H.—3o,

43

Mr. Lysnar professes that lie is acting in the public interest, but we think that what was in his mind revealed itself when he was asked (see page 436) : — You say he (the banker) had no right to object to your nsing your influence politically to stop him realising his security ? —That is a long question, but I will try and answer. I say we had equal rights with that banker to use the law as it stood to protect ourselves. If he had the right to go to the Minister and pour stuff into his ears, which was not true in some cases, then we had an equal right to push our barrow, and get protection under the legislation as it stands. Do you suggest that Mr. J"olly, general manager of the National Bank, went to the Minister and deliberately misstated the position ? —I do. When did you learn that Mr. Jolly had seen the Minister ? —I never learnt until the Commission started. Very well: you stated a moment ago that you disputed the right of Mr. Jolly to act politically in connection with this mortgage ? —Absolutely. And yet you did not know that he had been to the Minister ? —No. But what I said ivas that we have a right to use the legislative provisions to protect us. I said in my opening speech that I did not blame Mr. Jolly. At page 506 Mr. Lysnar seems also to have revealed his real mind where he says — {Question) The bank had determined in September to call up the account and to sell. You admit —I think you have already admitted —that unless the farmers could arrange to buy, Vesteys were the only possible buyers ?—(Answer) Unless the Government untied the hands of the meat-exporters. (Question) But the Government did not ? —(Answer) That is where the whole wrong comes in. Why should one be let ofi ? Mr. Lysnar, at page 1773, said:— We, however, say that the broad general principle he should have acted upon was that Vesteys should not be allowed to own works in New Zealand. It is hard to reconcile this statement with his complaint that where the wrongcame in was that Armours as meat-exporters had their hands tied, and could not bid up the price of Mr. Lysnar's works. Mr. Witters, we think, revealed the real mind when, in speaking as to his complaint about the Meat Board, he appeared to consider that the Board should have heard the company because it would have given them more time. At the top of page 1041 he says : —- It was a matter of further time, because we were discussing the position with the National Bank, and also Mr. Carney, and it was only within the last twenty-four hours prior to the sale that we found our case was hopeless, and that the works had to go to auction. We think Mr. Lysnar was playing for time, and was endeavouring to make use of his political power at that particular juncture to obtain the protection that a Court might possibly—we say " possibly " —give to a defaulting mortgagor under the provisions of a Mortgages Extension Act. In our opinion he was, for the purpose of delaying the mortgagee, trying to get the Act of 1918 used as a Mortgages Extension Act. He was desirous that one view should be taken of this Act if an application for a transfer of license came forward from an owner, and that another view should be taken if the application came from a mortgagee, and in this case a mortgagee of works in which he was interested. In our opinion the Minister's duty was to view this application on its merits, and to treat it in the same way whether it came from an owner or from a mortgagee. We do not think that it matters whether the application for this consent came from (1) Mr. Lysnar's company as owner; or from (2) the National Bank as owner after the property had been put up for sale through the Registrar and bought in by the National Bank, if such course had been pursued ; or from (3) the National Bank as mortgagee with a right to sell. It is quite clear that a mortgagee with a right to sell is only one step (if he proposes to buy in) from being an owner. One of the main things which the Minister had to consider was, in our opinion, the character and characteristics of the proposed transferee, as one of the features in enabling him to arrive at an opinion as to whether or not the business of the meat-export slaughterhouse was about to be carried on in a manner contrary to public interest if the transfer of license was granted. Let us therefore consider what was the position at that time. Vesteys were then owning and