TRADE MONOPOLIES PREVENTION BILL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13078, 14 September 1904, Page 5

TRADE MONOPOLIES PREVENTION BILL.

(Per United Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, September 13. A meeting of tho Council of tho Chamber of Commerce was held to-day to consider tho Trade Monopolies Prevention Kill. The following resolution was carried:— " That the Council of tho Auckland Chamber of Commerce deems it necessary to opposo this measure in its present form on tho following grounils:—(l) Its provisions are too drnstio and far-reaohing, and are' hot warranted by tho conditions and circumstances of trade in New Zealand; (2) that if carricd out in its entirety it would aitccfc persons and trades in New Zealand in a manner not contemplated by tho framcrj (3) subsection c would interfere in ail unwarrant-

able manner with the rights of property and freedom of action in tho 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 a trader or merchant wished in tho interests of his business to supply such persons or not. Tho farreaching and injurious etfect on traders and merchants' trado that this clause would create must bo patent to all. (4) Legal processes for tho working of the act seem both cumbrous and costly, and must cause 1

no ond of worry to any business man or firm cited for soino trivial broach of the act. (5) It is contemplated to appoint oflicera to carry out tho provisions of the act. This council is of opinion that trade, commerce, and industry arc already too much hampered by official supervision. ■ (fc) And further, that clause 21 is immoral, us it distinctly provides thai; conviction may be secured by evidence not relevant to the causo of action—i.e., on tho mere opinion of judges, who may bo persons not familiar with tho conditions of tho trade concerned

or on the representations o! iniscbiovous persons." In the course of discussion Mr Bagnall said Parliament seemed to be' anxious to work in the best interests of tho public generally in order to prevent the growth in New Zealand of those trusts which had acquired such power in tho United States.— Mr Upton: But thfr? is nothing of tlie kind in Now Zealand.—Mr Bagnall: Indeed, what about (ho tobacco trust and flr.ur trust?

Air J. B. M'Farlane asked > was not tho bill really aimed at tho tobacoo trust, and was not that trust really responsible for section C It would certainly particularly affcct tho tobacco trust if it becamo law. So far as the flour trust was concerned, ho would say there wa3 more cry than wpol about it. The bill, he thought, shqwed that tho Government meant weE, and, while, ho did not approvo of it as it was, he thought it was entitled to tho fullest consideration of tha chamber. Monopolies should hn'vo somo brake applied to them, and> this bill was designed to do that. Sir Clark thought there was a safeguard in the provision for roasonablo trado competition and earning of "tho fair avorago profits commonly earned by traders."