WOOLSTON TANNERIES ENQUIRY.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 January 1926, Page 1

WOOLSTON TANNERIES ENQUIRY.

BY TELEGRAPH —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION. ]

WELLINGTON, Janaury 27. Continuing his evidence before the Woolston Tanneries Commission, Air Ollivier, chairman of the directors of Woolston Tanneries Lid., said.that tfic Board of Trade existed for the good of the community, and that policy resulted in great loss to the witness’s linn. They relied on having the. New Zealand market to themselves for three months. New Zealand never produced sufficient boots for its own requirements. Boots which came from Australia were cheap and badly fitting. The South African market was closed against Australian boots and these latler were then (lumped, with leather, into New Zealand. As a result of the embargo being lifted in February. 102(1, his firm had a turnover of £34,534. The following month tho .turnover was 1229,907 ; in June 1213,981, falling to L’A .SIHI in December. His company’s total loss was £llO,OlO through relying on the Board of Trade to stabilise prices, and continuing to tan. His Honour (Air Justice Hosking) remarked that it was a question whether the firm or the Board of Trade should hear tlie loss. Arthur Ernest Cooper, one of lbe chief shareholders of Sims, Cooper. Ltd. said that his firm owned roughly two-thirds of the shares in the Woolston Tanneries, lie and Sims commenced business together in 1908. and bad made a success of the undertaking. When they commenced they did not have very much capital, only a mat lor of a few thousand pounds. 11l reply to Mr Alyers, witness said that there was no truth whatever in the statement that his firm bad been financed by American meat trust firms. Their resources were New Zealand finance and ordinary banking facilities. Sir John Findlay said that- in no part of his case was it alleged that there was an association with tlio Meat Trust. He accepted without, hesitation the evidence just given. The Government was satisfied on that point.

Dr Bcakes said that lie concurred with Sir John l'’in<llny’s statement. Personally he quite unhesitatingly accepted the witnesses’ statement. Mr Myers said that the statement would simplifv the ease very considerably. •Sir John Findlay then continued his cross-examination of Ollivier. Sir John Findlay: Why was no mention made in the petition to Parliament of the alleged undertaking of the Board of Trade to see you through? Witness: It was arranged that no personal matters should he included.