APPEAL COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 144084, 1 May 1913, Page 4

APPEAL COURT.

SUGAR TRUST CASE. Per Press Association. ; WELLINGTON,. April 30. At the conclusion of his review of corrosponclouce and evidence. 1 Dr. Findlay dealt with the meaning of “control of markets contrary to public interest,” as used in section 5. He cited authority to show that control of 00 per cent, of the whole consumption was sufficient to give monopolistic control of the commodity. Ho said that the merchants’ ring had control of 80 per cent, of the sugar consumed in New Zealand. He said there were three recognised methods of preventing trusts—-first, legislation against tariffs; second, State competition; third. State acquisition. The Commercial Trusts Act was an example of the first. He contended that apart from the raising of prices there were inherent in the- combine evils of potentiality in the destruction of competition, and the combine was therefore mimical to public interests. He cited Adam Smith’s “"Wealth of Nations” and other authorities as to tfre value of free competition., in fixing natural prices of commodities. Ho stated the following propositions deduciblo from authorities: (I) That free competition was essential to a fair price; ,(2) that all monopolies sooner or later interfere with free competition; (3) that the monopoly of sugar or other necessities of life gives-special facility for monopolistic prices; (4) that monopoly tends to drive out of useful callings a largo number of men, and that is • against public interest; (5) that monopolies are a species of taxation without direct ronresentation.

In conclusion, Sir John Findlay submitted, that there was- in this scheme between the Sugar Company and the Merchants’ Association (first) machinery of complete monopoly, (second) the nature opposed to public interest, and (third) the actual operations were prejudicial to thepublic., Mr. Hosking, K.C., .replied for the Sugar. Company.. He said the object of the Sugar Company was to retain the hold it had upon the sugar trade of the Dominion. The aim' of the ring or combine was to place all its members upon ail equal basis and to gain the highest;discount. The Sugar Company had no voice in the fixing of the price of sugar to retailers. Its anxiety from the beginning was not to infringe the provisions of the Commercial Trusts Act. Mr. Hosking had not concluded his reply when the court rose. Argument will bo continued tomorrow.