'COMMERCIAL MORALITY.'

Observer, Volume 9, Issue 533, 9 March 1889, Page 3

'COMMERCIAL MORALITY.'

It is surely a cheering sign of the times to hear an auctioneer and land agent lecturing his reverend and lay brethren of the Congregational communion on the subject of commercial morality. It is commonly believed thit (next to bankers and lawyer?, perhaps) auctioneers and land agents in general have about as low a code of commercial morals as it to be fdund ; but ths high ground taken by Mr J. E. Baker, of Wellington, in his address last; week before the Congregational Union in this city, goes to show that this estimate is based upon a popular error. An Mr Baker was a banker before he took to buying and selling real estate, it cannot be said that his training has specially suited him to be a paragon of probity ; and when we iind such a one calling on business men to do trade [according to Christian ethics, it is surely safe, to conclude that the ordinary land agent and auctioneer is utterly incapable of doing a mean or ' shady ' thing. * * *

I know tlia.t some people will be ready to adduce instances of sharp practice on the part of land agents and of most audacious ' fibbing ' on the part of auctioneers ; but these could all be shown to be pure mistakes, capable ofeasy explanation, and in no way reflecting on the Washingtonian truthfulness and honesty of these excellent members of the community. True, you will occasionally find a teetotal auctioneeer selling whisky, or a land agent who is a leading light of a church encouraging the wildest kind of property-gambling ; but as compared with the action of a prominent Social Purity man in Auckland who provides sumptuous furniture for the cip-top brothels, such actions are consistency itself, and may even be deemed commendable.

To prove the immaculate character of members of the moral trading guild to which W. J. E. Baker belongs, I may be allowed to narrate a few incidents in connection with a leadiog firm in a New Zealand city which I need not further indicate save by saying it is not a Wellington firm.

A new partner was lately taken into the firm to which I refer, and his genial disposition (nothing else, I am assured) soon attached to him the confidential servants of the firm and alienated them from the other ■ bo?s.' After remaining in the firm a considerable time, drawing a handsome ' screw,' the new partner lately signified a desire to dissolve the partnership, and he was allowed to retire, taking with him every farthing of capital that he brought into it. The confidential servants of the firm cast in their lot with him, and he at once started an opposition business — the deed of dissolution allowing him to do this. Surely never was retiring partner so well treated, or apparently so deserving of it ; ergo, what a highly- moral and Christian lot of brothers are. the land agents and auctioneers of New Zealand.

Of course there are some hyper-critical or super-sensitive folks who aver that the action of the retiring partner was not quite 0. X., and that he took an unfair advantage of his position by seducing the firm's servants from their allegiance. I know further that certain facts have come to light which appear to show that the new firm had secured a list of the old firm's customers, as well as of unfinished busi-

ness transactions, and is making use of this information ; but these are doubtless only seeming deviations from the straight path.

Another little event transpired in connection ■with the partnership which shows in a still stronger light the unwavering rectitude of the average land agent. After the dissolution, a small account of some £10 was found standing against the retiring partner in the book of the firm, and it was sent in in due course. But the late partner knew his rights too well to pay this ; in point ofsi'a,ct he refused to pay it, and the firm being advised that they could not recover, magnanimously resolved to Jet the £10 go as a parting gift to the brother in trade. The nest move was the sending of a claim upon the firm by the expartner for his share of the profits during the time he had been a partner. Considering that he had just sold out all his interest in the business, and signed a full discharge, this application showed unbounded faith in the commercial morality (or imbecility) of the firm which he had left.

It grieves me to have to add that this claim for his share o£ the profits has been disputed, and the injured ex-partner is likely to have his faith in his fellow-men rudely shattered. This narration shows that Mr J. E. Baker might yet find an opening for his missionary zeal in the cause of commercial morality among the land agents and auctioneers of the colony.