1.—13 A,

are reasonable or not, and if he decides they are not, then it is open to him to place his orders elsewhere. Whilst we contend the manufacturer should have the right as stated, we equally contend that any price-maintenance agreement must be unquestionably fair to the public as well as to those who are parties to it. May I here quote from the annual report of the Department of Industries and Commerce, I think for the year 1930 : " Indiscriminate and consistent price-cutting, regardless of profit or loss, is uneconomic, and can lead only to one end—the elimination of those financially least able to stand it. Provided a retailer or other trader is performing a real and necessary service in connection with the distribution of goods from the manufacturer to the consumer, then he is justly entitled to a reasonable profit or reward for his services, and price-cutting which tends to reduce what is a reasonable profit is illogical and uneconomic." The Department later in the report very rightly draws a distinction between price-competition and price-cutting, and states, " Persistent price-cutting, in contradistinction to price - competition, must eventually lead either to retirement from the field of commerce or to the Bankruptcy Court." Unfortunately the Department had nothing to say in regard to those who, as a result of the price-cutters' tactics, have suSered loss, even though they may have managed to meanwhile remain in business. Here let us emphasize what a former Minister of Industries and Commerce pointed out—namely, that when losses such as we have referred to occur they finally have to be borne by the general public—a fact too frequently ignored. The Times Trade and Engineering Supplement published a letter addressed to the Ironmongers' Association, wherein the writer pointed out that it was obvious " That any system of price-control which enabled one to maintain a solvent position is beneficial to the public, to the nation, and to the manufacturer." The said writer further pointed out, "It is advisable for the manufacturer so to control his retail price that the smallest dealer in the most remote place can sell the product on equal terms with the largest and most active dealer in the greatest centres. In our judgment, it is largely for this reason that manufacturers have protected their distributors by one or another of the systems which are known generally as price-maintenance." In a memorable case which came before the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Holmes expressed himself as follows : "I see nothing to warrant my assuming that the public will not be served best by the company being allowed to carry out its plans. I cannot believe that in the long-run the public will profit by this Court permitting knaves to cut reasonable prices, for some ulterior purpose of their own, and thus to impair, if not to destroy, the production and sale of articles which it is assumed to be desirable that the public should be able to get. The conduct of the defendant falls within the general prohibition of the law. It is fraudulent and has no merits of its own to recommend it to the favour of the Court." [t is not out of place to here point out that some years ago the United States Chamber of Commerce conducted a referendum, in which nearly. 75 per cent, of the votes passed were in favour of legislation permitting resale-price maintenance. This is all we are asking for, being, if considered desirable, quite willing for manufacturers to submit prices for the approval of the Government through the medium of the Department of Industries and Commerce, thus ensuring public interests being protected. There is no need for me to here make reference to what was known as the Capper-Kelly Bill of the United States of America which, having been passed, was subsequently proved to be ultra vires. It is equally unfortunate, too, that the National Recovery Act was in some respects also ultra vires, but in principle we contend it was sound, affording as it did each industry the right, to frame what is termed its own " code." This was a move in the right direction and much good has resulted, therefrom, several of the States having already passed what is commonly known as a Fair Trade Bill, which deals most effectively with price-cutting and many other evils which have characterized the grocery trade in the United States of America. It is not now out of place to refer to the position as it is in England to-day, and in so doing to point out that in 1930 a report dealing with the whole question of price-maintenance was prepared by a committee consisting of the following gentlemen : Mr. Wilfrid Arthur Greene, K.C. (Chairman) ; Mr. Alexander Johnston, J.P. ; Professor David Hutchison Macgregor, M.C. ; Mr. William E. Mortimer ; Mr. John Edward Singleton, K.C. ; Mr. Alexander George Halkden, J.P., M.P. This report was subsequently presented to the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade. I respectfully submit it is the most important pronouncement ever made, dealing with pricefixation in relation to the restraint of trade. That committee, be it noted, was set up to consider " present trade practices which result in withholding from particular retail traders supplies of goods in which they wish to deal or which prevent the resale of such supplies except upon conditions imposed by the suppliers, and to report whether in their opinion all or any of such practices are detrimental to the public interest and, if so, what alterations in the existing law are necessary to prevent the continuance of such practices." I now desire to deal with the report, from which I have extracted the following — Survey of the Subject. The trade practices which we were required to investigate are of the following kinds :— (а) Those which result in withholding from particular retail traders supplies of goods in which they wish to deal; and (б) Those which prevent the resale of such supplies except upon conditions imposed by the suppliers. Where the withholding of supplies is used as a method of enforcing the fulfilment of conditions imposed by the suppliers the two kinds of trade practices are clearly inseparable. The greater part of our attention was in fact devoted to considering this case, the conditions which suppliers sought to impose relating almost exclusively to the prices to be charged by the retailer.

71