1.—13 a

As to the latter aspect, however, the possibility of developments such as we mention is obvious. The evidence before us did not show that up to the present any of the bodies to which we refer have developed their organization in such a way as to create a dangerous condition approaching a monopoly. None the less, this is a matter which should always be borne in mind in connection with any action which may be taken to guard the public against harmful effects of monopolistic combination, and any developments in the direction indicated should be carefully watched. General Conclusions. We hold that the ordinary right of freedom to contract ought not to be withdrawn without some compelling reason. . . We do not regard the price-maintenance system as free from disadvantages from the public point ot view, but we are not satisfied that if a change in the law were made there is any reason to think the the interests of the public would be better served. Though the withholding from retailers of goods in which they wish to deal may cause grievances 'and m some cases no doubt hardships, we do not consider that any compelling reason for a change in the law has been established. We are here to-day to seek for the manufacturers of a trade-marked or otherwise identified article the right to make legal contracts with the distributors, both wholesale and retail, to maintain the retail price of his products. This will ensure a fair price for his goods and will at the same time ensure, as it should, to the wholesaler and the retailer, a fair return for the services they render. This would also achieve, what is more important, that competition would to a very large extent be placed on a quality basis, every manufacturer having the greatest possible incentive to put into his products the very best of material as, when price-cutting is rife as at the present time, manufacturers, with a view to bringing prices down, are tempted to reduce the quality to which action the Government, as guardians of the public interest, should be strongly opposed. I claim, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that the rights which are accorded the British manufacturer we have a right to claim for the manufacturers of the Dominion. Under the auspices of the Federation of Grocers' Associations of the United Kingdom, supported by the National Federation of Produce Merchants, Ltd., "the North of England Wholesale Grocers' Association, the Provincial Wholesale Grocers' Association, the Wholesale Distributors' Association, there is a Grocery Proprietary Articles Council (formerly known as " the Grocers' Proprietary Articles Association ") the object of which has definitely been price-maintenance. This Council has the support of some of the best-known manufacturers of the world —I venture to mention a few whose names will be familiar to all present: Bovril Ltd., Brown and Poison, Ltd., Cross and Blackwell, Ltd., Foster, Clark, Ltd., W. P. Hartley, Ltd., Lea and Perrins, Ltd., Maconochie Bros., Ltd. It is quite true that there are price-cutters and price-cutters, but what we are anxious to deal with is predatory price-cutting. The dictionary's definition of predatory is: "plundering; deceptive; injurious ; preying upon others." Analysing the true position in the Dominion, I suggest the number of predatory price-cutters is, comparatively speaking, small, but that is no reason why they should be tolerated any longer. Others, some like sheep following a bad lead, have cut prices for what they consider to be self-preservation. Some four or five years ago the Hon. Mr. de la Perrelle, I think the then Minister of Industries and Commerce, expressed himself as follows : " The policy of cutting prices of some commodities to unpayable levels in order to attract trade is a reprehensible one and can be justly condemned on the grounds of being opposed to good business practice. The varying methods by which individual units in the same class of business conduct their business make it exceedingly difficult to devise any comprehensive measure which would apply an effective remedy to check unfair trading practices." Some years ago an attempt was made to form a Proprietary Articles Trade Association in New Zealand, but, unfortunately, the Government did not allow it to proceed. Their action in denying the right to form such an association would have not been so serious had the Government offered some substitution ; unfortunately, successive Governments have stood by seeing the evil of price-cutting perpetually on the increase and, respectfully may I add, sheltering themselves behind the statement that owing to the varying methods by which individual units in the same class of business conduct their business, " nothing can be done." I would here state that all we definitely ask for is the right to fix a minimum price, to suggest varying prices—one for the cash-and-carry grocer, another for the grocer who sells for cash and on credit, and still another for the grocer who sells for cash, gives credit and delivers--would prove impracticable. You, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, will appreciate the difficulty in regard to other than a minimum price when I point out that a company running chain stores would find matters very complicated seeing that in some instances they undertake to deliver goods and in others they do not do so. I suggest that to differentiate is impossible, and details such as these can well be left to the manufacturers acting in conjunction with the wholesale and retail trades. A well-known company, in an advertisement which appeared within the last few days in the daily press, ventured to tell members of Parliament that they could not expect to be re-elected if they proved false to the interests of the people by voting for the amendments to the Commercial Trusts Act which, if passed, so the company claims, " will increase the price of food and the necessities of life without increasing wages." A statement such as the foregoing is worthless in view of the evidence which I have already submitted following the investigations made in the Old Country. The advertisement further states that the division-list will show the names of those members who are the friends and supporters of those who are out for exorbitant prices, profiteering, and the establishment of combines and trusts. There is no justification for such a slur upon those who are assembled here to-day with one object in view—to conserve the interests not only of manufacturers, wholesale and retail distributors, but equally too of the public and who have a desire, as already expressed, not merely to live and let live, but to live and help live.

75