WOOLSTON TANNERIES.

Waikato Times, Volume 100, Issue 16711, 29 January 1926, Page 6

WOOLSTON TANNERIES.

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.

SUGGESTIONS OF PROFITEERING

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Thursday

At the Tanneries Commission William George McDonald continued his evidence in regard to the operations of the Board of Trade. Witness made it plain that there were three conferences prior to the removal of the embargo. At one suggestions of profiteering were made by fawners against tanners and bootmakers, principally tanners. Witness referred to the Board of Trade Act of 1919, which gave the board extremely wide powers. Suggestions of profiteering against Woolston Tanneries were fairly frequent at that stage, but investigation revealed that there was no overcharging on the part of the company. Following the first two conferences he was of opinion that this embargo should be retained, and that that would be done, but at the third conference, held (in the Prime Minister's room, it was evident that the Government had changed its policy in regard to the embargo, but were still in favour of a standardised boot. Owing to the action of the board, notwithstanding the removal of the embargo, boots did no go 'up commensurately with the price of hides. Hides advanced 100 per cent., and boots did not go up more than 66 2-3 per cent. If there was an increase of 100 per cent, in leather he would expect 100 per cent, increase in the price of boots. Witness expressed the opinion that no matter what course the Woolston Tanneries followed they would have lost money.

Sir J. Findlay: "If Mr Olliver, as a business man, had agreed to carry out the scheme, and had said to the Government, 'lf I lose will you indemnify me against loss?' do you think any responsible Minister would have agreed to do it?" Witness: Why not? It was done in other cases.

Sir J. Findlay: Those cases were entirely different.

Proceeding, witness stated that a suggestion *was made by one of the Ministers that the Woolston Tanneries should be prosecuted ■ for profiteering, but he (witness) declined to have anything to do with the prosecution. Sir J. Findlay: Have you any record of that suggestion by Mr Lee?

I did not s&y it was Mr Lee. Have you any record from any Minister?

No. The suggestion was made in the course of the investigation.

During cross-examination McDonald stated that he Avas empowered to make any arrangement with Ollivier, and any arrangement he made would stand. He wanted to make it clear that he had the assistance of many capable officers in this business. He had the whole-hearted support of two other members of the board. As far as he knew all tanners experienced a hard time owing to the renewal of the slump. Other tanneries had to come into line with Woolston so far as charges were concerned. If Woolston Tanneries had failed to carry on there would have been a failure in New Zealand leather, and there would still be importations. The other tanneries had difficulty in getting hides, but not as much difficulty as Woolston.

In opening the case for the Government, Sir J. Findlay said the withdrawal of the first claim had eased his task. He had thought the main ground of the petition would be the withdrawal of the embargo, but now he had to meet what was practically a new case.