JUSTICE TO WADERS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 200, 27 August 1935, Page 5

JUSTICE TO WADERS

CHECKING PRICE-CUTTING I HELP BY GOVERNMENT. I Anv fear which may exist as to the operations of any trusts or combines in 1 New Zealand, if the Commercial Trusts ' Act is in any way interfered with, is entirely misplaced so far as the amending Bill introduced by the Government ■ at last session is concerned (says a ' statement by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of New Zealand). For that matter the complete freedom which is enjoyed by traders in Eng- ’ land, where the law recognises the right 1 of a man to trade as he pleases, and to combine in defence of, or in support of, ( trade interests, has brought no dire results in its train from the standpoint ’ of the public welfare. Committee Impressed. ‘ Ample proof of this is found in the • report of the Restraint of Trade Com mittec, which was set up in England in ’ 1930 by the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade “to ; consider present trade practices which I result in witliholding from particular retail traders supplies of goods in which they wish to deal, or which prevent the sale of such supplies except upon conditions imposed by the suppliers, and to I report whether in their opinion all or any of such practices are detrimental to the public interest. . . .’’ The committee, after a full investiga- ■ tion, presented, inter alia, the f flowing finding: “We have been impressed by the volume ami force of the testimony as to the harmful effects of price-cut ting upon the manufacturers and dis tributors of advertised branded goods, and ultimately, as was contended, upon the public . . . Shopkeepers in the neighbourhood of price-cutters cease to stock the goods affected, or at any rate cease to push them, with the result that the manufacturer finds his sales falling off. In the end the price-cutters them selves may cease to stock the goods, finding that they are no longer effective as a decoy. It i s natural that the manufacturer who owns the brand and bears the expense of national advertising should claim in these circumstances to protect the final conditions of sa'e of the goods, since the prosperity of his trade is at stake. . . . “Our general conclusion regarding the broad principle of maintained re sale prices for branded goods is that no sufficient case has ben made out for interfering with the right, of the manufacturer to sell his goods upon conditions which permit him to name the terms on which such goods shall be re sold. . . . We are quite unable to say that the interest of the public would be better served by an alteration of the law which would prevent the fixing of juices of branded goods.” “A Cautious Loosening.’’ This report is sufficient answer to all the colourful propaganda, which price cutting interests in New Zealand periodically put out, regarding the starving won on ami children who would be victimised if there were anv interference with the law of the Dominion prohibiting price-fixing. The fact is actually that the Commercial Trusts A.ct has injuriously affected just those classes of the people that price-cutting interests in their propaganda claim would be victimised if the Act were amended. . . The Act, in its present form, has tended, and still is, tending to retard economic recovery. It has, in fart, been a direct contributory factor in increasing the number of our unemployed. because through the actions of the juice-cutters many graders have been forced out of business some have been forced into bankrujiley, and others who arc still struggling along are fining so with diminished staffs. No better example can be given than that or the tobacconists, who until the elimhia tion of the item of tobacco front I**o schedule to the Commercial Trusts Act by the Finance Act No. 2, 1933, were subject to just such conditions. Tlie fact is, however, that the R»ll ju'ojiosed by the New Zealand Govern ment does not seek to give the same rights to manufacturers and distributors in New Zealand as exi.-4 in England. All it seeks to do is to cautiously '•oosen the j>res6nt Act to the extent, of allowing manufacturers and to control re-sale prices, provided al ways they can prove that tiieir action i* not ojqiosed to the public interest amt welfare. In other words, the only c<»n cession nuule is a willingness to heai (he other side, at the same time as the Government keej»s just as much legis lative control of the position as ever it did. Such a just amendment to the law will hurt nobody —except probably the price-cutter. If he is so convince/! that juice-cutting is in the general interest, then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by forcing the manufacturers and distributors to prove their contrary argument in a Court of law —as they would be required tn 'lo under tin* ameii'ling Bill of the Government. For the price cutter to protest too much at. this juncture should be a strong : argument that his case is weak , It is in the general public, interest that the Government’s Bill, which was listed with other matters that were not ( finalised at the last, session of I’arlia , ment, should be again introduced Lu the House wlien members ass ‘inble.