ROYAL COMMISSION

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12357, 29 January 1926, Page 8

ROYAL COMMISSION

WOOLSTON TANNERIES’ CLAIM EFFECT OF SLUMP GOVERNMENT CASE OPENS The Royal Commission set up for the purpose of investigating the alleged losses of Woolston Tanneries, Ltd., as the jesult of war regulations, was continued yesterday. The morning sitting was occupied with lengthy evidence mainly in regard to the effect of the slump upon the business of the Woolston Tanneries. The afternoon proceedings were devoted to the hearing of the case on behalf of the Government. The Commissioner is Sir John Hosking. Sir John Findlay, K.C., witn him Mr C. H. Taylor, appears for the Government and Mr M. Myers, K. 0., with him Mr H. E, Evans, for the company. William George McDonald continued his evidence regarding the operations of the Board of Trade. Concerning the removal of the embargo, witness' Waa emphatic that there had teen three conferences prior to this. EMBARGO REMOVED In regard to the standardised boot, witness stated that when Mr _ Ollivier undertook to assist this project, he was aware that the policy of the Government was to remove the embargo. Sir John Findlay: So far as the removal of the embargo is concerned the Woolston Tanneries have no cause for complaint. Sir John Hosking: Is that not. a question for me to decide? SLUMP QUESTION Mr Myers: I think, sir, that in a Supreme Court action you said that you would have to take judicial cognisance of the slump from September, 1920. Sir John Hosking: I may have done so. I know in the mortgages extension cases I have to take judicial cognisance of the slump. As a matter of fact, some of the highest prices were paid for land in 1920. Sir John Findlay: The price of leather slumped towards fhe end of 1920 p Witnes: Yes. He further stated that no matter what course Woolston Tanneries' followed they would have lost money.

It is conceivable, I think, that they would not have lost if it had not been for the collapse of the American market?—That is quite conceivable. There was no promise on your part to see Ollivier through?—No. No indemnity or guarantee was offered ?—None whatever. The Board of Trade never contemplated any indemnity. Sir John Hosking: If it had not been for Ollivier’s offer tbe standardisation of boot scheme would have gone by the board ? —Absolutely. Sir John Findlay: It did go by the board, anyway. Sir John Hosking: Yes. but the fact remains that it was a scheme which the Government was anxious to carry through. Sir John Findlay: If Mr Ollivier as a business man had agreed .to carry out the scheme, and had said to the Government: “If I lose will you indemnify me against loss ?” do yon think any responsible Minister would have agreed to do it? Witness: Why not? It was done in other cases. Sir John Findlay: I am coming to that. Those cases were entirely different.

Proceeding, witness stated under cross-examination that he had been empowered to make any necessary arrangements with Mr Ollivier, and any arrangement he made would stand. "I WAS THE BOARD” Sir John Findlay: In fact you were the hoard ? Witness: I was the board. Any decision of yours bound the board.—-Yes. However, I wish to make it plain that I had the assistance of very capable officers. In this particular business I had tbe whole-hearted support of the two other members of the board. In answer to ■ Sir John Findlay, the witness stated he knew all tanners experienced a hard time owing to the removal of the embargo. Other tanners had joined with Woolston so far aa the charges were concerned. If Woolston Tanneries had refused to parry on there would have been a famine of New Zealand leather? —Yes, of New Zealand leather. Of course, there would still be Other tanners did'not have difficultv in'getting hides? —Oh yes they did. Thev did not have as much difficulty as Woolston. How waa that?—Because they did not have such large quantities to buy. and because tbev did not bave to contend with a feeling of antagonism. Referring again to the standardised boot., Sir-John asked the witness if it was not a fact that that, scheme was aimed at relieving the public from the effects of the war. Sir John Hosking: Not so much of tbe war as of profiteering. In reply to Mr Myers, witness said the Woolston Tanneries suffered a special loss which other tanners did not suffer. Ibis concluded tbe evidence on behalf of the company. GOVERNMENT CASE Sir John Findlay in opening the cases for the Government said that the withdrawal of the first claim had considerably lightened his task. He had anticipated that the main ground of the company’s claim would be in regard to the removal of the embargo. However, he now had to cope with what was practically a fresh case. The onus rested upon Mr Ollivier to prove that he had justifiable expectations in regard to the Government’s coming to his assistance and relief. As Mr McDonald had emphatically stated that he had not offered Mr Ollivier any inducement to carry on and stabilise prices. Counsel contended that this expectation could not have existed in Mr Ollivier’s mind. It wan entirely a commercial matter and should bo regarded as on a commercial basis. “I submit your Honour,” said counsel, "that Mr Ollivier was not acting on philanthropic motives, but on motives of commercial profit.” EVERY POSSIBLE ASSISTANCE Mr P. M. Quarterman, public accountant of Christchurch, gave evidence after the morning adjournment, that he had made an inspection of tho books of the company and in that respect had received every possible assistance from Mr Ollivier. Witness gave further lengthy evidence in regard to the company’s losses since 1919 and as to the transactions out of which the losses had arisen. The proceedings adjourned at 4 p.m. until this morning, when witness will be placed under cross-examination.