1.—13 A.

It is submitted that the operation of price-maintenance could not mean unfair or high prices—firstly, owing to competition ; secondly, the desire of the packer and manufacturer for steady uniform prices ; thirdly, the refusal of the consumer to purchase ; and, fourthly, the power given under the Act to regulate. In South Africa it is reported there is a law wherein, say, a chemist wishes to depart from the usual goods stocked by a chemist and sell, for instance, tobacco, he must apply for a license to do so, and permission carries with it an annual license fee. In effect, there they believe in the " shoemaker sticking to his last." Again, in Germany there is a law under which prosecutions can be instituted for unfair competition, such as, presumably, securing preferential discounts and cutting prices, to the serious disadvantage of the small trader. , . , o , ft Report of English Committee.—lt is desired to refer to the Committee set up by the British Government m IJ.iO to inquire into a report upon certain trade practices—to wit, price-maintenance—whether detrimental to the public interest and if so, what alterations in the present law were necessary. The report is fully dealt with m the statement presented by' the New Zealand Master Grocers' Federation, and I fully endorse their evidence. In conclusion I may say that a great deal of water has passed under the bridge since the 1910 Act was passed. This is apparent from the instances which I have mentioned and from the general trend of cases which come before the Courts in England and other parts of the British Empire. The question of price-cutting and the ill regulation ot prices can inflict a positive hardship on the mercantile community. This fact is touched upon m the following remarks uttered by the late Lord Haldane in the course of a Judgment in the House of Lords m 1914 " But an ill-regulated supply and unremunerative prices may, in point of fact, be disadvantageous to the public. Such a" state of things may, if it is not controlled, drive manufacturers out of business, or lower wages and so cause unemployment and labour disturbances. It must always be a question of circumstances whether a combination of manufacturers in a particular trade is an evil from the public point of view. The Act which was framed to prevent monopolies is to-day used as a cloak for retail monopolies, more harmful than any contemplated when the Act was passed. Mr Boulton : Mr. Chairman, I desire to make this general statement in support of the amendment to the Act on behalf of Messrs. Royd Bros, and Kirk, packers, of Christchurch, also on behalf of the Canterbury Traders' Welfare Association, an association of traders particularly m the grocery trade with a membership of some three hundred. Mr. O'Leary.] Yours is a very old-standing firm ? —Yes. You say that your turnover has fallen considerably owing to the operation of chain stores ; what would be your estimate of the loss in turnover in your brand alone ?—lt is very difficult to answer that question, for the reason that during the period of our loss in trade through price-cutting we have had the depression and our largest buyers were always workers. It would be very difficult to arrive at a definite figure ; in fact, I would be unable to do so. Mr Ansell.] In your evidence you say, in regard to firms who have been cutting prices in various districts' that leading proprietary brands were being sold at cost price and in some instances below ?— These people refused to adhere to the prices agreed upon, with the result that our tea was again cut to cost or thereabouts. ~ , ™ . j Did you consider refusing to deal with these people ? —Yes, we did consider that. I hey wanted to name the terms they should buy and sell our goods. We declined On page 5 you say, " If, for instance, a person or firm were to decline to sell to the price-cutter or to any person who would refrain from resale except at a certain figure, such person or firm, and the people dealing with such person or firm on such conditions—would at once become members of a commercial trust and guilty of an offence under the Act." Upon whose advice do you make that statement ? —That would be on the advice obtained. -:a. Were you here at the opening of the case when Mr. 0 Leary made his statement l . —Yes. Mr O'Leary had made the' statement that any trader can, without committing a breach of the provisions of the Commercial Trusts Act, refuse to sell to any one ... he can impose on the purchaser ... to retail at a particular price " (quoting from Mr. O'Leary's statement.).—Yes, subject to the subsections of the Act. _ Your statement to the Committee is that the Commercial Trusts Act prevents you from imposing upon a purchaser the price at which he can sell an article ?—Yes, that is how we were advised You have read I presume, the Commercial Trusts Act—section 4, illegal refusals to deal—you know this section, and you still say that you become a member of a commercial trust if you attempt to dictate prices.—Under certain conditions. It is probably more of a legal matter than one for us to discuss. I just wanted to make sure of your opinion. I would obtain advice on that. [Legal position discussed with Mr. O'Leary.J Mr McSkimming.] What is puzzling me is in regard to this proprietary brand of Amber Tips tea • you say Mr Boulton, that you took legal advice and you were informed that it would be illegal for you to refuse to supply to any retailer who would not adhere to your prices ?—That was the adVl l®notice that what Mr. O'Lsary stated yesterday was directly contrary to that. I know that is also the opinion of leading counsel in Dunedin, because I had an opinion passed over to me some months ago, and it agrees with what Mr. O'Leary has stated. Mr. Healy. 1 Have the retailers with whom you have been dealing for some time suggested cutting off their orders unless you refused to supply these price-cutters ?—At one time I had a lot of that from the retailers. They point-blank told us that they would take no interest in the brand. Had you isolated instances of that «—They were all over New Zealand. Mr. Sullivan.] Is " Amber Tips " your own proprietary brand ?—Yes. Do you sell to other merchants ? —Yes. Do you sell direct to the retailers ?—Practically to the merchants. \Mr Sullivan discussed further the legal position brought up by Mr. Ansell and remarked that perhaps it was because of the fact that Mr. Boulton's firm sold to the merchants and not to the retailers direct that the misunderstanding of the legal position had occurred.]

7—l. 13A.

49