ALLEGED TRUST.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 November 1921, Page 5

ALLEGED TRUST.

THE CEMENT INQUIRY. FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD. HEARING CONCLUDED. By Telegraph. Preu Association Wellington, Nov. 8. At the cement inquiry Mr. Elliot, managing director of Wilson’s Portland Cement Company, was cross-examined by Mr. Perry regarding the allegation by Mr. Masters that cement was sold in 1918 at £2 3s at the works. Witness said that Mr. Masters, bei.ng an agent, knew the position and what the market price was. His company may have sold some cement perhaps under a contract taken over from the Dominion Company at £2 10s free on rail Auckland, that waff* equivalent to £2. 5s at the works The company did not pay a dividend that year and was not prosperous. It Was not the policy of the company to build up its reserves and assets rather than pay dividends. It was only after the Board of Trade had authorised five increases that the company was able 'to pay a dividend in 1920, but the dividend was not solely due to the prices but to the fact that the consumption of New Zealand-made cement had increased from 65,000 tons in 1919 to 92,000 in 1921. The rises in price had merely (followed increase in cost of production.

The amount set off for depreciation by his company was about £6OOO more than in the previous year, in which it had been impossible to set aside enough. In 1921 the company had bought a coal mine for £50,000, but that was not a sign of great prosperity. The* company paid £32,000 in cash and £28,000 in Government debentures. The purchase of the mine was selected as a form of investment for money set aside for depreciation. Without the rise in price the company would have had a much better year than the year before, but it could certainly not have been a prosperous year. It would not have paid a dividend and the shareholders were entitled to the first profit on their money.

The Wilson Company would have applied for a rise in price if it had not known the Golden Bay Company had applied for it. The Board of Trade was insisting on an increased output of cement and a rise was imperative if the Warkworth works were to be reopened. Witness declined to agree with counsel that cement would have been cheaper to-day if the three works had been kept going.

EVIDENCE OF E. S. LUTTRELL. REASONS FOR CLOSING DOWN. A HEATED INTERVIEW. Wellington, Last Night. At the cement inquiry Edward Sidney Luttrell, architect and builder, of Christchurch, said his- firm, Luttrell Bros., was a large consumer of cement. Last year it could have used 4000 tons had it been available. He first became interested in the Golden Bay Cement Company early in 1919. Owing to cement distribution being controlled by the Board of Trade it was not a profitable venture. He bought out Hartford and Mills’ interest for £l5/,000 because the company was being so badly managed and he saw bankruptcy ahead. He had regretted it ever since. He applied for an increase in the price of cement, because he did not see haw the works could possibly go on otherwise. He gave instructions that all information should be given to the Board of Trade. There was nothing to conceal. The machinery was in a dreadful state. When he spoke to Elliot about it (Wilson’s decision to reduce the price) he told him it would mean the closing of the Golden Bay works. He suggested to Elliot that if the works were closed, and the company's trade handed to others, it would pay them to pay a royalty of . ss. The agreement was completed on May 5.

I The speech in Parliament, witness | said, did not surprise him, because 1 ters had warned him at an interview i in the Golden Bay Company’s office that I his chief grievance was the closing of i the works, which meant a loss to Masters of £l5OO a year. He asked if witness was not very foolish and hasty, and witness replied that it was impossible to carry on. Masters said: “I don’t think so. Wilson’s company is an octopus and is going to acquire all the cement works. I am going to stop that; I am going to bring Elliot to his knees.” Masters went on in a ridiculous manner and asked whether he was not entitled to consideration, seeing that he had made the Golden Bay Company in Taranaki. Witness continued that he was rapidly losing his temper. He told Masters he was trying to get other companies to supply his agents with cement. Masters went on to describe the agreement as very sinister, and said: “If I don't get satisfaction I am going to attack it in the House." Witness, who was very angry while recounting this incident in the box, said that he told Masters to “go to hell and attack it in the House.” It was quite untrue that there was no heat. He himself was in a rage. As witness continued very angrily Mr. Myers intervened, and witness was asked to confine himself to answering questions. He declared that Boulton, Gerald Fitzgerald and Masters were all acting Together. Mr. Myers: “I ?an understand you getting angry, but you mustn’t get angry.” Witness said he thought he further said either to Masters or to Boulton that the attack could be viewed in no other light than that of a blackmailing attack.

Mr. Myers: “I think the debenture holders took exception to the agreement?”—“Yes, after the secretary had

made false statements.” As a result he approached the other edmpanies and ascertained that they were quite agreeable to a renewal of the old allocation agreement. “We may take it that the workers felt sore about closing?”—“Yes, and I was very sorry myself,” Witness said he saw * the men and suggested they should try to induce the Government to keep the works going, paying the company nothing, but paying interest to the debenture holders. He did this in spite of the fact that he had signed an agreement to close, because he knew the other companies did not ■ care two straws about the agreement and would be perfectly willing to endorse his action as the right thing in the circumstances. He paid the expense of a deputation to Sir Francis Bell, but nothmg came of it. Had the Government

accepted the proposal it would have cost the company about £2OOO. Witness declared, Boulton had given Masters information about the agreement. Masters’ brother had shown that to be so in his evidence on Friday, and witness had taxed Boulton with it. He confessed he had, and had given witness his resignation as secretary of the company. Mr. Perry contended that as agent of the company Masters was entitled to ask why the company had closed down the • works, and Boulton had a right to tell him of the agreement. Witness said he had given him details. He had been instructed that it was a private agreement and that it was not to be shown to anybody. The Solicitor-General addressed the court at some length, criticising what he termed Masters’ wild and extravagant charges. He submitted that Masters should l>e ordered to pay the costs of the enquiry, saying that such a course might have the effect of making members of Parliament and others forbear from making slanderous and unfounded charges under the shelter of privilege against public officials and private individuals who had strenuously striven to do their duty by the community. The sitting has concluded, and the report of the commission will be tendered shortly.