UNFAIR COMPETITION

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 307, 23 September 1919, Page 5

UNFAIR COMPETITION

CHINESE AND .SOLDIERS.

Should Chineso and other aliens . be permuted to compete in business against returned soldiers? This question was raised at the meeting of the Canterbury Repatriation Board on Wednesday evening by Air. \V. E. Leudley. Air. Leadlev was strongly.opposed to the uniair competition of against returned soluiew who had been.i-stablished in the fruit business, and he said that it eiiould be stopped. There wao power to stop it'dttrinc the war. During the war the National Uh'ieiency Board had power to refuse, and did refuse, to allow new husinesses to bo started in opposition to the business of a mail who was.away at the front. Men who had just been renutriated were equally entitled to be protected against unfair competition. The Government said it would see that men, when thev came back, should bo put into pusicion equal to those they were in before they went away, proceeded Mr. Leadley. The case ho hatl in mind was that of two soldiers who had each commenced a fruit, business, and a Chinese had taken the leaso .of a shop between those occupied by the two returned, solTTi'ers. The Chinese would undersell them, and the Government would loso its money, because it had helped the two men to start in business. Mr. W. Goss: What would you do, Mr. Leadlev ? » Mr. Leadlev said that he would certainlv prevent Chinese and foreigners from competing against 'men who had served their country. Mr. If. S. J. Goodman said ■ that the Government could pass an Act to prevent such competition. There was a iroad deal in what Mr. Leadley had said. He sußnested that a special committee should be set up to inquire further into the matter. Mr. 1 ? . W. Hobbs said that he did not think that the Government would take ■tetion to prevent such competition. It was just one of those misfortunes that might happen to any man starting in business. He knew of a case in which a returned etoldier had been helped by the board to start in a little bicycle business; then a newspaper runner canie along and did repairing work in his spare time, and ruined the soldier's trade. Mr. Leadley: The opposition referred to by Mr. liobbs was opposition by an Englishman; this is opposition by a Chinese. A man who has'fought for ]iifi country has surely more ,right to live in it than a Chinese! Mr. Hobbs: The Chinese paid £10 poll tax to come in. Mr. Lendley: Chinese should not ba allowed to come in <ind undersell returned soldiers. Mr. C. H. Hewlett: Won't the people buy from the white men in preference to the Chinese? Mr. Leadley: No. Mr. E. J. Howard said that this was an international question. If Chinese were permitted to enter this country they were entitled to the rights of citizenship. "So long as you say that this is the land of the free," he said, "and so long as you admit these men, it will be dangerous to interfere with them in tho way suggested." In reply to a. question Mr. Leadley 6aid that the Act under which the National Efficiency Board had exercised its powers to prevent competition against, seldiors' businesses had not been repealed. Could it not be used to protect repatriated soldiers V Members: It can't be done. New legislation will be required. It was then proposed that the board should pass to the next business. Mr, Leadley opposed this, and moved' that tho matter be referred to the Trades, Tools and Equipment Committee for a report. ' ' ■ Tho motion was carried.