SUGAR STOCKS.

Press, Issue 14828, 20 November 1913, Page 9

SUGAR STOCKS.

10 THE EDITOR OF "THE PRS?S." Sir —Mr John I- Royds's letter, which appeared in last Friday's "Press." definitely challenged mc to prove t-o "an iudepemient investigator" three distinct • ICS J accepted his challenge, addin-' t-even other issues that had J>eon introduced into tho controversy, and named throe gentlemen, dissociated with trade, of undoubted standing, each thoroughly competent to make the investigation. I w'uh to make it quite clear" that I did not consult any of them before writing to you, and at tho time, to the best, ol my knowledge, two of them had not taken any interest in the question. I asked Mr Royds to select one of the three named. His reply in yesterday's "Pret-i" is another laboured attempt to avoid the real issue, i.e. whether the t-tutement made to your reporter had any foundation in fact. The concluding sentence in Mr Royd's List letter, wherein he describe* what he had to do in self-defence, is another illustration of his quibbling, seeing that his original statement was a direct reflection upon myself and my firm.

I have asked Dr. Hight and Mr W. Jameson to investigate -uo question, iv order to reach finality in a matter that can only bo definitely settled by outside investigation, and trust you will find space for the publication of their re.port. which please find enclosed.— Yours, etc., ANDREW FAIRBAIRN. Christchurch, November 19th, 1913.

(Enclosure). Christchurch. November 19th. 1913. "Andrew Fair-aim, Esq., Christchurch.—Dear Sir, —As requested by yon, tve havo considered the points raised iv your letter to "Tho Press" of November 11th. and in connexion therewith, tho rest of tho correspondence in the paper referred to., and (a) the official evidence in the Sugar Case, (Ij) the full judgment- of his Honour tho Chief Justice, (c) the judgment of the Appeal Court, (d) your letter to the Minister of Commerce, dated September 18th, 1911, nnd other documentary evidence bearing upon the* matter. After very careful consideration we submitour opinioli on tho various points as follows:

Paragraphs 1. 2. fi, 7. 8. —These relate to the stocks of sugar. We aro of opinion that your statements aro substantially corroct. Mr Royds slates that numbers 7 and 8 are not disputed. 5. Tho published price list submitted to us by you proves your statement that much higher n<H profits than o per cent, have been received by n member of the Merchants' Association on sates of. sugar from storo.

3. After a careful consideration of tho judgment* of the Supremo Court and the Court of Appeal, we aro convinced that the charges made by your firm in a letter to tho Minister of Commerce, dated September 13th, 1911, wore proved to the satisfaction of the Court.

_>. Mr Royds's suggestion that the defendants in the sugar cases woro fined for a technical breach only of the Commercial Trusts Act is not borne out by tho judgment, which inflicted the maximum penalty provided by the Act. '1, 10. We aro of opinion that your statements arc fully borne out by* the official evidence and the judgments in the sugar cases. Yours faithfully, ' ?I. EIGHT. W. JAMESOJ.7.