The Waikato Times. With which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1920. ANTI-PROFITEERING LAWS

Waikato Times, Volume 92, Issue 14255, 5 January 1920, Page 4

The Waikato Times. With which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1920. ANTI-PROFITEERING LAWS

Thei't have been several in our cable messages lately to the disappointment felt in Britain at the failure of Liie so-called Profiteering Act. The Government is accused of concentrating its attention on suburban tradesmen and of sheltering the wealthier offenders, ft is clear that the public generally, with that touching faith in the power of Acts of Parliament to reform mankind which is shown in so much modern legislation, believed that the Profiteering Act would induce a rapid and permanent decline in the cost of living, and because it has not achieved this impossible feat, the people are inclined to credit it with being more ineffective than is actually the case, ft is true that since it has been in operation the cost of living has increased, but it is at least arguable that if it had not been for the Act prices might have advanced still higher. And it is not quite fair to accuse the Government of favouring the big wholesale firms, ft is true that the Board of Trade, the body which administers the Act, has stated that local profiteering committees have no power to enter wharves and warehouses for {he purpose of enquiring into the price? charg--2d by wholesalers, hut one of the subcommittees of tho Crn'rri '.'c '

is specially dharged with the duty of determining- complaints against wholesale firms. If it has not done so, and we have seen no reports of any sueii investigations in the English papers, it may possibly be due to the absence of complaints, which, in its turn, may 'he due to the wholesale firms having taken warning and reduced their prices. Certainly, one retailer in giving evidence before'the Yarmouth Profiteering Committee, declared that the committees were frightening wholesalers and importers, and that on at least a dozen articles the price had dropped by as much as 35 per cent, in a week. The local tribunals, according to a recent cable message, have been content to impose minute penalties, but it is admitted that shopkeepers show a wholesome ' dread ?oI exposure. Reports of the proceedings of these tribunals bear out the first of these statements. We read of a retailer being or dered to refund 5s Gd of the 52s Cd which he had charged for a pair of ladies' too'ots, of another having to refund Is of the 4s 6j which a customer had paid for a pair of socks. Much more trivial refunds than these are numerous, such as 2d on the Is 2d paid for half a pound of biscuits, a penny on the price of a lemon, a penny on the lOd charged for a quarter of a pound of bichromate of potash, l£d held to be overcharged on half a pound of suet, and so on. The penalty seems not to lie in the amount of the refund, which in most ca-ses left the retailor with a 25 per cent, profit or more, but in the publicity given to the fact that the vendor haj been brought before the tribunal and, by being compelled to make a refund, was convicted of having sought to squeeze an unreasonable profit out of his 'customers. One experience of that kind would tend to make the most 'avaricious tradesman careful. The discontent with the Act arises from its failure 'to realise the sanguine expectations >o'f a public that resent paying high prices, and that, haying very little knowledge of the fundamental causes'of the high cost of living, lays the blame ; on the back of the retailer and merchant. The Act could never do more than restrict, to a certain extent, xdtailers'' profits, and it is difficult to .'believe that it has not done something m that direction. Hut it is an unsound piece of legislation. It only defines vaguely the offence upon which tribunals ko'f 'laymen, unversed in the law, have! to sit in Judgment, and as .f to ensure that as little expert knowledge as possible should be brought to bear upon the efforts of these tribunals, it prohibits any member from taking part in tho'hearing af a charge against a retailer who is himself engaged in the same trade. A grocer, for instance, may not deal with a complaint against a grocer. Furthermore, it is pointed out that "services rendered" are exempted from the operations of the Act, s« 'that any-article for the production of which wages have to be paid to a worker cannot be made the subject of a complaint. Extortionate charges may thus be made for soling a pair of boots, making a suit of clothes, making up a medical prescription, or mending a watch, without fear of consequences. The Act obviously needs severe amendment if it is to be as useful as any 'siragle Act -could be in effecting the purpose aimed at. It could never do half what was hoped from it, but it might easily be so improved as to do rnoTe 'than at present.