CEMENT ALLEGATIONS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16559, 19 October 1921, Page 4

CEMENT ALLEGATIONS.

INQUIRY ON NOVEMBER 1. (Feb Press Association.) WELLINGTON, October 18. Tlie Commission to inquire into and report upon allegations lately made by Mr Masters, M.P., regarding the cement industry commenced its sittings this morning. The Commissioner is Mr Jnsrice Sim* The order of reference is as follows :—- (1) Whether the Board of Traae in December, 1920, in sanctioning maximum retail price of cement m New Zealand of £9 13s 6d per ton ex store,, Wellington, was guilty of any impropriety or of grievous error of "judgment? (2) Whether companies manutactnrin„ cement in New Zealand during tlm period of acute shortage of cement from January 1, 1920, there " after took advantage of the excess of demand over supply to extort unreasonably high prices trom the F (3) Whether the agreement dated Mav 5 1921, set out in the schedule hereto,’constituted an offence agams. the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910, any other Act, or was in any way. criminal or illegal? (4) Whether the price for cement of New Zealand manufacture was directly or indirectly determined, controlled or influenced by the parties to the agreement in such manner as to make the price unreasonably high r (S') Whether the said agreement has in any manner operated detnmentallv to the public, interest? (6) Whether the Board of Trade, 1 bointr aware of such agreement, was lacking in any duty, in taking no action' with respect to such agreement ? The Commission requires the report to be submitted to the Governor-Gene-ral by November 11. . ‘ Mr W. C MacGregor. K.C.. SolicitorGeneral. appeared for the Board of Trade Air Myers for Wilson s Portland Cement Company and the Golden Bay Cement Company, Mr T. M. 41 'h'w and Mr Ferry for Mr Masters. MAT Mr Mvers stated that Mr White, of Dunedin, would appear for the Milburn Lime and Cement Company. Mr Wilford explained that he was only assisting Mr Masters on the opening dav in “regard to procedure and he'desired time to instruct counsel fully in this case, which Was of great importance to Mr Masters. Me was himself unable to deal with the case. It had. for reasons with which he did not think it necessary to deal in detail, been very difficult to secure the services of ' counsel who it was desired should act. A request had been made to a certain well-known counsel m Auckland to act. A reply had been received stating that as he was acting for so many shareholders In Wilson's Portland Cement Company he did not think it advisable that he should act. Mr Wilford said it was not known who would be appearing for Mr Masters and he asked, therefore, that the date for continuation of the Commission should he fixed with regard to the need for detailed instruction of counsel. He suggested a fortnight. Mr MacGregor said that Mr M’Donald. chairman of the Board of Trade, desired the case to be disposed of as soon as possible. His Honor drew attention to the timewithin which the report was to be prepared, and agreed with Mr ilford that the time could be extended. He could not ask Mr Masters to run his case alone, opposed to Mr MacGregor, Mr Myers and Mr M’Donald, who was him seif a lawyer of no mean ability. Mr Myers said that while his client desired the matter to be disposed of with all reasonable expedition they would be the last to endeavour to place obstacles in the way of Mr Masters or give any room for the suggestion that thev had endeavoured to prevent Mr Masters doing the fullest justice to the charges he had seen fit to make. His Honor fixed the date for the opening of the inquiry as Tuesday, November I. Mr Wilford said his next question was as to the order of reference. He objected to the form of the first paragraph, on the ground that, no Buch matter as was dealt with in that paragraph was referred to by Mr Masters in his speech in the House of Representatives. His Honor said he could not go into the terms of the commission. He had to take it ns it was sent to him. and he was bound by the actual wording. Mr Wilford said he had been asked to give notice in that case that MiMasters never made such a charge as was covered by the first paragraph, and that he would not call any evidence on it. His charges were in reference to the period from 1918, and in his speech in the House the Hon E. P. Lee had said that the inquiry would deal with that period. His Honor: You may be entitled to call evidence in regard to matters as far back as 1918 on other questions. Mr Wilford said, further, that Mr Masters never made any reference to price ex store. Wellington, or to retail prices- He spoke onTy of wholesale prices. Mr Wilford then proceeded to d scuss the question of witnesses’ expenses and requested his Honor to secure authority under the Act to have such expenses charged to the public account. A further point discussed was the status of Mr Masters in the action. Mr Wilford asked his Honor what was the best form of procedure, and his Honor suggested that Mr Masters should formulate his charges and lead evidence. The other parties could then call evidence in rebuttal, and Mr Masters would have the right to replyAfter Mr 'Wilford had spoken in reference to the matter of costs of the Oommission, Mr MacGregor said that if Mr Masters was to have the advantage of plaintiff it was onlv right that ho should take the disadvantage ot being liable for costs, “ in a certain contingency.” Mr Wilford contended that Mr Masters was not a plaintiff. It was not he that had started the Commission or set the legal machinery in action. The Minister had done that. It was not fair that he should be penalised for bringing the matter up in Parliamerft in the interests of the public. His Honor said it hardly seemed worth while to bring up the question of costs at this stage. Mr Wilford said that the other counsel were in the happy position of having clients whose purses were unlimited. It wnß not a matter of concern to them, but it was different with Mr Masters. Mr Myers : In the Hine inquiry Mr Hine paid his own costs. WIDE ORDER OF REFERENCE. [From Our Correspondent.] WELLINGTON, October 18. The Minister in Charge of the Board of Trade gave a reassuring reply to Mr Wilford, when he asked to-day that the order of reference in the cement inquiry should not be narrow. The lion E. P. Lee said that there

was no intention of curtailing the scope of the inquiry, though he disagreed with the suggestion to give the House an opportunity to discuss the order of reference. Counsel for the Crown would be instructed that if counsel appearing for those making the charges desired widening of the order of reference no objection would be offered.