COLONIAL SUGAR CO.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1430, 3 May 1912, Page 5

COLONIAL SUGAR CO.

HUQE REFINERY PROFITS. GENERAL MANAGER'S STATEMENT. By Telegraph—Press Association— Copyright. Sydney, May 2. Failing to get a hearing before tho Sugar Commission, Mr. Knox has published a page statement in tho press dealing with the Colonial Sugar Company's position in regard to tho industry. It shows that during the period from April 1, 1907, to March 31, 1911, tho company's profits from the Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane refineries were .6591,785, or .£ls lis. Old. net per ton of raw sugar treated. Mr. Knox claims tlio sugar refining is wholly a Iree-trade industry, and in support of this pointy out that' in New Zealand there is no dnty on sugar refining, which is free from Customs supervision, while the prices charged only differ 59. per ton from rales ruling here, when i!G Customs duty is doducted. He rebuts the charge that the company has a monopoly of the sugar trac'.o in Australia, and declares that only about one-third of the suga.r produced in Australia is made at tho company's mills. Regarding tho whito labour question, Mr. Knox holds that there cannot bo tho least hopo of the industry being maintained otherwise than with sufficient protection to cover the extra, cost of whito labour. The statement shows that raw sugar can bo imported considerably cheaper than that produced by the company ill Australia. After reference to the good relations existing between the company and its employees,- the statement concludes that like every other employer in Australia, what tho company most wants is to bo left ulone, so long as its actions are in conformity with the law.

A SERIOUS SITUATION, CONTUMACIOUS WITNESS. (Rec. May 2, 9.35 p.m.) Sydney, May 2. A serious situation was created at the Sugar Commission to-day, owing to Mr. Knox, the general manager, and the other directors of the Colonial Sugar Company having failed to attend. Mr. Kater, chairman of directors, wrote stating that Mr. ICnox, tho manager, knew all that he and the other directors knew, and'tho directors decided that he should represent them. _ Mr. Knox wroto a long letter, in which he declared, as ho had not been supplied with a copy of the evidence as promised by the Commission, he was unable to rebut statements which were untrue, and therefore "1 cannot submit myselt for examination or cross-examination." ■ Mr. Justice Gordon, chairman of the .Commission, declared that lie did not know of any right by which the company could dictate as to who should give evidence. Dealing with Mr. Knox's letter, he stated the excuse seemed very like a shuffle. Regarding the statement that tho Commission promised to supply a copy of the evidence, ho said: "I characterise that statement as a deliberate lie." He only said that he did not object to the reporter supplying a copy if it did not interfero with his work. The reporter found that it did interfere, and mentioned tho matter to the company, who had two shorthand writers present at all meetings of the Commission. Mr. Knox's cxcuso was not genuine, and, he believed it was a covert defiance of tho authority of the Commission. So far the Commission had met with littlo success, in so far as any revelations of the company wtffe concerned, and all the officials at tho mills did not know -whether there was a working profit or loss. A muffled secrecy pervaded tho whole arena of tho company's services. Being in tho city, he would not take upon himself the responsibility of authorising the prosecution of these gentlemfen for not attending, but would leave it to the Federal Government. The Commission adjourned for a week.