WOOLSTON TANNERIES ENQUIRY.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 January 1926, Page 1

WOOLSTON TANNERIES ENQUIRY.

[by TELEGRAPH —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION

AYELLINGTON, Jan. 28,

At the AA r oolston Tanneries Commission, William George McDonald continued hi s evidence in regard to the operators of the Board of Trade. Witness' made it plain that there were throe conferences prior to the removal of the embargo on leather imports. One of the suggestions of profiteering was made by farmers against the tanners and the bootmakers, hut principally against the tanners. Witness referred to' the Board of Trade Act, 1919, which gave the Board extremely wide powers. Suggestions of profiteering against the AA r oolston Tanneries were fairly frequent at that stage, but an investigation revealed that there was no over-elm rgTng on the part of the company. At the first two conferences, he was of the opinion that the embargo should lie retained, and that that would lie done, but at the third conference, held in the Prime Minister's room! it was evident that the Government had changed its policy in regard to the embargo. The Government wore bent on the removal of the embargo, hut they were still in favour of standardised boots. Owing to the action of the Board, and notwithstanding the removal of the embargo, boots did not go up in price in a degree commensurate with the prices of hides. Hides advanced one hundred per cent, and hoots did not go up more than sixtv-six and two-tln'rds per cent. If there was an increase of one hundred per rent, in leather, lie would expect one hundred per cent, increase in the price of boots. Witness expressed The opinion that no matter what course the Woolston Tanneries followed, tliev would have lost money.

Sir John Findlay: “If Mr Ollivier, as a. business man, had agreed to carry oni the scheme, and had said to the Government: “If I lose, will you indemnify me against loss?” Bo you think any responsible Minister would have agreed to do it?” Witness: “AYhy not? It was done in other eases.” Sir John Findlay: “Those eases were entirely different.” Proceeding witness stated That a suggestion was made by one of the Ministers that the Woolston Tanneries should he prosecuted for profiteering, but lie (witness) declined to have anything to do with a prosecution. Sir John Findlay: “Have you any record of that suggestion by Mr Lee?” Witness: “T did not say it was Mr Lee.” “Have you any record from any Minister?” “No. The suggestion was made in f lic course of investigation.” Mr McDonald, continuing bis evidence said that the suggestion was made l,v one of the Ministers that the Company should he prosecuted for profiteering, hut witness declined. It was suggested that Mr Lee was the Minister. but witness declined to say. Witness went on to sav that lie (witness) was practically the Board, and was empowered to make any arrangement with Mr Olliver, and it: would stand. He had the whole-heart-ed support of the other members of the Board. All the tanneries experienced a hard time. InYl: AATmlslon snf-

fered most us they dealt in larger quantities, and had to contend with the feeling of antagonism. In opening the ease for the Government, Sir John Findlay said that the withdrawal of the Company’s claim had eased his task. He had thought that the main ground of the petitioner would be the removal of the embargo, hut now ho had to meet what was practically a new case. Mr Ollivier would have to show that lie laid a justifiable exportation that the. Government would come to his assistance and relief. Counsel submitted that that expectation could not bare existed in Mr Ollivier’s mind as Mr McDonald had sworn that he had offered Mr 01livier no inducement to carry on and stabilise prices. In none of-the conversations with Mr McDonald had Mr Ollivier referred to the possibility of receiving compensation. The wholo matter was a commercial one, and should he regarded in a commercial manner. The Commissioner disagreed with this view to some extent. The Government might have ro-imposdcl the embargo for instance. Sir John Findlay said that he did noi intend to look on it as a business case. Mr Ollivier was not acting as philanthropist, but from motives of commercial profit.