CEMENT ENQUIRY.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 October 1921, Page 4

CEMENT ENQUIRY.

FIXED FOB NOVEMBER Ist

QUESTIONS OF PROCEDURE

WELLINGTON, Oct. 18. I The Commission to inquire into and report upon allegations lately made hj Air Masters ALT’., regarding the cement industry commenced its sittings this morning.' The Commissioner is Mr Justice Sim. The order of reference is as lol(1) Whether Ike Board of Trade in December, 1920. in sanctioning a maximum retail price of cement m Now Zealand of £9 13s Gd. per ton ex store. Wellington, was guilty of any impropriety, or of grievous error of judgment ? (2) Whether companies manufacturing cement in New Zealand dining the period of acute shortage, of cement from January Ist, 1920. and thereafter took advantage, of the excess of demand over supply to extort unreasonably high prices from the public? , , ~ (3) Whether the agreement dated Mav nth. 1921. set out in the schedule hereto constituted an offence against the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910. or any other Act, or was in any way criminal or illegal? Gl) Whether the price for cement of New Zealand manufacture was directly or indirectly determined, controlled or influenced by the parties to the agreement hi such manner as to make the price unreasonably high? (,-,) AVhether the said agreement has in any manner operated detrimentally to the public interest? (0) Whether tile Hoard of Trade, being aware of such agreement, was lacking ill any duty, in taking no action with respect to such agreement ?

The Commission requires the teport to be supplied to the Governor-General bv Novell)lie? lltli.

Mr AY. ('. MacGregor, K.C’.. Solicitor General, appeared for the Board of Trade, Air Af.vers for AYilson’s Portland Cement Company and the Golden Bay Cement Company, Air T. AI. Milford and Mr Perry for Air Masters. ALP. Air A!vers stated that AH' White, ol Dunedin would appear for tlie Milburn Lime and Cement Company.

Mr Wilford explained that lie was only assisting Mr Masters on the opening day in regard to procedure, and ho desired time to instruct counsel fully in this case, which was of great importance to Mr Alasters. Ho was himself unable to deal with the ease. It had, for reasons with which he did not. think it necessary to ileal in detail, •been very difficult to secure the services of counsel who it was desiredf to act. A request had been made to a certain well-known counsel in Auckland to ad. A reply had been received slntiim- that as iie was acting lor so many

shareholders in \\ ilson’s Portland Cement Company lie did nut think it advisable that he should act. Air AYilferil said it was not known who would bo aopearing for Air Masters and ho asked .therefore, that the date fo r continuation of the Commission should he fixed with regard to the need for detailed instruction of counsel, lie suggested a fortnight.

ATr AfacGregor said that Mr Af’Donald. chairman of the Board of Trade the case to he disposed of as soon as possible.

11 is Honour drew attention to the time within which the report was to be prepared, and agreed with Afr ATa“_ ters to run bis case alone, opposed lo Air MacGregor, Air Alvers and Air APDonald, who was himself a lawyer of no mean ability.

Air Myers said that while Ills client desired the matter to tie disposed of with all reasonable expedition ih n y would be the last to endeavour to place obstacles in the way of Air Alastms or give any room for the suggestion that they had endeavoured to prevent Mr Masters doing tlie fullest justh-c to the charges lie had seen fit to make.

His Honour fixed the date for the opening or the inquiry as Tuesday. November Ist.

Air AYilford said his next question was as to the order of reference. TTe objected to the form of the first paragraph. on the ground that no such matter as was dealt, with in that paragraph was referred to bv Mr Afastel's in llis speech in the House of Represent ativos. . t

llis Honour raid In- could nol go into tlio terms of tlio commission. TTo had to take it ms it was sent, to hint. and lio was bound l.y the art mil wording. Mr AA'ilford said lie bod boorf ashed (o give notice in Unit ense that. Mr Masters never made sucli a. charge as was covered b.v the first paragraph, and that he would not, call any evidence <m it. T 1 is charges were in reference to the period from 1918, and i„ his speech in the House the Hen K. P. l.ee had said that the inquiry would deal with that period. llis Honor: You may he entitled to call evidence in regard to matters as far hack as 1?)1 ft on other questions. Mr tYilford said further that Mr Masters never made any reference to price ox store. 'Wellington, or to retail prices. He spoke only of wholesale prices. Mr AA'ilford then proceeded to discuss the' question uf witnesses’ expanses and requested his Honour to secure authority under the Act to have such expenses charged to the public account.

A further point, dismissed was the stat us of Mr Masters in the action. Mr AYilford asked his Honour what was the host form of procedure, and his Honour suggested Ihat Mr Masters should formulate his charges and lead evidence. The other parties could then call witnesses in rebuttal, and Air Masters would bare the right, to reply. After Mr AYilford had spoken in reference to the matter of costs of the Commission, Air MacGregor said that if Mr Masters was to have the advantage of plaintilf it. was only right that lie should take the advantage of being liable for costs, “in a. certain contingency.”

Air AYilford contended that Mr Masters was not a plaintiff, it was nob he that had started the Commission or sol. I lie legal machinery ill action. The Minister had dene that. It was not fair that, lie should he penalised for bringing the matter up in Parliament in the interests of the public. llis Honor said it hardly seemed worth while to bring up the question of costs at this stage. .Mr Wilford said that the oilier counsel were in the happy position of having clients whose purses were unlimited. If was not a matter of concern to them, hut it was different with Mr A 1 asters.

Air .Myers; In the Tline inquiry Mr lline paid his own costs.