JUDGE ON PROFITEERING

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 307, 23 September 1919, Page 4

JUDGE ON PROFITEERING

VACUUS! OIL COMPANY. " When the adjourned application of iha Vacuum Oil Company I'ly., Ltd., and tlie Texas Company (Australasia), LUI., for an increase of is. par case iu the selling price oi kerosene ami benzine, eaino ijeiore tae Necessary Commodities CoiumisI sion, objection was made by counsel lor tue app.iennts lo Mr. Justice Mmuuua occupying the chair. Recently Mr. Juetice lidmumis uttered a severe censure upon the Vacuum Uil Company, accusing it ol having h'ad underground relations with otner companies, with wholesale profiteering, ana with misleading, the comniissioneis on a previous application. • , Mr. Justice Edmunds: When this application was previously belore the commission 1 was of the opinion, after reading the' report of the inter-Stale comniis-sicner-ancl 1 am still of the same opin-ion-that this commission' has been grossly deceived by .tnu applicant. My duly, if it is possible'to perioral it, .is to stand between I'lie community and a • profiteering company no less now that it'was belore. 'iiie'V'otits-o* the Vacuum Company since the commencemeut of the war were:— l9l4, MUfiW; 1915, JE403,000j 191S, .01579,5-20; 1917, JtiSS.OvK). I think it would*be improper tor me to have such decided and pronounced views without letting tlie. applicant know wllat tue y have to meet. 1 am not going to run away irom the performance of my duty when i think it is possible to stand bei\veen tho public and profiteering by it company which has been found guilty of profiioering. To do so would be cowardly. I intend to sit. ...... ' ' Sir. Sliand: Then I shall advisp my clients not to go .on with tho ..ippiicaiUr. Justice Edmunds: The applicants can take such a. course ;vs they may be advised. If they are prepared- to submit the whole of these statements to investigation by us we are prepared to hear.them and judge on the evidence. lr they are not prepared to do that, then let the Government of the country and the people base their opinions either upon the statements we have made hero nud the report of the inter-State commissioner or upon the statements of a company which now refuses to bring iorward proof of whether these statements are true or not, and whether they are profiteering. . . Replying to Mr. ]3avin, Jlr. Justice bdninuds said that there was nothing be- ( lore ue commission which involved the Texas Company (Australasia), Ltd., in the remarks which had teen made iu respect to the Vacuum Oil Company, bull the company had been standing'in the background, ready to lake advantage of any increase in prices granted by the commission. "The question is, eaid Mr. Justice Edmunds "whether your company took advantage of orders issued by the commission, which it knew were not well founded. It would bo misleading, however if I gave you the impression that your company is entirely free from association with profiteering.' Mr, Bavin said that the present company was formed only last year.. The previous applicant was the agent for the Texas Company of New York p Mr Justice. Edmunds said that m tlnu case he would withdraw his remarks, but he would.want to be absolutely assired that the new company was entirely dissociated from tho previous applicants. , The application of the Texas Company (Australasia), Ltd., was then proceeded .with, and was refused. s