PROFITEERING
SUMMARY OP PROSECUTIONS
WIDE RANGE OF CASES
-Mr. W. 0. M'Donald (chairman of the Board of Trade) gives a summary of prosecutions 011 charges of profiteering tfirdfir section 32 of the Board of Trade Act. which provides that "every person commits an offence who, cither 11s principal or agent, sells or supplies, or offers for_sale or supply, any goods at a price winch is unreasonably high," "By much iteration of tho words 'vaseline,' 'alarm clocks,' and 'rabbittrirps,'" states Mr. M'Donald, "various critics have suggested or insinuated that the IroariJ, looks for its eases outside the bread-and-butter lines, and prefers to prosecute comparatively email dealers. The facts prove that this kind of criticism is far from fair.
"First of all it is necessary to emphasise tho fact that prices of a number of essential _ articles—distinctly bread-and-butter lines—are controlled; the prices are not fixed by the vendors, but by the State authorities. This remark applies to wheat, flour, bread, butter, cheese, sugar, jam, soap, matches, and some other essentials described as groceries. Tho prices of practically all goods manufactured in the Dominion are under control. The board has ako interested itselfjn fixing the price of m?lk in various districts.
The board is closely watching the retail prices of meat; it is t ready to take effective action if those prices aro not continued on a basis proportionate to the rates of tho Imperial purchase. "A thorough investigation has been made by the board into the prices of woollen goods manufactured in New Zealand. This inquiry includes the cost of manufacture, warehouse charges and the retailors' prices. Tf this inquiry brings definite evidence that unreasonable profits are being made in the wholesale or retail selling, the board will act quickly to protect tho public. "As for prosecutions to date, the board can show that it has done its duty fairly, without fear or favour. The much discussed infants' food case was the first under the provisions of the new Act. The Board believed that it had evidence of an unreasonably high rale charged for infants' food, and took action accordingly. As an appeal has been made against the Magistrate's convTct'on of the grocer, further comment on this enop must be deferred.
"Now for the vaseline. Tho board had evidence that a chemist charged Is. 3d. for a bottle of vaseline, of which the wholesale cost wn« about Bd. The selling prices of other retailers ranged from Iftd. to Is. The complainant in this case submitted that it was a clear breach of seel ion 32 of tlio Act. Some persons seem to imagine that the board deliberately selected vaseline for a prosecution. The actual truth is that a definite complaint was made alwit vaseline and fie complainant submitted evidence sufficient to warrant a prosecution. Vaseline served as well a-s any other article in a chemist's stock to show that profiteering could lead to a prosecution, a fine and very unplpasnnt publiciiv for tho offender. Whether nn article is one of overydav or comparatively rare use. the board acts on th<* principle that the public, must be protected against extortionate charges; particularly when the article is not descrihable as a luxury. The board has no narrow view of its duty on public grounds.
?<o reply con be made at present to the. gibes about the alarm clocks, for an appeal has been made against >th» judgment given by a Magistrate nt Chnstchurcli. A very important prlnciplo is involved in this case, which drew attention to the practice of some manufacturers iji fixing tho retail and the wholesale prices of goods, ns well as tho manufacturer's price. the prosecution in connection with the sale of rabbit-traps was the result of a Magistrate's comment from tlw bench. During the hearing of a civil caso_ concerned with rnbbit-traps tho Magistrate gave nn opinion that, tlio price® charged should ha investigated by the Board of Trade.
"Other prosecutions have included a Dunedin flour-miller, who was substantially fined on several charges that he had sold wheat at prices above thoso fixed by regulations under the Regulation of Trade and Commerce Act. A Wellington grocer has been fined for selling flour above the rate fixed, but as this case is the subject of an appeal, no comment can be made at this stago. "A large drapery firm at Christchurch has been fined .£SO on a charge that it had sold a child's coat at an unreasonably high price, but this case is also under appeal.
"Prosecutions that are now pending include profiteering charges against dealots in footwear, woollen goods, supfxr, milk, benzine, cigarettes, and other articles. Sufficient has been done, and sufficient is being done, to prove to the public that the Board of Trade does not regard the Board of Trado Act as a dead letter."
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19200803.2.73
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 265, 3 August 1920, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
798PROFITEERING Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 265, 3 August 1920, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.