A “TRUST” AND ITS DOINGS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6025, 9 October 1906, Page 4

A “TRUST” AND ITS DOINGS

Retiring and averse from public attention as commercial “trusts” usually are, there are occasions when even the bestmanaged ami most discreet of combinations blunders into public notice. The nows which we reprinted in yesterday’s issue from the “Otago Daily Times” will he distasteful in the highest degree to the Flourmillers’ Association, but it ia so clearly to the public interest to direct attention again to this concern that we can hardly apologise for inviting notice of the latest trouble within the association's ranks. Our Dunedin contemporary is a sober and reliable newspaper, and, until the association denies with circumstance and evideftoe the statements concerning its method of enforcing obedience amongst its members, the public has every right to accept the report as accurate. ’ One of the rules of the association directs that no member shall sell flour excepting through the association, and it is stated that one miller has been surreptitiously disposing of his flour without recourse to the official channel, and has been heavily fined by tho association in consequence. Tho fact that the combination exacts from its members obedience to a rule which is decidedly hostile to tho public interest does not of itself define the associated flourmillers as an injurious “trust.” Combination is in many businesses essential for stability, efficiency, and economy, and commercial combination, in the shape of honest and pure cooperation, is entirely defensible, so long as its primary purpose is not vitiated by being extended on American lines to an exploitation of the public beyond the undefined but easily determined limits of fair dealing. Is it an unfair assumption, however, that tho recalcitrant miller who has broken the rules of tho association did so because he found it not unprofitable to nlake private aales without consulting the autocrats to whom he assigned himuelf? This miller plainly had nothing to gain by selling privately at a price higher than is charged by the association. Indcod, ho ooukl hardly effect a sale on those terms, since nobody, except in _ circume’tauoes entirely unusual, is going to pay a higher price for flour than the not absurdly low price fixed by the “Treat.” Perhaps he sold at a figure lower than

the ‘'Trust” limit. But how could he possibly do that, unless ho is etcering for bankruptcy, eince wo are all told that the association was formed in order to save the industry, and that it charges the lowest possible figure ? What was the inducement which led the apostate miller to make private sales? The incident makes it pretty plain that the association's rules are so little in the public interest that even a member of the association can find it profitable to break them. Wo have heard of boycotted bakers; was it that the offender wished to help a boycotted baker with surreptitious charity? There arc stories of tiado

“combines'’ limiting outputs and of “trust'’ members chafing because they have largo stocks to dispose of and tiro unable to do it. Does this explain tho mystery? These arc pure -speculations, of conn*.*, but they are questions that must arise in every inquiring mind. The rule of tire association which has boon eo interestingly infringed is one which is specially and stringently condemned in every anti-trust law. And since the late Premier has left' a legacy of anti-trust purpose behind him, wo hope that the Government will give some attention to this incident.