The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1913.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3954, 10 June 1913, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1913.

It is perhaps the case that the most remarkable pro- “ Extraordinarily Big posal that was With Confusion.” embodied in the Referenda proposals was that which, related to the question of “corporations.” In brief the suggestion that was put before the electors was that the control of all corporations trading in the Commonwealth, whether formed under the law of a State or having its head office abroad should be vested in the Federal Parliament. The definition of “corporation,” it should be mentioned, was intended to include all joint stock, co-operative and other public companies, but excluded municipal or

governmental corporations, and various corporations which were not formed for the purposes of gain. Even .in the case oil public companies having dealings only within one of the States the unrestricted control was to be taken from the State and given to the Commonwealth. As regards the proposal the most extraordinary feature was, of course, that whilst the Federal Government was to have authority over all companies the control of firms and individuals engaged in the same lines of business and perhaps as extensively was still to remain with the- individual States! What was urged by the Labor leaders in this regard was, it would seem, that any further powers given to deal with trusts and.combines must prove quite ineffective unless there was power to deal with companies, for trusts, it was said, were largely formed by companies banding themselves To order a trust to dissolve and to- be unable to deal with their individual members would, it was argued, be simply farcical. It is not difficult to see however that in trying to effect a remedy in one direction a very unsatisfiactbry position would arise on account of the existence of one set of laws for companies and perhaps an entirely different set. of laws for similar businesses conducted by firms or individuals. In this connection Mr Justice Higgins (whose remarks have on so many other occasions been quoted with approval by members of the present Federal Government) seems to have handled the proposition very effectively when the important Huddart-Parker case—in which it was contended that the proposed sub-division of all commerce was already law—was before him. “If,” he said, “the argument for the Crown is right, the results are certainly extraordinarily big with confusion ..... If it is right the Federal Parliament is in a position to frame a new system of laws applicable to a business owned by a corporation while the State law would have to remain applicable to 'a similar business owned by individuals ... If it is right the Federal Parliament may enact that no foreign trading or financial corporation shall pay its employees less than 10s per day or charge more than 6 per cent interest, whereas other corporations and persons would, under the State laws, l>e free from such restrictions . . . Taking the analogous power to make laws with regard to lighthouses if the contention of the Crown be correct the Federal Parliament can license a lighthouse for the sale of beer and spirits or may establish schools in lighthouses with distinctive or doctrinal teaching; although the licensing laws and educational laws for ordinary purposes are left to the State Legislatures.” It will be seen then that a host of fresh problems would arise if such a proposal were at any time adopted. The wonder is that the Fisher Ministry did not content themselves in this regard with the-offer of the Opposition, which some two years ago,, it may be recalled, suggested that whilst the creation and dissolution of all companies should be placed under the control of the Federal Parliament they should be left to carry on their various trading operations under the same State laws and conditions as those imposed on rival firms and individuals.