THE CEMENT CHARGES.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 October 1921, Page 8

THE CEMENT CHARGES.

ROYAL COMMISSION SITS. PRELIMINARY POINTS DISCUSSED STATUS OF MR. MASTERS. A preliminary sitting of the Royal Commission set up to inquire into and report upon the allegations made recently in the House of Representatives by Mr. R. Masters, M.P., relating to certain phases of the cement industry of the Dominion was held on Tuesday at the Wellington Supreme Court. The Commissioner. Mr. Justice Sim, presided. Mr. T. M. Wilford. M.P.. appeared, for Mr. Masters, the Solicitor-General (Mr. W. C. MacGregor) for the Board of Trade, and Mr. M. Myers for the Wilson’s Portland Cement Company and the Golden Bay Cement Company.

The order of reference of t'he Commission is as follows: (1) Whether the Board of Trade in December. 1920. in sanctioning a maximum retail price of cement of New Zealand manufacture of £9 13s 6d per ton, ex store, Wellington, was guilty of any impropriety or of a grievous error of judgment. (2) Whether the companies manufacturing cement in New Zealand during the period of acute shortage of cement from January 1, 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 May 5, 1921, set out in the schedule hereto constituted on offence against the Commercial Trusts Act, 1910, or any other Act, or was in any way criminal or illegal. (4) Whether the price for cement of New Zealand manufacture was directly or indirectly determined, controlled, or influenced by t'he parties to the agreement in such manner as to make the price unreasonably high. (5) Whether the -said agreement has in any manner operated detrimentally to the public interest. (6) Whether the Board of Trado, being aware of such agreement, was lacking in any duty in taking no action with' respect to such agreement. MR. MASTERS’ DIFFICULTY. When the proceedings opened the Act-ing-Chief Justice asked counsel if they had any application to make. Mr. Wilford applied for leave to appear that day on behalf of Mr. Masters. His Honor, in granting leave, intimated that he would be very glad to have the assistance of counsel.

Mr. MacGregor intimated that he was appearing for the Board of Trade. Mr. Myers, in stating that he was appearing for the Portlanu and Golden Bay Companies, said that Mr. C. S. White, who had been retained by the Milburn Cement Company, was unable to attend that day. but would be present at the remainder of the sittings. Mr. Wilford said he wished to make it clear that he was just appearing that morning for Mr. Masters, in order to help him so far as procedure was concerned. Counsel added that owing to his inability to find the time he would not be appearing fur Mr. Masters at the subsequent sittings of the Commission. Mr. Wilford went on to state that difficulty was bejng experienced in obtaining s'iidli counsel as were required by Mr. Masters. “We communicated a; the end of last week,” remarked Mr. Wilford, “with a leading counsel of Auckland. asking him if he would appear for Mr. Masters, and he replied that he would have been glad to appear but he was solicitor for so many shareholders in Wilson’s company that he thought it would be inadvisable for him to act. I don’t know yet who will appear.” Counsel added that Mr. Masters therefo v dtesired that the Commission should not commence its sittings prqper until a fortnight hence.

THE DATE FIXED. Mr. MacGregor: The president of the Board of Trade says that he has got other very important business, and he wishes the matter to be disposed of at as early a date as possible. His Honor mentioned that he had important engagements. and. furthermore, he had to report by November 11. Mr. Wilford said that no difficulty would be experienced in getting an extension of time. Mr. Wilford said that it was a very complicated case, and possibly Mr. Masters and his counsel might have to visit various places in the Dominion in order to secure first-hand infdl wmlfwn. Mr. Myers saiu that his clients were desirous of Mr. Masters being given every opportunity of obtaining the fullest investigation of his charges, and he would place no obstacle in his way. His Honor accordingly fixed the commencement *df the inquiry for Monday, November 1, at 10.30 a.m. CHARGE NEVER MADE. Mr. Wilford then raised questions r e lative to the order of reference, objecting to the first paragraph, on the score that no such charge as was referred to in the paragraph was made by Mr. Masters in his remarks in the House of Representatives. His Honor: I cannot go into the question of the terms of the. Commission. I have to take the order of reference as sent to me. I can make no alteration. Mr. Wilford replied that he had been asked to state, in that case, that Mr. Masters never made such a charge as yvas covered by the first paragraph, and ■ that he would not call any evidence on I it. His charges concerned a period from 1918, and the Hon. Mr. Lee had undertaken in the House that the inquiry would traverse that period. His Honor commented that counsel might be entitled to call evidence in regard to matters as far back as 1918 on •other questions. Mr. Wilford made a further statement to the effect that Mr. Masters had never made any charge relative to the price exstore, Wellington, or to retail prices. His remarks applied only to wholesale prices. WHO PROCURED THE INQUIRY? The question of costs was raised by Mr. Wilford, who asked His Honor to secure authority under the Act to have witnesses’ expenses charged to the public account. His Honor: Is it worth while raising the question of costs at this stage? Mr. Wilford: The order of costs may be made against t'he party procuring the . inquiry. Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Masters? ilb Wilford; No; the Hon. Mr. Lee

procured the inquiry. Mr. Masters made the charges. After some discussion as to Mr. Mas ters’ standing in the inquiry, Mr. Wilford asked His Honor what was the beet form of procedure. His Honor, in reply, suggested that Mr. Masters should formulate his charges aqd call his evidence in support of them. ' The other parties could then cal! evidence in rebuttal, Mr. Masters to have the right to reply. • Mr. Myers agreed that that was the proper course to follow. Mr. MacGregor contended that if Mr. Masters was going to have the privileges and advantage of a plaintiff, then ! he ought also to take the disadvantage i of being liable for the costs in a certain contingency. Mr. Wilford said that Mr. Masters did not assume the position of plaintiff. The inquiry had not been set up by Mr. Mas.ters. Surely he was not going to be penalised by the Court because he had made a privileged statement hi Parliament in the interests of the public. His Honor said it was hardly necessary to indulge in argument about the question of costs at the present stage. Mr. Wilford rejoined that the “fat clients” of'the other counsel had purses which were unlimited, and it was not a matter of concern to them. , Mr. Masters’. case w#s different.

Mr. Myers remarked that in the Hine inquiry Mr. Hine paid his own costs. The’ Commission then adjourned till November 1.