I.—lo.

26

W. DALL.

304. Mr. Loughnan.] Yes, with the price during the existence of the association ?—I should say that the price of flour as compared with the price of wheat was higher during the term of the association than it was previously. 305. Have you gone into figures on that point, because I have ? —No; but on the face of it the evidence is this : the association was formed to make things better, and if things were good enough before the formation of the association, and the association has not improved them, there was no necessity for the association. 306. In the face of the assumption that they make a large economy —that is what they say in the recital—you say the result must have been that flour showed a higher proportion ?—I am quite prepared to prove it by our books. 307. I want to find out whether you know anything about the subject yourself. Do you know of your own knowledge that the price of flour was relatively higher in proportion to the price of wheat during the first year of the association than it was before ?—I would not like to give a definite answer to that without going into the figures fully. If I had been asked to produce the documents I could have done so. 308. You have accused the association of bringing about this lamentable position of low prices that at present exists in Dunedin that you have described ? —I have. 309. This is how you put it: you say the price of the 2001b. sacks is fixed by the association, and you appear to suggest that the price of the two-hundreds was satisfactory to you. Is that so ? —Yes. 310. That was due to the action of the association ?—Yes. 311. The next step you arrived at was this: that the bakers refused to give you orders for flour in two-hundreds ?—Yes. 312. You say to your certain knowledge there was an arrangement made between the association and the bakers producing that result ? —Yes. 313. When pressed as to your knowledge as to that, you said it was scarcely evidence because it was something you had heard from a third person ? —I understood that was relative to another question altogether, to a statement that there would not be any money made this year. 314. But you did use the words " certain knowledge." flave you certain knowledge of it?— Yes. 315. Why do you not produce it ?—I have not been asked. 316. Can you produce the ground of your " certain knowledge "?—Yes, I will produce it now. " Dunedin Master Bakers' Industrial Union of Employers, Dunedin, March 24th, 1903.—Dear Sir, —I have to inform you that the position of the flour trade has given your committee grave concern, and after mature consideration it was deemed advisable, provided satisfactory arrangements could be made with Messrs. A. Steven and Co., that members should be open to do business with that firm. Such arrangements having been completed, you are at liberty to give them a share of your trade should you so desire. —I am., &c, B. T. Einger, Secretary." That is a proof that there was a boycott existing against A. Steven and Co.'s flour immediately they left the association. 317. Who is B. T. Einger? —He was secretary of the Dunedin Bakers' Association. 318. Do you suggest that this was written by Mr. Einger while he was in the employ of the association ? —Yes, the Bakers' Association. 319. That letter is merely a statement of the Bakers' Union to its members. We all know there is a combination between the members of the Bakers' Union. Where is the proof of your " certain knowledge " that there was an arrangement between the Flour-millers' Association and the Bakers' Association? —The proof of my knowledge is that the bakers said to us " Put your sales through'the association and we will buy from you." 320. That is what the bakers said to you ? —Yes. 321. There is a copy of a letter signed by the same gentleman, Mr. B. T. Einger, dated the 10th March, 1903, as follows : " Messrs. Allan Steven and Co., Dunedin.—Dear Sirs, —Your favour of the 7th instant to hand. lam instructed to inform you that no resolution was ever passed by this union as is suggested in yours under reply, nor had. we previously received any intimation from you that your firm had withdrawn from the Millers' Association. You must be well aware from your past connection with the Millers' Association of the methods adopted by this union in purchasing flour. In the interests of the consumer we are bound at all times to purchase to the best advantage, and therefore cannot be dictated to by any firm or trust. You are also aware of the action this union recently took in purchasing Manitoban flour, showing to you that the union is quite alive to its best interests.—l am, dec, B. T. Einger, Secretary." You got that letter, did you not ?—Yes. 322. In the face of that written document, how do you explain your evidence on the subject ? —It is a reply to a letter which Messrs. A. Steven and Co. wrote. There is another letter written by the firm to Mr. Einger, dated the 14th March, 1903: " Dear Sir, —We beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 10th instant, and on perusal find it is no reply to our letter, but simply a carefully worded evasion of the whole matter. We do not appreciate quibbles in business—for instance, you say that your union had not received notice of our withdrawal from the Millers' Associations. We fail to see what purpose this could have served ; we advertised the fact in the papers. If your union did not know of our withdrawing, why did it refuse to buy our flour? We wrote you in an open, courteous manner, and your reply is neither one thing nor another. Why not state openly what you mean ? You say your union buys in the best interests of the consumer. Does any man of common-sense believe this ? We believe that an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory, and no matter by what name you call the restriction put upon us by the members of your union in not buying our flour as usual when it is of undisputed quality, and the same price (or less) than the combine's article, the effect is the same a a boycott, and this