SUGAR STOCKS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14839, 3 December 1913, Page 6

SUGAR STOCKS.

TO TITE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." gj r) —Nothing can alter the fact that I was not summoned to attend before the Cost, of Living Commission, and therefore Mr Fairbairn's statement that I refused to give evidence is contrary to fact. There was a general decision by all the merchants that H subpconaed they would refuse to put themselves in the position of being cross-examined by Mr Fairbairn, and there was a specific refusal by each of tho few merchants who were eubpoonaed, but I was not one of them. As 1 was included ir. tho general offer to give evidenco to the Commission per medium of Mr Skerrett (which offer was declined with what might almoet bo called indecent haste), it might almost be said that I offered to give evidence, but tho Commission would not accept it. Contrast what took place in Dunedin and Christchurch when counsel appeared merely to decline for merchants who had been subpoenaed, with what took place in Wellington when counsel appeared to decline lor a merchant, and also, as Mr Fairbairn says, "to read a statement before the Commission." Tho statement was a complete reply by the merchants to all tho charges brought against them by Mr Fairbairn. None of the counsel were sworn: —

At Dunedin(page 14 official report)-— The Chairman (to Mr MacGregor): Without pressing you unduly, have you any objection to stating the grounds upon which you advised them not to appear? •At Christchurch (page 124 official re'port)—The- Chairman: Have you any objection, to 6tating the reason why you are advising these gentlemen riot to give evidence, Mr Harper? At "Wellington (page 455 official report—The Chairman (to Mr Skerrett): If you appear to decline for him that is sufficient. "We do not want any explanations. My ruling is that no explanations for non-obedience of a subpcena can be offered by solicitors to the Commission.

Mr Skerrett had his papers in full view, and it is obvious that the Commissioners knew what he wished to do. Mr Fairbairn says their object was "to elicit and establish the truth." They were offered the truth on this occasion, but refused it absolutely.

Mr Fairbairn obviously charges 510 ■with ft specific refusal because he introduces Mr Harper as appearing for mv firm. Hβ states that Mr Harper said "Messrs Royds Bros, and Kirk would decline to give evidence if asked to do so." According to the official report (t>ago 124) what Mr Harper said was:—"l understand that Royds, Kirk arid Co. -would decline to give evidence if they were asked to." It will bo seen that in quoting Mr Harper's remarks, Mr Fairbairn omitted the first three words and thereby completely altered the character of the sentence. This old device of divorcing words from their context :'n order to give a desired impression is beneath contempt. That the Commissioners did not regard it as a definite refusal is proved by the index to the report, where everyone who declined to give evidence is recorded. Alphabetically with the • word "refusal" opposite their names. My name, or the. name of my firm, does not appear in the index in this or any other connexion. In further quoting Mr. Harper, Mr Fairbairn states the following:—"ln answer to the question, 'Do you appear for them?' Mr Harper said 'No, but I have been instructed by them.' " From this it is clear that Mr Harper did not appear for us, but that he understood wo would decline if asked. Accaiding to Mr Fairbairn's process of reasoning it would be quite correct to state that ho had declined to stand on his head in Cathrdral square because it is quite certain that he would decline to do so if asked. However, according to the official report there is no such question and answer as quoted by Mr Fairbairn.. If the question and answer are not imaginary, it is clear that the official report of the Cost of Living Commission is not a record of what was said by those who appeared before it. There is another instance of a serious discrepancy between what a witness said according to the newspaper report and what he said according to the official report. One of Mr Fairbairn's charges .-.gainst the merchants was thnt they had retained the remissions of diatoms duty, and in Christchiirch a small retailer* (Mr C. | Bowycr) gave evidence, the tenor of i which showed that ho kid some long-1 standing grievances against the mer-J chants. The Cost of Living Report on pagf Uβ renorts him as follows:—

"To the Chairman: During the time you were in business the duty was token off certain lines of poods. Did you find the public got any benefit of the reduction?—We got p. portion of it, but we never got the full rebate on anything, really."

Tho newspaper report at the time was as follows:—"The reductions of the Customs tariff were not passed on to the retailers. Reckitts's blue was sold at Bsd per lb, and the duty has been reduced by 2d, but the price had onry fallen to 7Jd per lb. Half of the reduction went to the Association."

The fact is that only Id per lb dnty yras taken off bine. The witness was ityiorant of his subject, and instating that the price fell from BJd to 7sd he unwittingly proved that the full remission of duty had been passed on to the j public by the merchants. It is unfor- j tnnate that in the official report tho, general statement that' the merchants ; had robbed the public is left, but by 1 the fifrures by which the witness sought to prove it, and which proved instead that the merchants had not robbed the public, were omitted. Is it any won- ' der that the public treated the Cost of LiririE Commission as a farce? It is about time wo had a Royal Commission to investigate the doings of the,

Cost of Living Commission, yith a merchant as one of the commissioners to see that no one was "fooled." Mr Fairbairn states that the merchants could have given evidence to the Commission in confidence. How open and frank this looks, and what humbug it is." How unreasonable the merchants must bo if they would not "a]>pear" in confidence beforo Mr Fairbairn —the trade competitor who had denounced thorn and had instigated a prosecution against them.

Mr Fairbaim's reason for accepting a eeat on the Commission is that, having persuaded the authorities to prosecute the merchants, he was on the Commission to see that his fellow-Commis-sioners were not "fooled" by the merchants. The dispute was between Messrs Fairbairn, Wright and Co. and the merchants, so a merchant should also have been there to eeo that the Commissioners were- not "fooled" by Mr Fairbairn. His delicate compliment to the calibre of his fellow-Commission-ers will doubtless be appreciated by them. If, as Mr Fairbairn indicates, they were- incompetent, surely it was the duty of the Mackenzie Government to appoint men who could not be "fooled" by anyone. Had they done this, they would havo had every assistance from the merchants, and it would have been made clear that the public had not been robbed, and that the ■whole thing from first to last was nothing but the -wail of a competitor of the merchants, who cried 'aloud for legislative help, and got it, for the sole reason that the Mackenzie Government, in its extremity, thought it a good card to play to initiate the prosecu.tion. Tho whole thing was. iniquitous to the last degree. The merchants' profits are bare —a reduction of 1 per cent, would drive them out of business. They have been made the pawns in a political game. There is no monopoly of any sort about the business. Anyone can be a merchant who has enough capital to start, and enough brains to manage it. The merchants perform a necessary function, and the majority" of tho public are too just to believe-that they are guilty of the things charged gainst them by a competitor, simply because they absolutely declined to disclose their private business to him. My ■ challenge of November 17th to Mr Fairbairn, which covers everything in this discussion affecting the public intyrest. remains open for acceptance by }(|m in its entirety, every time he reFVats his charges. As you, Mr Editor, havo decreed that this must be the last letter I beg to thank you for the ample opportunity you have granted mc to put -lie case for tho merchants fully before the public.—lours, etc., Christohurch, December 2nd, 1913.