SUGAR STOCKS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14835, 28 November 1913, Page 2

SUGAR STOCKS.

TO TH£ EDITOK OF "THE PBESS. ,, Sir, Auurow Fiuroairu is evideatiy geuing angry,. oat. tiuic wni hod eXwio»t<-« uitu ix'viii liio yuiuiuoi'y xie is jiuw in. On tiio ist lust, lie <uiui-&ed mc VVltil JiiVliig U> yKIMX itiAJittJ waicn weio a.vti currect. 'I'iie ouus ox acuiuteiy proving taem wrong Etnl rtssis upou iuiu, and no opinions or devious ueuuotions can do accepted Ln piace oi tieamto proor. lc is neeuiess to continue explaining tne aDauiuity oi nis repeutea expressions suca as "concempcioio baciku.uwn, 1 ' ''ciumsy atteuipc to ueiudo tnu puoiic," Tuuy piease nim anu certainly injure no one.

jtty object is to enlighten the public. The ine;ciiant£ have never taKen anything out the most reasonable profits from em,*and it' Mr Fairbairn . will only accept offer to submit the question of the pubiic interest to the excellent committee named by mc, it will be ascertained where they really stand in the matter. The enuless repetition of what was done or not done and the deductions drawn by Mr Fairbairn and myself do not assist, but the committee of business men, with Messrs flight and Jameson, could settle it with reasonable satisfaction to all" concerned. If Mr Fairbairn really thinks it is "sheer impudence" for mo to say that he has not proved his charges mid that they are absolutely without foundation, why is he afraid to submit the whole thing for investigation by a committee, which will divest it of all technicalities and side issues?. He must know that their finding would carry more weight than columns of such letters as he and I are writing, seeing that we are both interested parties. To suggest that my offer implies asking the gentlemen named to sit in judgment on the judges of New Zealand is begging the question in the most barefaced fashion. If he thinks co, how can he excuse himself for persuading Messrs Hight and Jameson to do what amounts to precisely the came thing? m

The judgment in the caee says in plain English that under our Commercial Trust Act "an agreement or combination, although in fact it might operate to the public advantage, yet if in itself it was contrary to law would be held to be detrimental to the public interest"; and again, "The Legislature has considered trese acts to be evil in themselves, and the Court has not to consider whether any particular act which comes within the words of either of these sections is or is not contrary to public interest." Could anything indicate more plainly that a conviction under the Commercial Trust Act does not prove that any real injury ha s been done to tho public? Tho judges of the Appeal Court have stated this so clearly as to put it beyond dispute. It is quite premature for Sir Fairbairn to say that he does not think the gentlemen named would act and quite laughable for him to say what he toU « tf *W wish. Let him accept m . v , offer (it covers all that he says'- he will do) with its attendant conditions of forfeiture of £100 on my part or withdrawal and apology on Mr Fairbairn s; and we can "then ascertain ver 7 Quickly whether they will act or not. I have of course not approached them, but I believe they would add to their many past public services by giving a httlo time to this question in the. interests of the public, who, when they realise that a combination which is to;, their "advantage" can also be contrary to their "interest," may be excused for wondering who framed the Commercial Trust Act and what was its object. ! ; Mr Fairbairn says :-"It is well'to remember that Mr Royds refused to give evidence before the Cost of Living Commission." This a fair sample of the extraordinary flights of imagination indulged in by Mr Fairbairn. I was not summoned to attend before the Commission,, although other merchants were. Perhaps Mr Fairbairn, who sat on the Commission, will explain why I was discriminated against in this way. and why;ho now makes a statement regarding, it which is absolutely +wT 7 ,i t ?- faCt -- / o ssibly he realised that had I received a. subpoena and obeyed it, some - evidence would have fot on record that would effectually aye prevented a finding, that the mcii chants had exploited the public. The merchants who were to appear certainly declined to submit to cross-examination by Mr Fairbairn-who six mouths before had acted as informant to the authorities. If he, in his innocence imagined they would appear before him as judge.,he was the only man m New Zealand who thought so. If the Government of the day had particularly desired to prevent the crossexamination of the merchants they could not have adopted a more effective course than that of appointing Mr Fairbairn to the Commission. The merchants were willing to submit to the Commission a statement of their case, supported by figures duly certified to and traversing all tho evidence that had been given against tho Morchants , Association throughout Now Zealand. The final sitting of tho Commission in Wellington f was obviously the only place this could be done, and Mr C. I. Skerrott, K.C., was engaged to present it. What took place was as follows, according to official Report of the Commission, page 455:— "Re Wholesale Merchants (subpoenaed). Mr Skerrett appeared on behalf of Mr Aitkcn. Hβ wished to say— Tho Chairman: If you appear to decline' for him that is suffiqient. ' Wβ do not want any explanations. Mr Skerrett: I have not said so yet. I have not said that Mr Aitken declines. I desire to protest against being refused,to explain the grounds why Mr Aitken does not desire to give evidence. Mr Fairbairn objected to Mr Skerrett being allowed to make any statement on behalf of his clients. Mr Skerrett said he would accent the ruling of the chairman, whom he regarded ac tho mouthpiece of the Com- | mission. Tho Chairman: I rule that the Commission will hear no from you on behalf of your clients, but you can give evidence yourself if. you wish. Mr Skorrett said ho wished respectfully but firmly to protest against this attitude, not only on behalf of Mr Aitken and himself, but also on behalf of Mr Tripe, the solicitor for New Zealand for the Merchants' Association, and Mr Gold, the secretary for the same Association." , It is quite evident that to have brought the merchants before the Commission and subjected them to an inQuisitarial cross-examination regarding their private business was one thing, but to allow them to expose the bias, errors and.inaccuracies of the witnesses who gave evidence against them was • qnito another. Tho position then is this, that a clerk in Mr Fairbairn's employment was produced and allowed to put four pages of evidence against the Merchants' Association, while-Mr Skerrett. the Association's solicitor, was refused a hearing, and the member of the Commission who appeared most anxious that he should- not be heard was Mr' Andrew Fairbairn, who in his last letter seeks to convey the impression to the public that evidence from the merchants of New Zealand- was not available to the Cost of Living Commission. I —Yours, etc., JOHN I. ROYDS. • Christchurch, November 26th, 1913. fW© are unable to give more space to the sugar question, which has been ' amply threshed out on both sides. A fresh point, namely as to why the merchants did not appear before the Cost of Living Commission, has now been raised. Mr I Fairbairn is at liberty to reply to J this if he Mr Royde, as the opener, will be entitled to a rejoinder. With that the discussion, so far as our. columns are concerned, must close.—Ed. "The 1 Press."]