PROFITEERING ACT.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 January 1920, Page 2

PROFITEERING ACT.

ITS WORKING IN ENGLAND. ' REDUCED PRICES FOLLOW. Speaking in the House of Commons recently, Sir Auckland Geddes said that, speaking broadly, the Profiteering Act wgis on the whole working well. It was Under consideration by the Committee Whether the Government should recommend to the House of Commons certain extensions of the powers undo; the Act, and, possibly, certain modifications "which experience had suggested would be advisable. Initial difficulties in the way of setting up local committees to grapple with the problem had been over r ne, and the committees were at work. T..c central machinery was also now beginning to work well.

Replying to a question by Mr. Thorne, Sir A. Geddes said he was satisfied that the Act had been responsible for a reduction in prices. There were, however, so many factors to be taken into account that it would always be difficult to say exactly how much the Act had influenced prices. Mr. M'Curdy, who is chairman of the Central Committee, said that the Standing Committee on Trusts was investigating through sub-committees the price of sefring cotton, road transport charges, soap, tobacco, rings in the farriers' trade which were forcing up the cost of horseshoeing, the ring in the chocolate and cocoa trade, and a Dutch trust which was raising the price of quinine. Among cases to be investigated were the prices of bricks and sand and steel used in building construction. He had no doubt the Act was producing substantial and visible results in the lowering of prices ill the clothing trades, and instanced suits being advertised at four guineas of a quality unobtainable six weeks ago. He said lists of controlled grocery commodities were being prepared, giving reasonable profits.

"GIVE US TIME!" At a meeting of the Consumers' Council in London to consider the operation of the Profiteering Act, severe criticisms were made by members upon the effect of the Act. Mr. M'Curdy, in reply, pointed out that it was not an Act to harass retail traders. Nine-tenths of it went straight for the wholesaler and the trust. It was unfortunate that the public for the moment were eo interested in petty retail transactions before local tribunals that they forgot the more important work of the Central Committees, about whose work there was nothing petty. ' The Central Committee was aiming high. They had started by inquiring .nto three of the greatest monopolies which affected the consumer in this country—sewing cotton, tobacco, and soap. Sewing cotton was being investigated by a subI committee presided over by a director of an important. textile business, assisted by Mr. Sidney Webb and others. "We mean to find out," he said, "why a reel of cotton costs 7Jd." A sub-com-mittee ivas considering tobacco. Sir William Beveridge, director of the London School of Economics, was in charge, of a committee investigating the soap trust,, several meetings having been already held. The cammittee were inquiring into the question of transport rates as affecting prices. Fish rings, cocoa monopolies, boots and shoes and clothing were under consideration. "I think our inquiries are already affecting prices," Mr. McCurdy declared. [ "The other day we wired to Scotland about the prices of a certain yarn. The next day the price fell, by a remarkable coincidence, from 3s 3d to 2s lljd. As regards fish and quinine, our investigations are now complete, and reports will be issued shortly. Then there is a great mass of useful information as to costs prepared in different Government departments for the purpose of the war. Give us a little time, and I think you will get the results you want." SOME TYPICAL CASES.

At Highgate Police Court, London, lohn William Jones, of Calverlev Grove, Upper Holloway, a milk roundsman, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment on two summonses for overcharging for milk, and the Premier Dairies, Limited, of Seven Sisters Road, London, were ordered to pay a fine of £5 on each of four summonses fori life offences. The evidence showed that Jones gave short measure to certain of his customers. The chairman, in sending him to prison, said that a fine would he indequate to meet the case. The costs against the dairy company amounted to £S. London was almost alone in having to pay top price for milk. The mastmum rate ruled in only 79 out of 1830 Food areas in the country, and 77 are in the metropolitan district. Business men living some little distance out were able to huv at 8d; and. when the maximum price was lid, milk was to be had in Cumberland, Cornwall, and part, of North Wales at GJd, at the dairy, from producers acting as retailers." Those who have strenuously opposed the big increase in the price of milk to the consumer have a powerful weapon to their bands in the latest report of Hie huge milk combine, the United Dairies, Ltd., writes the Daily Chronicle. Net profits for the year ended June 30 last, increased from ' £153.40 ft to no leas than £233,400! The distribution is maintained at 10 per cent., hut it absorbs more, owing to the larger capital ranking for dividend. As much as £54,000, or £45,000 more, than last, time, is carried forward, subject to excess profits duty, if any. A complaint was investigated by the Kingston Profiteering Committee ' of a charge of .'is for half a dozen syphons of soda water. The charge before the war was 2s per dozen syphons. At a meeting of the Islington Profiteering Committee, a complaint was investigated against a firm of traders concerning a Oft length of 3in rain-water pipe at !)s fid. For the, defence it was stated that tin? goods were sold at the market price, and that the prices ivere dictated by the National Light Casting Association, which comnrised !)5 per cent, of the iron-founders. The committee ordered a refund to the. customer of Is 2d. The chairman said they also going to order to bring to light what they considered was "a scandalous stale of affairs—namely, the way in which a body of men like the Association referred to, could combine to the detriment of the general public, irrespective of the actual cost." A complaint respecting a charge, of 5s 11 Id for a kettle at Spice's Stores, Tooting, came before the Wandsworth profiteering Committee. On removinr a label bearing the price 5s lUrt, the purchaser, found another label underneath which was marked 2s llld. The chairI man said the committee considered it a very bad case of profiteering. They had come to the conclusion it was *

prß-war kettle. Mr. Spice must return 3s to the purchaser. A prosecution was ordered. In another case complaint was madia of the price charged for three pieces of glass. Mr. F. H. Smith stated that Messrs. Clarke and Clarke, of Queens Road, Wandsworth, had charged Ss for three pieces of glass. Mr. Smith said that when lie went to the shop to complain, one of the brothers Clarke told him to get out and mind his own business. The committee decided there had been an overcharge of 2s.