CEMENT INQUIRY.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 November 1921, Page 4

CEMENT INQUIRY.

A DIFFICULTY OVERCOME. FIRST EVIDENCE TAKEN. By Telegraph.—Press Assoclatloz Wellington, Nov. 1. The cement inquiry was resumed today. Mr. Perry, for Mr. Masters, said that he had consulted the Solicitor-General, with the result that they had agreed upon the addition of a sub-clause. Mr. Justice Sim said he could not odd anything to the order of reference. If evidence on the point desired to be incorporated was put in and not objected to, it would meet the case. Messrs. MacGregor and Myers said that they would not object to any evidence of the kind and Mr. Perry expressed himself satisfied. Mr. Perry said that Mr. MacGregor had agreed to the extension of the third clause to cover the phrase, “in restraint of trade.”

Mr. MacGregor said this was not fairly stated. The agreement was obviously in restraint of trade. It was for Mr. Masters to show that it was illegal. Mr. Perry said it had been very difficult for his side to obtain any evidence, because people who were the parties effected were not keen to give evidence, as they were dependent on one or other of the two companies for cement supplies. Still he hoped to produce such evidence as would conclusively satisfy the Commission that the agreement was in restraint of trade and illegal, that these companies might take advantage of the acute shortage of cement to start unreasonably high prices. Further they hoped to show that the Board of Trade, in authorising an increase in price, acted improperly and with lack of judgment. Wellington, Last Night. The first witness called, at the cement commission inquiry was Gerald Fitzgerald, civil engineer and debenture holder, acting in the interests of absentee debenture-holders in the Golden Bay Company. He said a meeting of debenture-holders appointed a committee after the agreement was signed and obtained legal advice. They feared the plant was deteriorating and the goodwill was being lost, so that if the agreement held for twelve months or longer business could not be picked up again and would get into the hands of rivals. As the Wilson Company took over their bags even if the agreement terminated it would require fifteen months to start the business again. The company was very strictly bound as regarded reorganisation and witness characterised this as an outrageous clause. They read it to display the intention of closing the works and impairing the conditions, which would prevent them, ever re-opening. In reply to counsel, witness said the debenture-holders regarded the agreement as ruinous to the Golden Bay Company. It looked as if they had walked into a trap. Asked what benefit shareholders were to get out of the agreement he considered they were anxious, or some of of them were, to make the public pay interest to debenture-holders and excuse themselves, but he admitted they were liable to the latter fo r £.45,000 of uncalled capital.