SUGAR STOCKS

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14836, 29 November 1913, Page 14

SUGAR STOCKS

TO THK EDITOR OF "XHB rWSS3."

Sir —Mr Royds's latest amazing misstatement is:—"l vras not summoned to attend before the Commission, although other merchants were," and later, -Possibly he realised, that nad I received a subpeena and obeyed it, some evidence would hare got on record that would effectually **™ prevented a findin- that the merchants had exploited ihe public." On the 14th June, 1912, w>iile the Cost of Living Commission was sitting Ln Christchurch. Mr George Harper, solicitor, appeared on behalt or merchants who ret used to give ? evidence, and said:—"Messrs Royds Bro*. and Kirk would decline to give evidence if asked to do so." In answer to the question: "Do you appear for them.' ilr Harper said: "No! but 1 have been instructed by them, and also by Messrs Godfrey and Co." On the 11th June, 1912 Mr Harper, while appearing for other merchants, said: '1 mean no disrespect to the Commission at all, but they (the merchants) are following the advice- whichhas been tendered to them in Dunediu, here, and, 1 believe, ekewhere." On the iaee of the foregoing, Mr Royds has tho effrontery to question my plain statement of fact, viz.: — ••It is well to remember that Mr Iloyds refused to give evidence before tho Cost of Liviug Commission." The Commissioners welcomed every witness who was prepared to give sworn evidence, whether subpoenaed or not, as one of the questions they had to report upon was: "To what extent.havtymonopolies, combines, trusts, and other associations of manufacturers or sellers or tho necessaries of life contributed to the rise in prices?" ... Mr Royds's peculiar sense- of justice amounts to this—the Merchants' Association, of which Mr Royds is a shining light, refused to give evidence, but they arranged with Mr Skerrett, one of New Zealand's most brilliant X.C.'s, without beins sworn, to read a statement before tho Commission in \\ ellinjiton. The Commission properly refused to heat- him, but invited him to give •evidence on oath, which Mr Skerrett declined to do. The simple fact is that the members of the Merchants' Association dare not face the, daylight of a public examination. Seeing that they were charged with, "Having entered into a combination for the purpose of controlling supplies, fixing prices for various commodities, and generally restraininc. trade," ordinary people with a sense of fair dealing would expect Mr Royds and his fellow-mer-chants to welcome such an opportunity as the Cost of Livins Commission afforded to clear un the matter if they could. It must be remembered that the Commission allowed sworn witnesses to give evidence in confidence, so that the private details of a witness's business" need not bo published. This course was always followed whore witnesses desired it. The sole object of the Commissioners was to elicit and establish the truth.

When I was offered a seat on the "Cost of Living Commission" I declined on tho grounds that T considered my personal evidence of more importance. At the same time I realised that it was my duty to assist tho authorities in every possible way. seeing that the prosecution of tiio Merchants' Association under the Commercial Trusts Act was the outcome of my firm's letter to the Minister of Commerce. Tho reason that I finally accepted a seat, was that it was of tho first importance that someone conversant ■ with the inner workings of the Merchants' Association should be -on the Commission, otherwise the Commissioners might have been fooled. Had the merchants, who were subpeenned. piven evidence, there would not have been thp same necessity to call my firm's, accountant to produce to the Commisbion original correspondence, to prove the existence of a conspiracy to control commodities by the Merchants' Association; that evidence could have been elicited under examination on oath. ■ , Prior to tho'Commission s first meeting I did not know personally any of the other Commissioners, nnd when Mr Royds spreads himself about "the merchants declining to submit themselves to cross-examination by Mr Fairbairn," it can only mean that tho seven other Commissioners would be parties to unfair and improper procedure on the part of myself. As the proceedings were open to the public arid the Press, unfair treatment of sworn witnesses would have received the fullest possible condemnation. Most people will discern that Mr Rojds's latest elusive'effusion is another attempt to avoid the original and main issue regarding the stocks of sugar alleged to have been held by the local members of. the "Sugar King." and that tho simple fact, in regard to their refusals to give evidence before the Cost of Living Commission, is that tho merchants wero afraid to say on oath what they will fluently write to "The Press" m their efforts* to mislead the public. _ In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that I am still prepared to furnish proof to any or all of the gentlemen named by Mr Royds as a "Committee of Investigation," that Mr Royds s statements' throughout,this correspondence aro "complete perversion of the factS "- YO SDUEW FAIRBAIBN. Christchurch, November 28th, 1913.

[Wo have modified some of tho phrasoin our correspondent's letter. —Ed. "The Press. I, ]