AUCTIONEERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2368, 20 July 1899, Page 12

AUCTIONEERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

A meeting of the committee appointed by the general meeting of auctioneers was held on the 11th at the office of Mr D. M. Spedding. The Chairman announced that a circular had been forwarded to all the principal auctioneers in the South Island, requesting their co-operation in opposing the proposed bill, also that every member of Parliament had received a circular drawing attention to the objections to the bill. The following letter to the chairman of committee from a leading wool and grain firm in Dunedin was read: — Dear Sir,— l would respectfully submit the following as a few of the reasons which may fairly be adduced against the passing of the Auctioneers Act Amendment Bill, section -2 being the most objectionable: — . Objections to Section 2. 1. Because in the case of large wool sales, which are attended by English and foreign buyers who devote only one day to each centre throughout the colony, and when from five to six thousand lots have to be sold on the same day, . it would be impossible to get through the sales if the auctioneers had to distinctly announce the name of each vendor before, submitting the lot, and we are certain from our experience that buyers would be too impatient to wait for this to be done, and tho auctioneer would be powerless to give effect to the provision. 2. Because in niany cases vendors do nob wish to have their names made public and their business disclosed. In some cases there may be prejudice against a vendor — a kind of boycott. Again, take, for example, lot 3 that may have been passed at auction because the bidding did not come up to vendors' • limits ; to mention the name of the vendor when again, submitting the lot would certainly injure and probably prevent a sale. 3. Because in many cases owners of personal property arc forced owing to adverse causes to submit their goods for sale at auction. It would surely be cruel and harsh in the extreme that the auctioneers should be forced to make public in the auction room before the sale the names of the vendors, and when, perhaps, no sale v/ould eventuate. 4". Because the auctioneer does not know the names of all the parties who may be bidders at the sale (as clause 2 seems to assume). Many of the bidders may be strangers to the auctioneer, and therefore he is not in a position to comply with the provision to distinctly announce the name of the last bidder at the sale, and he has no means of compelling the % last bidder to disclose his name, unless he is absolutely the purchaser. Many other cogent reasons might be given against the bill, which seoms a needless and mischievous interference in the course of trade. The auctioneers are Bimply the agents acting for the vendors, whose interests they, ought to protect. The general experience is that -buyers at auction are/. as a rule, 'quite capable- of taking care of themselves without this grandmotherly legislation. There appears to be no consideration of any kind given in the bill for the interests of the vendors, whose property has to be sold at auction. The following communication was received from the principal stock and station agents in the city : — Auctioneers Act Amendment Act. — The practice of auctioneers stnrting the bidding is one that is absolutely essential, and it would be utterly impracticable to conduct a sale of any magnitude if the auctioneer had to wait for a start from the assemblage for each lot. Take, for example, the stock sales at Burnside, where lots are drawn amongst the auctioneers in respect of the qrder of sales, with a fixed uniform time limit for each auctioneer. If the auctioneer — who, by the way, is an expert in values — were not at liberty to start the bidding, it would of course be impossible for him to go through his lots in the time allotted him, and his principals would suffer serious loss through losing their market.