could protect themselves against unreasonable competition without being compelled to appear and defend themselves in a court of law. Under the provisions of this Bill there is no freedom or escape for anybody—manufacturers, their agents, merchants, retailers, mlllowners, patentees, and owners of trade mark and proprietary goods, the market for which may have taken many long years and thousands of pounds to build, will be at the meroy (?) of any • large or small, spiteful and envious trade rival, hawker, or discharged employee wanting to revenge themselves or burst their successful competitor's market. As an example and to better illustrate the position, let us suppose that one trader A wants to avenge himself or injure another trader B. The former .calls at the tatter's store and buys 60 dozen articles at 12s per dozen. A takes these to SO of B's regular customers and sells one dozen to each at Bs, afterwards returning to B's store to buy another lot. On B refusing to sell A returns to the 50 buyers and states the fact that he has been refused supply, asking them at the same time to sign the necessary requisition to have B cited. They, thinking that B had been formerly robbing them, would readily sign, and by so doing would involve B in • very great expense in preparing 'jis defence, besides the worry and loss of valuable time. Meanwhile B's market for such goods would be completely demoralised and perhaps lost ;o him for ever. In many respects thero is nothing imaginary about the foregoing possibilities. This aspect of trade is oo real and common that almost everyone in trade will admit that every day of his business career he is having to guard himself against such contingencies. This being granted, wherefore the necessity of passing a Bill to take away the right of every man, viz., self-protection? Personally, I would prefer to trust any trust rather than trust the management of my business to a Court composed of non-commercial gentlemen, from whose decision there is no appeal, and, as some of them have remarked, thai; it is their duty to administer the law as they find it, which Men implies that they would prefer the power to administer more justice and less law. The President solicited the views of any members favouring the Bill. Mr. Nathan, in seconding the motion, said if the Bill were carried »». would mean closing up many businesses or reducing them to very small dimensions. He defended the system of arrangement of prices as between merchants, as without it they would never know where they were. "A TRADES PREVENTION BILL." Mr. Graves Aickin described the Bill as a Trades Prevention Bill, and said if it became law it would be a most hazardous thing to engage in any business whatever in New Zealand. The Bill was most crude and bristled with absurdities. He described it as but another examine of sledge-hammer legislation, with which we were only too familiar of late. It opened the way to blackmail also. However, he thought it was so unworkable a measure that it had no chance of passing through Parliament. Mr. Nathan instanced the attitude of the Chambers of Commerce of Dunedin and Wellington, who were opposed to the Bill. ADDITION TO THE MOTION. Mr. Upton thought clause 21—"On the hearing of any information as to a trade monopoly the Court may admit any evidmje it thinks fit, whether such evidence is strictly legal or distinctly relevant or not"— was immoral, providing for the conviotion of a person upon evidence which was irrelevant or was no evidence at all. This was altogether wrong, for the judges might he persons quite unfamiliar with the business-)* brought before, them, He thought the «jo..

tion of Mr. Roberton might be added to m the following terms, making another clause, | to read thus:—"6. And further, that d*u<©,i 21 is immoral, as it distinctly provides that a conviction may be secured by evidence not relevant to the cause of action—-i.e., on the mere opinion of the judges, who may be persons not familiar with the condition of the trade concerned or on the representations of mischievous persons." This addition was made to Mr. Roberton's motion, ami the whole was subsequently carried mm. con. TRUSTS IN NEW ZEALAND. Mr. Bagnall said that in America trade monopolies had grown to be a very serious menaco to the public weal, and as a matter of fact the Presidential election was being fought on this very issue. Parliament seemed to be anxious to work in the best interests of the public generally in order to prevent the growth in New Zealand of those very trusts which had developed so largely and which had acquired such power in the United States. Mr. Upton: But there is nothing of the kind in New Zealand. Mr. Bagnall: Indeed? What about the tobacco trust and the flour trust ? Mr. J. B. Macfarlane asked: Was not the Bill really aimed at the tobacco trust, and was not that trust really responsible for Clause C? It would certainly particularly affect the tobacco trust if it uecame law. So far as the flour trust was conoerned he would say that there was more cry than wool about it. The Bill, he thought, showed that the Government meant well, and while he did hot approve of it as it was, he thought it was entitled to the fullest consideration of the Chamber. It was clear to him (Mr. Macfarlane) that the fr&mer of the Bill had in his mind certain tilings which were going on in New Zealand which he thought desirable to stop in the best interest or the people. Mr. Upton: That is all very well but trusts, as they are called, rectify themselves very quickly. / Mr. Macfarlane said he knew there were certain firms in Auckland, who could not get certain kinds of tobacoo because the suppliers of these brands did not wish their goods sold by certain individuals. Mr. Schischka: "The American Tobacco Company simply stopped my supply of tobacco. Why, I don't know. But perhaps it was because I field a few shares in Austin Walsh &nd Co." Mr. Maofarlane contended that monopolies should have some brake applied to thftm, and this Bill was designed to do that. Whatever the opinion might be upon the Bill as a Bill, to him the intention of the framer was clear, and the council should not lose sight of that point. NO TIME TO BE LOST. Mr. Nathan said Parliament had not much to do Just now beyond the Licensing Bill and this Trades Bill, and therefore there was ho time to bo lost. Mr. Roberton: If we delay the Bill may, in the meantime, be passed through the House. Mr. Macfarlane: Not at all. The Bill will not pass through the House in its present form. Mr. Upton pointed out that certain trades could not get along at all without a certain agreement between them. Mr. Clark thought there was a safeguard in the provision for reasonable trade competition" and the earning of " the fair average profits commonly earned by traders." Mr. Upton: What is a reasonable profit? He thought a firm that bought and sold goods might consider 5 per cent, a reasonable profit, but that would not pay a manufacturer. , As before etoted, Mr. Soberton's motion was carried, and it was also resolved to forward copies of the resolution to,the Premier, the Auckland members, and the Chambers of Commerce throughout the colony. •-,