MR. MYERS.]

H.—44A.

detriment of every wholesaler and retailer who is interested in the selling of the line and who is desirous of obtaining a fair and reasonable margin of profit on his dealing in the line, and no more than a fair and reasonable margin of profit. I want to emphasize that point, gentlemen, because I repeat that it is because of the action of traders in cutting prices that the formation and establishment of the P.A.T.A. has become necessary in this country, as it has become necessary in other countries. Ido not want to elaborate that point at present, but in the course of evidence illustrations will be given to this Committee in verification of the point I am making. I would like to mention one line in passing, and that is Edmonds' baking-powder. It is a fact, gentlemen, that Edmonds' baking-powder is being sold by retail traders at less than its cost. What does that mean ? That is not to the public interest. Surely it is to the public interest that the manufacturer should continue his manufacture—particularly if it is the manufacture of a good article—and that he should get a fair and reasonable profit. If retail traders cut that particular line, or any line, if they are to maintain themselves and their families and to earn a living they must get their profit from something, else. And is it to the public interest that they should be cutting this line and that line, and, by attracting customers to their shops, sell other lines at probably higher prices than other traders are charging ? That is not to the public interest. That is not fair trading —at least, not fair trading as the bulk of the mercantile men —whether they be manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers — understand fair trading. I propose to leave that aspect of the matter for the moment. I shall show by evidence that an association of this character became necessary in the interests of manufacturers, in the interests of wholesalers, and in the interests of retailers. And if it became necessary in the case of these three classes of traders, then I submit, on authority and on common-sense, that it became necessary in the interests of the public, or, at all events, that its establishment was not contrary to the interests of the public. I need hardly point out that a manufacturer always has the power to fix the prices at which his goods shall be sold by wholesalers who purchase from him, and retailers who deal with the goods. The Chairman : As an individual ? • Mr. Myers: Yes, as an individual. It may be that certain difficulties arise in his path—that the line in which he is dealing, and the line he is manufacturing, comes within the ambit of the Commercial Trusts Act; but we need not trouble about that in this case, because I tell you at once that so far as the P.A.T.A. is concerned it does not contemplate touching foodstuffs at all. It proposes to touch —I am not using the words "to deal," because the P.A.T.A. does not deal in anything—it proposes to touch, I say, only proprietary lines other than foodstuffs, because you may conceivably have proprietary lines which are foodstuffs, but it does not intend or contemplate to touch foodstuffs at all. Mr. Gresson : Apart from proprietary foodstuffs ? Mr. Myers : Not even infants' foods. Mr. Collins : Nor ingredients used in the preparation of foodstuffs ? Mr. Myers : No. That is an essential difference between the P.A.T.A.'s proposed operations in New Zealand and the operation of the P.A.T.A. in Australia. In Australia the P.A.T.A. touched foodstuffs as well as proprietary lines in the ordinary sense of the word, and it is partly because they touched these foodstuffs that Mr. Justice Beeby's report was to a certain extent, at all events, of a hostile character. I shall deal with that later on. I want it, therefore, to be understood at once that the P.A.T.A. in New Zealand has no intention of touching foodstuffs, but only the proprietary lines in the general sense, apart from foodstuffs. I apprehend that there is no doubt in the minds of the Committee that what I have said with regard to the rights of the manufacturer is correct. Mr. Gresson : I admit it. Mr. Myers : But if there be any doubt I need do no more than refer to the judgment of our own Full Court. I refer to the case that is generally known as the " Big Ben " case, reported in 1921 N.Z. L.R. 1 ; and the particular portion of the judgment to which I desire to refer is at page 11, where Mr. Justice Edwards says : — The manufacturers have fixed not merely the prices at which they will sell the goods to traders, but the prices at which those traders mu3t sell to the public. This is a well-known commercial usage common in many trades, and the Solicitor-General does not dispute its validity. Now, gentlemen, it may be thought—l do not know whether it is thought or not—that the P.A.T.A. is a price-fixing organization. It is nothing of the kind. The P.A.T.A. does not fix prices. The prices which are fixed are fixed by the manufacturer in each and every case, subject only to this observation : that the prices which the manufacturer proposes to fix it is intended should be referred to the committee of the P.A.T.A., whose only function is to see that the prices proposed to be charged are not too high ; because it is not in the interests of a manufacturer, nor is it to the interests of a wholesaler or retailer, that the price at which a proprietary article is sold should be too high, because that checks sales and does not promote them. Moreover, it is not the object of the P.A.T.A. to prevent competition. It is not the object of the P.A.T.A. to restrain trade in the ordinary meaning of that term. The P.A.T.A. primarily does not in any way say or suggest that any person should be debarred from selling this or that article, or any article. So far as the P.A.T.A. is concerned, any article which comes upon its list may be sold by anybody. All that the association is concerned with is that the price which is fixed by the manufacturer for the retail sale of that article is observed. And all that the association intends to do in the event of its ascertaining that any particular retailer is not adhering to the price is to report that to the manufacturer, with the idea, of course, which I admit, that unless the offending retailer is thereafter prepared to adhere to the price he shall not

3